This brings me to my main point- I’m curious as to what all has come out of the Ted Talks and what is to come out of it.  After doing a bit of reading on it, I learned of the $100,000 prize given out each year to people with “wishes to change the world.”  This seems grand and all, but what all have these prize winners done?  (The only result I could find so far was Bono’s ONE Campaign) 

Outside of that, I have a few more questions to ask.  What do you all think of the speakers?  Did they interest you at all?  Would you take up the opportunity to actually attend the talks?  (Pending, of course, the spare change and time to do so)

An official comment was issued by CNet on Friday, but it basically amounted to a simple “We stand behind the editorial decisions made by Gamespot; Gerstmann’s style just didn’t fit” and little more.  Which is, honestly, probably all we can expect.  (I mean, I seriously doubt they’re going to come out and say we fired Gerstmann because our advertisers were displeased with his performance.)

No, as you might expect, the main reaction has been from fellow journalists, the blogosphere, and the gaming community itself instead.  First off, rival gaming news site 1up.com put aside the fact that they were competitors and staged an impromptu rally outside the Cnet/Gamespot/Affiliates building.

(Gotta love Office Space references)

Next, gaming blog Destructoid, ah, modified the site layout slightly to imitate Gamespot’s.  (Here’s Gamespot for reference) 

(Pic might be a bit small; here’s Destructoid’s main page so you can see it better)

Last but not least, forums and communties across the web have joined in on the fun.  Take a look at Gaming Forum Neogaf.com, for example.  The forum has issued a month long ban on all words and links relating to Eidos (the publishing company behind the game over which the firing occured) and CNet networks. 

All in all, the reaction suggests both that things, unfortunately, did go down as rumored, but that also the people with the ability to commentate on the matter are stepping up to the plate.  It’s a encouraging thing to see in a day and age where cynicism rules much of the attitude towards media. 

In this modern age of Myspace, Facebook, cell phones with recording capabilities, user created content, and the like, the line between what should/can be kept private and what shouldn’t/cannot be is more fuzzy than ever before.  The aforementioned social networking sites, in particular, have been the focus of much attention in this regard.  Stalkers, impersonaters, (See that story about the girl who killed herself over a myspace conversation with a mom who posed as a boy?)  and predators seem to take advantage of the media just as much as more positive users do.  (At least, that is what the media makes it sound like)

But what can we do?  Prevent people from sharing aspects of their lives with others at all?  Seems a bit unreasonable to me.  Facebook seems to be on the right track, though, with its increased privacy settings and the like.  The best solution, in my eyes, though, is also that seems incredibly, well, common sense-ish. 

This solution is, obviously, to simply be responsible with what you give out and how you give it out, which is, admittedly, probably not the biggest problem for most individuals in a certain age range.  For parents, however, it seems to be a pretty big obstacle, given that many understand the technology their children use much less than their children. 

(To this, I would simply say, learn yourselves.  Is it really that much of a difficulty to pay attention to what your children do and actually learn what it’s all about?  You do realize that the new generation wasn’t born with the ability to operate computers as some sort of inherent skill and that we had to learn it just the same as you should?)  

Early this morning, news broke that Jeff Gerstmann, Editor-in-Chief of Gamespot.com- a high-traffic gaming enthusiast site- for 10 years, had been fired.  Now, normally, this wouldn’t be that big of a deal.  It’s the details of this event that make it quite, ah, frightening, to put it mildly.

You see, Jeff, as a game critic, had given the recently released video game Kane and Lynch a 6.0 out of 10 which is, when viewed in the context of Gamespot’s typical scores, (which typically range from 7 – 9) not exactly stellar.  This review, however, wasn’t out of line with the general consensus which, according to critical aggregate site Gamerankings.com is 69.7%.  What it was, apparently, out of line with was parent network Cnet.com’s expectations.

The above image is a before-and-after shot of Gamespot.com’s homepage before and after Gerstmann’s departure.  As you can see, the former features, quite prominently, a number of banners advertising Kane and Lynch while, in the latter, the entire ad has been removed.  Why?  The ad was designed, well in advance of Jeff’s review, to link to said review.  Well, as you can imagine, Eidos- the publisher behind the game- wasn’t too happy with the score given and, as such, threatened to remove the whole ad campaign. 

It is at this point that it is assumed CNet stepped in and locked Jeff’s doors on him, telling their employee of an entire decade to leave his office.  Now, whether or not the K&L review was the full catalyst behind it all, the straw that broke the camel’s back, or had nothing to do at all with Jeff’s firing, no one knows yet.  It’s been scarcely 24 hours since the event, after all.  Consider the following, however:

• Jeff’s firing was accompanied by the complete removal of his video review for K&L from Gamespot.com. 
• Another Gamespot editor posted a blog entry immediately following Jeff’s firing implying that he would be leaving the company as well, though not because of any editorial pressure- he was clearly leaving of his own volition, disgusted by whatever had happened.
• The following message was posted anonymously, though allegedly by a Gamespot employee, on the site Valleywag, a tech blog.    

