The solution to this problem, as it so often is, is a ridiculous level of transparency, which is where CNET largely failed. The company's policy to not comment on personnel matters might be important from a corporate and legal standpoint, but it's woefully insufficient for a gaming community that is inclined to believe the worst and takes silence as acceptance. Moreover, such rigid secrecy seems antithetical for a journalistic organization, which should be devoted to openness and truth-telling above all. With the speed of Internet rumor and discussion, corporations need political-style rapid response teams to quickly defend their reputation – journalistic corporations doubly so.

Even given the silence, the game press' overall coverage of the scandal was a little glib, to say the least. Some outlets seemed almost giddy as they reported on the anonymous rumors, reveling in the confirmation of their own widely-held beliefs and the downfall of a major competitor. In the absence of any hard evidence or comment on either side, outlets around the web played to the court of public opinion, deifying Gerstmann and vilifying GameSpot when a healthy skepticism was more warranted. (Judge for yourself whether my coverage of the scandal was similarly slanted).

Perhaps the most striking thing about the coverage overall was its reliance on anonymous sources. In the information vacuum created by the general lack of official comment, those covering the scandal grasped on to any bit of evidence they could, regardless of its provenance or reliability. Nowhere was this more apparent than the wide coverage given to comments from an anonymous Valleywag commenter and self-proclaimed "insider" going by the handle "gamespot." While "gamespot's" comments do contain some blockbuster details, there's no way to confirm that they're true or, more importantly, that they're even from someone in a position to know what he's talking about. The phrase "a story too good to check" comes to mind. (Full disclosure: I linked to these same comments in a daily roundup of Gerstmann news)

I was genuinely shocked at the amount of original reporting the game press put into this story. Journalists that can usually be counted on mainly to reword press releases suddenly started digging for insider sources, looking for additional evidence, and generally pressuring the involved parties to comment on the record. In fact, I doubt GameSpot would have felt the need to issue the comments it did had the game journalism community not kept the pressure on. The level of coverage may have gone a bit overboard, and the intense scrutiny may have been driven by a desire to stick it to "the Spot," but that doesn't diminish the quality of the reporting on this story.

So what does this scandal mean for the future of game journalism? Well, for GameSpot, the damage will never be truly undone -- there will always be a distinct segment of the audience that will question anything and everything related to the organization, fair or not. As for the rest of the industry, the incident has likely served as an intense warning to avoid even a hint of impropriety in both reviewing standards and dealings with publishers and advertisers. If this whole debacle causes even one editor to be more open with their readers about their editorial process, then it won't have been for nothing.

— —

Got something you'd like to see on Media Coverage? Send it to kyle.orland@gmail.com.

Kyle Orland is a full time video game freelancer based out of Laurel, MD. He writes for a variety of outlets as detailed on his workblog. He's the co-author of The Videogame Style Guide and Reference Manual. He writes about games he's played recently on his playlog Games for Lunch. He's so tired, he hasn't slept a wink. He's so tired, his mind is on the blink.

Media Coverage is an opinion column. The opinions expressed in this column are solely the opinions of the columnist and are not necessarily the opinions of GameDaily.com.