I don't know if you should tell, in this hypothetical situation, that UBI phoned you. I DO think that you should tell the readers that in a past life, you worked for them. Or you could tell in your review that UBI let you know their game is controversial but they released it anyway because of this and that reason AND they put a big sticker "PG-21" on top of it. Or maybe you should even pass the product to another reviewer for a - as much as possible - more unbiased review.

Like Jayhawk said, if people KNOW your affiliation it's not so bad.

Besides, UBI has enough other resources to make their point about a controversial game. They can have a developers' blog, press releases, even advertising highlighting the controversial spots.

I don't know how this thread went from the Pentagon and carrying their water to product reviews, but if we are to try to stay on topic there are a couple of omissions from your analogy which make it substantively different from the conditions of the original topic. Namely, and to continue your analogy:

1. You're continued access to Ubisoft products and inside information giving you a competitive leg up on other reviewers not so privileged and is predicated on sticking to their marketing/press release on the product(s) --- (remember how many people are blogging or otherwise covering events in Iraq and now you have information on what the next move is going to be in the box well before it happens.)

2. You also represent another company whose primary if only line of business is with Ubisoft. Your employment through them is predicated on your ability to get inside information on where Ubisoft is going with the next round of no bid contracts. So you have every incentive not to offend Ubisoft by departing from the marketing/press release they have provided you lest they cut you out of the next briefing (no more products to review, no inside information on where the company is moving in the next R&D/production/acquisition cycle --- your employer will not be happy with you and you will likely be released). Also doing a real good job of repeating the press release will be looked upon favorably ...wink....wink....when it comes time to let those no bid contracts that you now know are coming because you've got the inside story on the next product moves.

You should also have to disclose prior to the review that you are employed by a company who does big business with Ubisoft ---- just like we expect any "analyst" financial or otherwise to disclose if they have any financial interests in the subject area they are about to comment on (remember the Dot.com stock pumping scandals and as a result analysts are now required to disclose if they have any financial interests in the companies they are covering?)

So your interest in Ubisoft is far from; they were just my former employer, I like them, and I still have friends there. Your current income is in large part predicated from playing nice with Ubisoft which your readers.... are unaware of.

SB

I should have made the line "and do some contract work for UBISoft" more overt.

If the media doesn't ask if the "expert" has an affiliation, the chances of the "independant analyst" volunteering it are slim.

Coming back full circle, it's rare than ANY of the "independant analysts" are asked background questions that may indicate bias. While the SimHQ bunch is pretty well educated and know that Wesley Clark has a political agenda, most of America has forgotten about his quick bid at the White House.....and he's simply introduced as a retired General.

Snapdad, how about taking it a bit more easy, you're really injecting unwarranted aggressiveness in this thread. Try to keep it civil like the rest of us.

20mm, I didn't see any attack on SimHQ at all regarding game reviews, it was a general commentary because we all know that on some sites out there, the reviewers obviously have financial interests, even though they try to hide it. We all come here to SimHQ because this is one place where it is obviously not the case!

I think the analogy is very good btw.

SkullBiscuit, sorry I didn't want to divert the subject, I was trying to find an analogy that all could better relate to, and that is not politically charged.

I suspect that if the same thing happened under the Clinton administration, then some of the roles might be reversed; some "defenders" condemning this "act" instead, and the "accusers" trying to relativize and/ or stidetrack the issue (like bringing the "press" into it). Because some seem to be unable to detach the issue from their political affiliation. But IMO this has nothing to do whether one is a democrat or republican supporter, whether or not you're an American or not, it's about priciple, and that principle is valid for every country, and for every issue that is somehow related (such as my analogy).

That is why I tried to find an analogy that is non-political, and that the readers here - all gamers I suppose, and not everyone with a military backround - can better relate to.

Pentagon suspends briefings; read it here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/washington/26analyst.html?scp=2&sq=military%20analysts&st=cse

Also from the bottom of this article:

“There is nothing inherently wrong with providing information to the public and the press,” Mr. Skelton added. “But there is a problem if the Pentagon is providing special access to retired officers and then basically using them as pawns to spout the administration’s talking points of the day.”

A third member of Congress, Representative Rosa L. DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, wrote to the heads of the five major television networks this week asking each to provide more information on procedures for vetting and hiring military analysts.

“When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed,” Ms. DeLauro wrote."

SB

I know, I'm sorry if I came off as twitchy or angry. I'm not, and I wasn't. I am a little sensitive to allegations such as the analogy you present, because they HAVE been made before in earnest. We work so hard to avoid any conflict of interest, or perception of same, or if there is an association of some type unrelated to an interview or a review or preview, we disclose it. So my main point was, as I said, a good analogy or a good joke usually has at least some basis in fact behind it. And that's all I was tring to say. Perhaps not very well, but trying.

Now, why is everyone so twitchy lately? I don't know, these things go in cycles, but I suspect it's a byproduct of us letting some of these quasi or straight out WCE topics in the door. I'll say it again, I think, on balance, everyone is doing a pretty good job of being civil with each other. Doesn't mean someone didn't get a little hot under the collar, but I don't see the flame fests or the insult slags that resulted in WCE having the reputation that it deserves.

That's a compliment guys, and I mean it. We call this our little experiment, and it still is. We can always go back to no nada WCE.

I agree completely with you, the issue of political partisanship is secondary here. It is an issue of full disclosure and conflict of interests while attempting to influence public opinion. I consider myself an independent, and I will unhesitatingly point out deviations from law (remember we can have laws which are subverted by merely not being enforced), or conflicts of interest whether they are from the left or the right as I find them.

I see the intent of the "non-political" analogy, but it would be hard to maintain the same factors as the original problem set unless you take great pains to state those conditions. Also this issue is about money and access (and it is hard to separate money from politics but that is another issue), and can just have as easily taken place under a Democratic administration as it did under a Republican. I'm just happy that this story broke. We have long since heard stories about the revolving door of former government employees and contract interests in the beltway; this one has the added dimension of drumming up support for actions where there is more than tax payer money on the line.....but lives.

SB

You know what else causes readers to feel betrayed? When over 90% of the NYT editorial staff are actually MEMBERS of ONE political party. And that's just the ones that publicly declared they were, and doesn't count those employees who aren't party members, but consistently vote for a certain party. How can I feel that they are presenting the news to me without partisan bias, from a position of impartiality? How can I take their editorials seriously when I hear of this? More to the point, why, when this was revealed, did the NYT ban all it's members from publicly disclosing such information? Suddenly don't feel so hot about being under the examination lamp? I guess secrets aren't just for the Whitehouse and Pentagon, huh? I wonder why THAT didn't make it to the front headlines of the NYT paper, or WaPo... LOL!

True...they have an editorial point of view, and many veteran readers know that explicitly or implicitly --- people tend to gravitate to news outlets which support their world view.

That is why I think the web is the greatest thing to happen to the spread of ideas and alternative viewpoints since the printing press. I would never rely on one source before staking out an opinion on a subject I did not consider myself an expert in. We should worry about consolidation in the news business (Murdock anyone?) where editorial oversight for many different news outlets with different names and public faces, really have only one master. Competition of ideas is just as important as competition in products and services --- more important really.

And there is only one master in this story...the Pentagon which represent the executive branch and their point of view. The fourth estate is meant to keep tabs on our government, whichever party is in power. A strong and diverse press corps is needed to keep us informed and aware of what the powerful institutions are doing, be they government or private. Jefferson said it best:

"An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy."

SB