As ABC’s Media Watch points out bias in journalism, it’s a reminder to tap the sign of ethics and integrity, because this stuff matters.
Being a journalist is hardly all glitz and glamour, but one of the questions I field often enough is this: “Do you get paid well for being a journalist?”
Hmm. Where to begin.
Journalism is one of those jobs that you typically do because you love it, rather than getting paid well for it, because if you ask any journalist, they’ll tell you there isn’t much money in reporting news or writing features. It can be gruelling work, and sometimes fun gruelling work, but the pay isn’t always there, no matter how much you yearn for it to be so.
It’s almost definitely worse in the world of product reviewing, where games and technology media have to spend hours reviewing something, only to find there’s very little pay at the end of the day, if anything at all.
You won’t hear major complaints from this writer — at nearly 20 years in the industry, I’m just happy to help people and be the communication barrier between technology and regular folks — but understandably, people need to eat, and websites need to run. I have a day job alongside journalism, something most people seem to be aware of, but it’s not the same for everyone.
Everything costs money and publications delivering content should be able to do so making a buck or three in between, especially in an age where AI services are copying said work and regurgitating aspects through their own engines. It costs money to write content, and it costs money to host it. People shouldn’t have to work for free.
So naturally, websites, publications, and journalists have to find their own ways to do just that, to make money and try to survive.
It might be through ads, and it might be through sponsorship. It could even be from the lucrative world (we’re told) of paid promotion. influencing, and ambassadorship.
Regardless of what avenue someone takes, in each of these, there’s an important factor: audiences need to be made aware. It is vitally important for a publication to make an attempt to inform the reader, listener, or viewer so they know what they’re walking into, and whether there’s a chance or risk for bias.
Of course, it wouldn’t be a week without controversy, and hold on, because there’s one popping up in three, two, one.
A new era of cash for comment
This week, ABC’s Media Watch identified one such source of bias, with one journalist in the world of influencing and games reviewing failing to declare said bias.
In what is ostensibly a new generation of cash for comment — perhaps ironically reported the week that saw the passing of one of the original radio hosts famed for the “cash for comment” scandal — a game reviewer has been running written reviews written without a note of sponsorship, while the almost identical video reviews on social media come with a statement of being an advertisement.
It’s important, because regardless of how much you like a journalist’s or reviewer’s work, or even content from its publication, it’s difficult to trust the publication’s output when you don’t know what has been paid for.
Being editorially independent and unbiased is a critical part of what reviewers do, and a key reason why it’s so important to have an editorial policy they stick to.
From where this journalist, reviewer, and editor sits, most reviewing publications will receive product from the company, some of which may stay and some of which may go back. However, none of it should affect the output, and journalists and publications need to state it categorically, and hold their reviews and content to a higher standard.
It’s important. Really important. It’s the contract we sign with readers: we are unbiased, you can trust us.
It’s why an editorial policy is so important. Much like a review methodology, an editorial policy is an key part of the difference between a trustworthy publication and one that you simply have to take on faith.
You can totally do that — everyone is free to choose the type of review they want to trust — but the reviewers working ethically tend to stick to their editorial policies and won’t push past them simply because of this thing called “money” (you can find Pickr’s editorial policy here, with a link always found at the bottom of our home page).
The problem isn’t even that “money talks”, but more that “bias corrupts”, particularly when it goes unreported and consequently unnoticed.
Much like the cash for comments scandal from years ago, how do you trust commentary without a statement of fact about whether money has changed hands?
In this case, a journalist being paid should recuse themselves from the reviewing process, and hire someone else to do the job.
Ethical reviewing isn’t always easy to find
Part of the problem, however, comes back to the issue of cost, or more specifically, how content is paid for. The simple fact is that these days, many journalists and reviewers are not getting paid for what they deliver.
If a phone review takes hours to conduct and write, you can bet a journalist is probably not getting paid for that in its entirety, if anything at all. The same is true with games, particularly if it’s a title that has over 30 hours of gameplay in it, and some games as huge!
There are some excellent publications still making money, such as WhistleOut and Reviews.org, both of which include a list of some of the country’s best journalists, as well as larger publications that clearly can pay for great writers, such as The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald (which often publishes the same material as The Age), the Australian Financial Review (which this writer has written for), and the many various News Ltd publications. The Guardian also pops up as a name for some areas, though we don’t see as many tech or games reviews there from its local team.
But outside of this, many in the independent tech and games space writing ethical reviews and delivering solid journalism are doing so alongside other jobs or freelancing efforts. Names like Alex Kidman of AlexReviewsTech and Nick Broughall of BTTR come to mind, not the mention several game outlets worth a mention including Sifter and Checkpoint, to name a few.
These are outlets spending time delivering quality work, and they’re not alone. There are plenty of great writers working on solid material that takes time, but probably doesn’t result in much money, if any at all.
What’s the solution?
The problem isn’t easy to solve, either, though many have tried.
How do you fix a problem of paying for journalism and for reviews and features when no one wants to pay? And when AI and search engines are hoovering up content and delivering it for even less, what then?
One such idea is reader support, something many independent publications rely on. The result isn’t always big dollars, but more like “just enough to keep the lights on”, which for many might be all that’s needed. Reader support can be a one-off or it could even be a subscription, but it’s something rather than nothing.
Pickr offers this approach, as do countless others, and it’s not the only effort. While Pickr is ad-free, other publications may see a trickle come in through the use of ads, giving them a little more to work with.
And then there’s the issue of sponsorship and ambassadorships noted in Media Watch, which also highlighted a similar issue of sponsorship affecting the editorial independence of reviewers only a few weeks ago. Alex Kidman pondered the issue himself following that segment, and has updated his article today given the additions Media Watch has made from the latest program.
It’s clear journalists and publications can make money as influencers and ambassadors, but they desperately need to point it out when it happens. Anything less undermines credibility, and makes it more difficult to trust the journo and their publication.
Beyond this, I am potentially out of ideas, but this journo and reviewer will keep on keepin’ on, because there’s work to be done, and the reviewing won’t review itself.