So, let’s assume Jeff was fired for his review.  What widespread ramifications does this hold? Well, for one, this is a major blow to Gamespot’s, as well as all of the CNet network’s, credibility.  After all, if I’m a reader of these sites, how am I to know if the critical evaluation present is an accurate one or simply a concession made for advertising revenue?  And, given that, for journalistic outlets, integrity is practically ALL you have, this is a major blow to them indeed.

More importantly, it is a visible manifestation of a fear that a good number of “gaming journalists” (the industry is still relatively a young one and, as such, so is it’s media) have voiced- that fear being that the ideally “church and state” level of separation between the advertorial side and the editorial side of the industry is becoming more and more non-existant.  Publisher pressure and threats of pulled advertising are nothing new to them, but it has scarcely, if ever, come to anything like this. 

Gerstmann was, for all intents and purposes, paid to write his opinion on games.  If all of this turns out to be true, as it is looking to be, (at least to some degree) he will have been fired for doing the same.  Consider that fact- regardless of what he covered, regardless of how trivial, ultimately, video game journalism is to the world at large- just consider that fact.

However, as shown in the O’Reilly video, there is a fine line that musn’t be crossed.  The line here is, of course, the line between satire and slander.  When humorous rebuttal turns to questionable claims, it is no longer free speech. 

It’s obvious, though, that in the video, Franken’s work lied clearly on the side of satire and not slander, but how much more would it have taken to push it over?  Do you even agree that the two concepts lie so close to one another?  Should slander be persecuted while satire protected? 

Why is it, though, that negative press can contribute positively to something?  To me, it simply seems like a natural extension of the idea that controversy sells.  If you can create that aura of intrigue about your product, people will feel interested in it, even if that interest is in the form of disgust.  It’s the old car crash , where you can’t look away despite (or, perhaps, because of) the horrific scene. 

Given all this, I have to wonder a few things.  How many of us actually do buy based on “bad publicity?”  Have you ever done so?  Also, do (and, if so, how often) producers purposefully seek this attention?   

Of course, I do suppose, though, that the many diverse opinions that would counter the image were outweighed by the larger number of those that would support it, so perhaps I should take the findings with that in mind. 

The bigger issue, though, seems to be the ages represented in the survey.  As a designated representative for the Republicans, I did feel our opinions were too skewed towards older demographics.  (To be fair, though, that might be par for the course with the conservative party)  As such, I’m not sure how accurate a portrayal it really was. 

As far as what I did find understandable, the ideas that Republicans don’t (a) view entertainment as a way of communicating/learning meaningful messages, (b) don’t like to watch material that doesn’t reflect their views, and (c) don’t enjoy things they view to be “in bad taste” seemed pretty accurate to me. 

Of course, all of this is based on anecdotal experience, so it’s not like I’m really qualified to judge the accuracy of the study.  I’m just trying to make sense of it within my own thoughts and see if it fits or doesn’t; that’s all.  Regardless of how I feel about it or the subject of the study, it made me think and analyze my own beliefs, which is, I guess, always a good thing.      

 In film, the theatre experience is largely regarded as the superior way.  Comedic scenes are amplified by the laughter of others, dramatic moments are intensified by the gasps of fellow watchers, etc.

In music, sites like Last.fm have created ways to display your tastes to the world and to have others display theirs.  Means of suggesting songs and bands for others have also provided.  Even in more less-than-recent establishments of the medium, like concerts, people have found ways to consume the media together.

Video games are on a whole other level, with players competing and working together with one another from around the globes.  Persistent worlds are provided for roleplaying and the living of almost an entirely second life.  (As one of them is, aptly, named)

I could go on and on and continue to cite more examples, but you get the picture; media is no longer created for individual consumption.  It’s made to be experience with many.

Obviously, it seems silly to deprive a work of any significance it may have outside its maker’s wishes.  Limiting it to one viewpoint narrows its scope and ability to communicate.  In allowing audience members to read more into what you craft, you give it longevity and existence outside your hand.

On the flipside, though, reading into meanings the artist didn’t intentionally implement into his/her work may lead to a flawed understanding of such meanings.  If makes sense, after all, that if the maker didn’t work at developing that particular idea, taking what little evidence he might have there as support for it might lead to bad assumptions. 

I think the safe bet, then, is that, as consumers, we should feel free to try and extract ideas that may not have been intended from media while remaining aware that we may not have all the facts and, as such, might be seeing an inaccurate representation of that idea.