But DW, you're suggesting we feel sympathy for people (not necessarily the writer of the review quoted above, who might just be immature and brainwashed) that knowingly sell lies. I've met some like these at conferences and conventions in the past. They're scum; they brag about all the perks they get for free by agreeing to write positively about things they've never or barely played. Why should I feel bad for such a person? It's like asking me to feel bad for the shyster lawyer who will lie for any client, gets big ads, and represents anybody. As far as I'm concerned, they're finding a new line of business is good for everyone except that new line of business.dragon wench wrote:I suppose.. to be somewhat fair to those reviewers.. If the threat of unemployment hangs over their heads, can we really, truly blame them for writing some of that drivel?
You can always opt out. I won't name names, but back in the 90s one of the magazines (a very well known one, now out of business) I wrote for took one of my reviews and inserted a smaller, very positive review inside it for software I'd never seen. I complained, and was told it wasn't a good idea to feel that way. I told them that it was unethical to put my byline on something I hadn't seen, and while I lost that magazine as part of my paycheck, I've never felt badly about that decision. There are other ways to eat besides selling your body or (as in this case) your soul.I mean, perhaps they went into the gig thinking they could write objective, critical reviews, only to find out that had been deceived. If that's the case.. well we all need to eat.
Plenty of jobs out there require the selling of one's soul in one way or another, and while most of us would prefer to avoid such situations, it's not always possible.