I totally agree! I'm sick and tired of reading these stupid made-up rumors, and seeing these half naked chicks holding SNES controllers. I want real stuff on real games!

Not to quip on the subject right off the bat, but this is a very well-written article.

I think the central problem with a lot of gaming news coverage being little more than rumors, speculation, and regurgitated press releases is that most of them are somewhat trapped. Almost all the information gaming news outlets get comes from behind the PR wall of the publishers. When they get that information most of the time they can't reach publishers and developers for further comment (and quotes) soon enough.

Although one thing I don't like is the prevalents of Q&A's. I was taught that when you gather that much information direct from a source, it's put to better used transmogrified into a story. That's just me though.

Personally I think one problem is that games coverage is a little bit too focused on upcoming content. By the time people actually have games in their hands, all the new coverage has moved on to new upcoming games - the information to which is always behind the PR wall. Where's the coverage on what gamers are doing? Where's the coverage on the reception and communities that are developing around the games we're playing right now.

@Daniel I'd agree with most you say, but I'd diagree with that thought on Q&A's. Not that they aren't relied on a little much in entertainment journalism in general, but I wouldn't say when you gather that much information is necessarily better used written out in a traditional story. Granted, I'm not a traditionalist about much in life, but I think it's on the writer/editoral staff to find the most interesting way to put together and frankly sometimes the other person in their own words is better for the readers than you as a writer injecting your voice into it in the manner that most journalists do. And before anyone hops into the myth of objectivism, as we inevitably like to do in our defense, you're going to pick in choose what to quote and relay and what imporantance to give it, deeming what's most newsworthy. Subjective process.

Sometimes it's a good thing to treat the readership like adults and allow them to draw their own conclusions every once in a while. It doesn't work with every interview, but it sometimes it is the best format.

Of course that could also be my features background speaking. :)

Read more of GamePro, especially its features. They are getting away from the commodity reporting of the industry and presenting coverage that looks at issues and people behind the games. 

In many ways, it's not fair to pick on the blogs. For the most part, many of those writers -- and editors -- haven't received the proper journalistic training that folks like me (a newspaper-industry vet) or Shoe, Aaron, or Demian (magazine backgrounds or, in the case of GameSpot, new media that has standards). We need to teach the young'uns the right way to approach journalism. 

You had me until NeoGAF. Also, that first sentence looks like it has a subject/verb agreement issue. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 I have to agree with Jason, though. While I'd love to see better news coverage, we're reporting on a "fun" industry that everyone has the ability to report on without formal training. Democratizing games coverage means the overall quality drops. That's just a sad reality.

@Daniel: Yes, I agree. Gaming news is stuck on upcoming content. But on that note, I normally use gaming forums to discuss games I've already purchased, plus the blogs have to be wary about posting spoilers, so as to not ire their readership.

To their credit, Kotaku did run a game club at one point which was a good platform to talk about titles post-release. Sadly they only happened once in a blue moon and I haven't seen one in a while.

And Michael, I'm fully aware that NeoGAF is hardly the best place to get news, and I wasn't exactly promoting it as that. But the sad fact is that their ability to filter through the bullshit is better than most blogs, who either regurgitate press releases, intentionally misrepresent content featured on other sites or post stuff that, quite frankly, would be better served on a forum than on a site run by people who claim to be journalists. It's a sad fact which NeoGAF admittedly get self-righteous about. They shouldn't have anything to be self-righteous about, but the state of games reporting has facilitated it.

Really we should be treating all forums -- NeoGAF included -- as unreliable pits of rumours, lies and misrepresentation. Sadly the blogs hold that title, and that's a disgrace. My article is nothing about taking the "fun" out of it. Rock, Paper, Shotgun have proven that you can write a quality blog without being dry or boring.

@Chris NeoGAF isn't beholden to generating traffic like the blogs. And it does have a hivemind that appeals to certain sorts of news. 

@Jason: Yeah, I accept that point. The blogs will probably always have to draw in visitors with the kind of stuff I dislike, but it's still upsetting that I'm hard pushed to find the right place to get the coverage I like.

I'll check out GamePro, as you suggested. It's never really appeared on my radar before as I'm from Wales, where it doesn't have a presence on magazine shelves.

The term "video game journalism" is often pretty misleading as the stuff we read is more enthusiast press. At its worst, it's a brainless extension of game company PR divisions that recycles the smallest bits of information and hides it behind obtrusive "jumps."

I've been trying to provide what I think actual video game journalism should be for the last few weeks on my blog BOLDSTATE.com where I focus more on the ways video games can do more than just entertain and impact people outside of the industry, but I'm aware that there's still a need for release dates and screen shots. I just can't help but shake my head, though, when sites like Kotaku brag about its occasional investigative reporting when a good 85% of its content is either garbage or presented as such.

@Chas A publication doesn't have to present everything. In the good ol' days of print journalism, you'd have your local paper, which focused more on news of your immediate area, and a regional paper, which covered more of the region/state and offered more national and international news (example: You'd get your local news from something like the Marin Independent Journal and regional/national/international news from the San Francisco Chronicle or Examiner, depending on which you subscribed to). 

And the "enthusiast press" is still journalism.

A publication should never brag. It should let its work speak for itself. 

Jason: It IS still journalism, but it's BAD journalism for the most part and calling it such only demeans the good stuff in my opinion. And the longer we lump them both together under the same title, the longer we'll keep complaining about the state of video game journalism and writing and commenting on articles like this.

@Chas: It's important to acknowledge the bad and hold it up as an example of what not to do. Shame is a powerful motivator. I hope you and others continue to write about such topics. Maybe it'll induce some of the weaker folk in the profession to improve themselves. 

You're saying you want up to the minute reporting, but you want it accurate, reliable and professional. This means two things: if it's really up to date, it's more or less rushed. This is why I prefer industry sites which only operate in business hours (GamesIndustry.biz) and printed magazines with their month-long cycles, warranting more in-depth reporting. Kotaku and the like I take with a grain of salt, more as entertainment than news. (Which leads there to often be fan outrage when they try something more serious - they just don't know how to relate to that, it's not what they signed up for.)

The second thing is that you're asking for professional quality, for free. Most blogs are run by amateurs (the famous "fans who learned how to type") who have very little idea of what they're even doing wrong. Most are very young, with limited capacity to even understand their role in the media. I'm trying to say that this just can't work the way you want it to work. There needs to be a new type of online games coverage. I think Bitmob is a very interesting outlet and a step in the right direction.

This is a larger issue with the internet, not exclusive to games. I for one would be willing to pay a little for content like The Escapist and Rock Paper Shotgun. I pay for my monthly Edge quite a bit and I think it's worth every penny. 

For two years my blog was called "Negative Gamer" and it was built on frustration. Originally frustration about how I couldn't critically talk about games without attracting scorn, and later frustration about the games media. But then I realised: I was writing all these very meta articles because I love talking the talk, but when it came to walking the walk I couldn't be arsed. I viewed it as other people's responsibility. But when the people who own, work at and read these tabloid blogs are happy, is it right for me to try to wish them to be what I want? Should you tell a dog not to lick its own balls if it's enjoying itself?

A few months back the name was changed to Nukezilla (http://nukezilla.com/) and, whilst we're still small, we're concentrating on quality over money. My end target is the Newsweek of gaming (lofty and a little crazy, I know). But, I had to realise something; the market for good journalism is tiny. For every one person wanting to read my 1,200 essay on BioShock or well researched news on some indie game, there are a million who want to read some baseless rumour or skim over a "top ten babes of gaming" list.

To get my news I built (and am still building) my own site: http://wire.vg/

It's like an RSS feed, but with voting. It also has trend tracking. That latter part means I can see a computer generated list of the topics that are big in gaming right now without needing to go to some terrible site or other. (http://wire.vg/pulse) The eventual plan is to have Wire.vg earn enough money to support Nukezilla as a real, good website (when you take out the adverts you can do incredible things).

To stagger towards a point to my comment; there are thousands of people like you and me who want all this (God knows there's enough editorials on the matter), and it's our job to drive it forwards. We need to be reading the small sites, retweeting and spreading the word etc. We can't change the broken systems in place, but we can build new ones and try to avoid the traps. It's hard, and it would be nice if the people who made their money peddling tat would change, but meh, it's not going to. Give it 5 years and we'll have something sorted.

Damn, I went on a bit there. 

I figured I'd write a reply to all of this. Hopefully one or two people read it, despite this article having sunk off the front page and out of people's attention span.

Firstly, people should read this. It's a pretty good rebuttal, of sorts, to this article and GJAIF as a whole:
http://www.bitmob.com/articles/what-problem-with-games-journalism-part-1

Secondly, I've got a few comments to add here.

A few hours after publishing this, it became quickly apparent - and communicated to me very clearly via comments, Twitter and email - the problems with my proposal.

A lot of people said, as was written in regards to the fate of Crispy Gamer also, that cost is the big issue here, and that the sites have to cater to an audience or they go bust.

So I think I jumped the gun a little bit in offering a solution, but I didn't want to look too churlish when calling out the state of the industry; I wanted the piece to be a little bit constructive. Which is also kind of why I named no names.

I think that led to another problem: I upset a few people with what seemed like broad generalisations. One thing I have discovered, through a lot of positive feedback, is that there are actually good blogs and news sources that I'd never read before, which I am now.

Lastly, when I wrote this I never expected it to get on the front page, let alone receive all the views it did, and act as a catalyst to a lot of discussion. I certainly didn't expect lots of people to get in touch with me, saying all sorts of nice and not-so-nice things. Very strange indeed.