digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

CNET issues an official response to the Gerstmann controversy

megatonik.com — Yesterday, the internet was aflutter with rumors that GameSpot editor and reviewer Jeff Gerstmann had been fired. It was believed that it was the result of his negative review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. Now, CNET has issued an official response, one that only appears to clear their name without confirming or denying the allegations.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • RedZone09, on 12/02/2007, -30/+5i give their response an 8.9 out of 10
    • greenlight2001, on 12/02/2007, -2/+453.7
      • xyqxyq, on 12/02/2007, -0/+36You're fired.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4Legally, CNet can't comment publicly on the termination. IANAL, but I believe that the only thing that they can really say is that he was an employee from this date to that date; any further elaboration could have ramifications.
    • cromulent742, on 12/02/2007, -1/+26anything lower and I'd be forced to fire you
  • mrfreeziexp, on 12/02/2007, -1/+71"For over a decade, GameSpot and the many members of its editorial teal [sic] have produced thousands of unbiased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the gaming community. "

    never did they say they want to continue this tradition. MOAR MONEY!!
    • funkyjunk3, on 12/02/2007, -1/+10This is just damn "company profile" paragraph like they tack at the end of a press release. If Jeff was fired because of his negative review, please come forward and be HONEST about it. If he got in a drunken brawl with someone and that was the reason (I'm joking here), than simply state that. Don't give us this "for the past decade we have strived to....blah blah".
      • Dustin00, on 12/02/2007, -0/+8They aren't saying the reason... so they know they pulled a ***** stunt.
  • NinjaPig, on 12/02/2007, -2/+18Where is "Gerstmann"?
    • CheeseburgerBro, on 12/02/2007, -3/+24Who is Spain?

      Why is Hitler?
  • gwolf, on 12/02/2007, -3/+50Cnet and company's integrity has been suspect for quite some time now. They have become the Fox news of the tech press and I don't trust anything they say any more.
    You never need ask a zealot their opinion about anything, since all their opinions are warped to fit what they already decided is true.
    • Legato, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4if it wasn't for buzzoutloud, i would have a completely cnet-free life!
    • sjbradyusd, on 12/02/2007, -1/+0cnet is owned by newcorp isn't it? newcorp also owns fox news so they probably have some of the same goals. is the publisher of the game also owned by newscorp or rup murdoch?
      • sjbradyusd, on 12/02/2007, -0/+0sorry I was confused the above is wrong
  • Jeveran, on 12/02/2007, -1/+105I'd give their response a higher rating, but I haven't received any advertising dollars yet.
  • zweben, on 12/02/2007, -1/+64Official response? Not really. More like a boilerplate response that doesn't really say or address anything.
  • CapitalIdea, on 12/02/2007, -23/+3Ok completely bored with this "Outrage" now.
  • ncraig, on 12/02/2007, -0/+54I want to hear what Gertsmann says about getting fired
    • PHiZ187, on 12/02/2007, -0/+38I imagine his lawyer has advised him to stay silent, pending the inevitable wrongful dismissal suit...
    • electus, on 12/02/2007, -0/+9I think this whole thing will spill open when Gertsmann speaks out.
    • kodax, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4Most likely he will receive some massive settlement and will walk away in silence. The firing was a massive blunder and miscalculation by Gamespot and Gertsmann has them by the balls. Not only would the wrongful dismissal suit be all over the press, it would last forever. Further to his own dismissal, Gertsmann can potentially provide "whistlblower" information about Gamespot that would forever destroy its credibility and perhaps result in further lawsuits. The
      • Charlotte_Web, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2There won't be any settlement without a lawsuit first.

        Wrongful dismissal? I don't know of any law that protects editorial integrity. It's CNet's web site; they can censor any review that they want.

        The rumor is that Gertsmann was fired for his video review. Even if that's true, how the whole scenario played out was probably an even bigger contributor to the firing. I'm not taking CNet's side here per-se, but for the sake of argument, if they told him not to post that video review and he posted it anyway, it might have been an act of defiance like that that got him canned.

        If true, it's unfortunate that they fired someone for giving an honest review; but, I'm not sure that there's any more cards to be played here. It's over, and Gertsmann gets to find another job (which, given his current notoriety, shouldn't be too hard).
        • kodax, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2They can settle without a lawsuit. CNET would have Gertsmann sign a waiver that he will not bring an action or release any information in return for a sum. He may have a wrongful dismissal suit depending on the terms of his employment. In other words, CNET may not be able to dismiss without cause.
  • ninephoenixes, on 12/02/2007, -22/+5Spammy blog spam is spammy.

    And also old.
    • zizzy, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2Submitted over 21 hours ago. Just because you only noticed it when it hit frontpage doesn't mean it hasn't existed for much longer.
      Dumb redundant sentences are dumb.
  • lordmetroid, on 12/02/2007, -2/+32We are everyone and we are no-one, we are Anonymous, we are legion, we do not forgive, we do not forget, we are the face of chaos and the harbingers of judgment.
    • JamesWilson, on 12/02/2007, -1/+214chan much?
    • CheeseburgerBro, on 12/02/2007, -9/+1That's what my brother's always saying. You two must have the same zip code, or IQ, or something.

      Myself, I think the reviewer was fired because he simply knew too much. I don't know what he knew too much of (or I'd be in the same as him and I don't particularly care for casual nausea or gulls), but almost anything we can speculate about (secret game code designed for mind control, for example) would be more entertaining than the likely banal truthiness at the heart of this 'un.

      If Gertsmann Whathiswhiccum is a major player in the movie of life, he might have what it takes to be an action hero and somehow escape to Canada to make the story public. If he's an extra, he'll soon be killed by some ninja-type guy via a needlessly ornate method of execution.

      Or that advertising thing. It could be that, too.
  • 1337Einstein, on 12/02/2007, -0/+31Too little, too late. It will take years for them to recover from this (if they can at all).
  • Nikole, on 12/02/2007, -8/+2Rent It.
  • Clugenheim, on 12/02/2007, -0/+20So, essentially, it's true?
  • secretmode, on 12/02/2007, -3/+20Too lazy to register and give that game a 1/10
  • keviniskool, on 12/02/2007, -2/+22Vague responses FTW!
    • funkyjunk3, on 12/02/2007, -3/+1For the past decade, CNet has stood by its subsidiaries wholly. We strive to encourage proper judgment in our reviews, and stand by those judgments wholly. We believe, as a company of good standing, that our reviews are wholly based on fact and sound reason. We have found that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, our reviews have a wide ranging reader base and we strive to continue providing this reader base with honest reviews. We want our readers to enjoy that which they read, and have faith in our reviews. Therefore, we are fully behind the factual opinions of our editors, and support them 100%.

      Thanks. Sincerely,

      Cnet staff
  • basic0, on 12/02/2007, -0/+26Um, where's the rest of the press release? It was only one paragraph?
  • zdiddy85, on 12/02/2007, -13/+3This was pointless. I'm burying all of these rumors and "he say she say *****" until I see some cold hard facts.
    • ADulin, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1That's the thing. You are never going to get cold hard facts. If the speculation is true, Cnet will remain tight-lipped about this and they probably made him sign some sort of NDA before handing over his severance or pointed out some non-disclosure clause in his employment contract. If he could say something he probably would've by now.

      Basically, Cnet is trying to wait it out until it blows over and you are letting them. We are not asking for much, just an explaination. Lie if they have to just don't give us this vague *****.
  • wilf_brim, on 12/02/2007, -0/+15Totally lame, even by corporate standards. Why even bother.
  • Phssthpok, on 12/02/2007, -0/+24Jeff Gerstmann Video Review of Kane and Lynch

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBD0cUeeEQc
    • hsooms, on 12/02/2007, -10/+3i know i'll probably get dugg down for this, but i have to say his review was pretty unprofessional. i can see why the reports are out that CNET was mad about the tone of the review. he really comes off as a bitter gamer who just played the game and was really pissed off. granted, if its a bad game i can see why he would be frustrated, but as a professional video game reviewer you can't go into things with that attitude.

      with that being said, its totally unfair to fire him over something like this, especially since the entire editorial team got to look at his review and approve of it, to single him out like that is total BS.
      • douglosu, on 12/02/2007, -0/+8I'm not sure how the review is unprofessional. If you watch other reviews it doesn't seem to deviate from the standards of their other reviewers in anyway. Not only that, but the review was spot on. The tone was casual, speaking to gamers as a fellow gamer.
      • Gunite, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3I'd never seen him before that video. But I thought that was a good an honest review and I liked his style. As such, that's the end of visiting Gamespot for me.
    • Frostman3D, on 12/02/2007, -1/+10Looks like a pretty damned accurate review. ***** Gamespot.
    • thadjudkins, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2THAT is the "crazy" review? I thought that sounded like a very earnest an balanced review for a game that the reviewer obviously felt was flawed.

      I was expecting a completely unprofessional, non objective review. That is kinda what I want in a game review. Touch on some points of interest, list the good and the bad, give it and rating and then tell me yes or no whether you'd recommend I buy it.
    • ThankTheCheese, on 12/02/2007, -1/+1Im on Gerstmann's side, but I will say that the review is very negative given the score of 6 is described as "fair".
  • GorfTron, on 12/02/2007, -0/+12CNET stock has struggled. Gotta be big pressure on the revenues issue.
    • RxDaniel, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1So they decided to piss off half the internet? With decisions like that I see why stock was struggling.
  • fraeone, on 12/02/2007, -0/+15This is a "oh crap all of our readers are leaving in droves" desperation move. I believe Eidos that they didn't demand his firing, but I also believe CNet fired him because they want their advertisers happy. The irony is that they did it for fear of losing ad dollars, and now their hits/subscribers/general readership is going to plummet, which is going to cost them far more ad dollars in the long run. Game over for Gamespot. Their reputation is ruined and their most talented editor is gone.
  • AlienWarzone, on 12/02/2007, -0/+13Eidos clearly has a monster marketing budget for this title. I saw commercials during the Packers/Dallas game...big bucks. For GameSpot to accept dollars from these companies (to me) injures their credibility to provide us with objective journalism. In this months Game Informer, you will find more advertisents for the title. So it's not just GameSpot, but the gaming media in general.

    And the crowd over at CNet just made a public statement that was basically "We deny nothing, but care what you think." The new man in charge at Game Spot needs to be reassigned. CNet and GameSpot will need to name a scape goat, and fire the individual in an attempt to regain our trust in their reviews. Watch for something like that to hit the wire soon. "We at CNet are devoted to our audience, and clearly what took place here is against our policies for journalistic freedom. We have decided to part companies, and will be naming a new Director in the coming weeks to maintain the high level of quality expected by the gaming community."
  • zachshmack, on 12/02/2007, -10/+2Wow! Another front page story about this! And their source is another blog!
    Does that make this more than just blog spam? Is it blog spam blog spam?
    • zizzy, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4Considering the majority of the post is an explanation and commentary, and only a small section is quoted from another site, it isn't just spam.
  • ButterBuddha, on 12/02/2007, -0/+25My Official Response to CNET: "***** OFF"
    • jbird71, on 12/02/2007, -1/+1Now *that's* sincere!
    • LMaxey, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1Or as it would be said in Kane and Lynch (watch the review)
      My ***** official response to ***** CNET is ***** off
      Wow that does lose appeal fast
  • binaryloop, on 12/02/2007, -1/+12Here's something interesting: I've been watching the Google News stories about GameSpot. When I first started there were 436 articles found. Then there were 433 articles found. Now, there are 425. I wonder if CNET is out there trying to kill this story by removing articles? Try it out:

    http://news.google.com/news?q=GameSpot
  • MalDON, on 12/02/2007, -1/+6I can't stand white on black text. Also funny how they spelled team wrong. Yet they were talking about how the team is so great. If they were such a great 'teal' then they should have caught that.
    • ahoyhoy, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I prefer black on white crime... I MEAN TEXT
  • scabbers, on 12/02/2007, -1/+3So they stand behind what they put out, but they admit they fire people who try to put out opinions that don't square with the advertisers.

    Thanks for the official response, *****
  • chaos7, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6absolute crap response
  • vincenzo7, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6this isn't going to go away until all of the details are known. Gerstmann says he can' talk about it. CNET and Gamespot's integrity is marred forever whether it's true or not. If he was fired for any reasons that had anything to do with Kane and Lynch, it's self explanatory. If he was fired for "other reasons" then it was extremely bad timing on CNET's part and they deserve the marring for not being smarter.
  • FearFactory, on 12/02/2007, -1/+5Their decade of unbia$ed review$ was over a decade ago.
  • Dustin00, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6If GameSpot had fired Gerstmann for a real reason, GameSpot wouldn't have to constantly answer with "no comment" and Gerstmann would be perfectly able to answer all the questions people are throwing at him too.

    Official answer is completely devoid of substance, truth, honesty, or, in their words "integrity".
  • daizaru, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4Waiting for the guy to talk, boycotting Gamespot until I do though. I'm not going to spam their forums though, they say there's no such thing as bad press and so far they are getting more traffic then usual.

    Any site that doesn't pick him up fast for their own positive press is probably as guilty as gamespot for catering to advertisers.
  • jbird71, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3Their response has all the sincerity of "I did not have sex with that woman".
  • Rickler, on 12/02/2007, -0/+5Typical lawyer response. The fact CNET gave this eluding response makes me suspect even more now that he quit or was fired for the review.
  • mbthompson, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6CNET is a joke, all we needed was hard evidence. Thanks CNET, you now have no credibility.
  • bromanct, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1I see what you did there.
  • grimward, on 12/02/2007, -0/+7Statement: GameSpot takes its editorial integrity extremely seriously.
    Translation: GameSpot takes its financial integrity extremely seriously.
    Statement: For over a decade, GameSpot and the many members of its editorial team have produced thousands of unbiased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the gaming community
    Translation: For over a decade, GameSpot and the many paid members of its editorial team have produced thousands of biased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the advertising/marketing community
    Statement: At CNET Networks, we stand behind the editorial content that our teams produce on a daily basis.
    Translation: At CNET Networks, we don't stand behind the editorial content that doesn't produce revenue on a daily basis.

    Seriously though, I just couldn't help poking some fun at this nonsensical statement, it basically says "we're good, believe us!"
  • binaryloop, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2RE: CNet removing news stories now, the search returns 423 articles (2 more gone). WTF is going on?
    http://news.google.com/news?q=GameSpot
  • silverbullet126, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1I wonder just how long its going to take for CNET & Gamepsot to put this fire out .. I think we're just at the tip of the iceberg of just how bad this is about to get and with "responses" like this .. they aren't helping themselves.
  • SilverBack101, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2I usually don't jump on an Internet bandwagon with pitchforks but I'm quite willing to make an exception. I've always enjoyed Gamespot, especially, their "On The Spot" show. I also enjoyed Jeff's odd actions and antics. So sign me up and hand me a pitchfork.
  • vancanucksfan, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1cnet and gamespot are a bunch of money hungry bitches. does anyone remember awhile back when the ps3 and wii sections were flooded with xbox360 ads. i mean, you click ps3 or wii and you think you are on some xbox page.
  • Affect, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2I'm done with all CNET products. I just sent an email to a CNET SVP informing him that I will no longer use any CNET offering. Including my TivoCast. Integrity is necessary in business, and with BS like this they deserve to lose the entire cake. I'm done with these cheats. Heads should roll this mess up.

    The press release does nothing. Who is working in their legal department? If I had an issue like this at the company I work for, this would be an all weekend sort of deal. This lack of effort shows.
  • bshock, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1Corporations = lying sacks of *****
    Why do you act surprised?
  • terrya64, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1Kane and Lynch were on my list of games to buy this month. I will not buy it now, not because of the review but because of the firing.
  • gypsi, on 12/02/2007, -0/+0i can't tell what's advertising and what isn't at cnet.com - i always skip cnet when i'm looking for reviews - who needs the headache
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.