Except that from the beginning Mark posited his videos as "Journalistic Reviews". Yet with minimal to no research and little to no critical evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch
Except that from the beginning Mark posited his videos as "Journalistic Reviews". Yet with minimal to no research and little to no critical evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch
Everything from Mark's side is great and his mistakes are all excusable; he's a great guy.
Every criticism towards him is hate; you're a bad guy (how can't you not like him, he's a Sega fanboy after all!!!).
:rofl:
yes, no way was that meant as tongue-in-cheekQuote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
why, the depth of tech information rivals digital foundry, and whenever i go to CGR, i expect eurogamer-length essays that make tom chick blush. these are perfectly reasonable expectations of a guy who was reviewing dreamcast games with a buddy half-drunk in the late 90's and champions a coked-up chicken.
You know what, I don't get what the whining is about, but think of it this way. How many close minded SNES fanboys review games or anything of the sort on Youtube, never giving much credit or much deserved appreciation for anything Sega related? A lot, I'm sure. So, we can at least say, however few there may actually be on Youtube, Mark isn't one of those people. A good game is a good game, whatever hardware it may be for.
Hey I leveled the same criticisms at Sega Visions and Game Informer bitd. Clearly they had an audience as does CGR. But don't misconstrue criticism of such vapid game coverage as simple whining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
Yeah, I think the "Journalistic Reviews" thing is tongue in cheek. And Heyzoos is a favorite of mine:).Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishNinja
I doubt it. I don't care enough to demonstrate otherwise though. So whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch
Nothing else about that show is very serious...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
If you really don't know that Mark has a great sense of humor, you must have watched almost none of the show... why would you think that that's not a joke? I mean, it IS true that he's reviewing games, and does so as a job, but there's clearly some comedy there in the "journalistic video game reviews" subtitle. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
If you watch his reviews more regularly than you must, you'd find out that his reviews are most definitely not always vapid. I wouldn't watch all his stuff if there was nothing to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
Since when is a journalistic review expected to be well researched?
:lol: Good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
"Well researched" would be great, I'm just looking for basic recognition of background and contextual significance. ~ which, sure, sometimes Mark delivers, but rarely, as far as I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
And here's a primer on journalistic principles.
This doesn't really seem to apply to gaming at all (or any kind of review format, for movies, food, etc.). Those types of activities seem to fall under "entertainment" and not journalism, especially after reading these journalistic principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty
Frankly, that link reinforces the idea that Mark's journalism reference is a jest on his part.
Well I just watched the video posted for this thread, and "vapid" perfectly describes the 5 minutes I endured.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
That video is nothing more than an advertisement for the CGR forums or whatever he was directing his fans to go visit and comment at.
If I was 12 years old I may have been mildly entertained.
He dropped the "Journalist Review" claim long ago, so the point is moot. However, verification has always been sorely lacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch
Quote:
#3 Its essence is a discipline of verification
Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information–a transparent approach to evidence–precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment. But the need for professional method is not always fully recognized or refined. While journalism has developed various techniques for determining facts, for instance, it has done less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation.