Jason, I understand exactly where you are coming from. I feel that I need to clarify a few things. First of all, as far as I know, all those that used the offending  hashtags received PS3s which is why the issue arose in the first place.

Advertising sales has always been insulated from editorial and it quite rightly should be. The bleeding of marketing into editorial (the so called advertorial) is a blight on the journalistic landscape that should be purged from every corner. The sad truth is that for all writers who earn from writing online, the money they earn comes from advertising be that blind or otherwise. Nevertheless to that end we are all slaves to the money that advertisers put up for us to emblazon our websites with their products.

Good writers always manage to be able to put the realities of the situation to one side and focus on the job in hand which is balanced critique of the industry and its products. It is not our integrity we are selling when we accept freebies, unless we allow that to unduly influence our reportage in the process. We are merely selling our work. At the end of the day though, when we write a preview, review, interview or feature relating to a game regardless of the content of that piece, the publisher/developer will see that as a bit of free advertising because their product is mentioned out there in the public domain.

The good writers will recognise this and give their opinions regardless of what they have received prior to publication.

To address the issue of bias. That I will stand by. We are all biased towards video games to begin with. Within that we have things that we like and don't like. Ethics and preferences that guide what games we play based on or past experiences. Two people who love games can have completely different tastes -  one may prefer fast-paced FPS games while another may avoid anything created by Activision. These are all biases and as journalists we all have them too. The difference between a good critic and a bad one is how heavily we let these biases rule how we write and what we write about.

Our job as critics is to start from as neutral a position as possible and for a bias which we can then transmit to the gaming public to help inform them when they head to GameStop with their hard-earned dollars. One way or another bias is necessary and we will never escape it. All we can do is reign it in as best we can in order to give our readership the right information

When a PR firm sends an annual Christmas gift to an editor (this has happened to me), this doesn't compromise one's integrity. When that editor/writer/analyst goes out of his way to obtain a freebie -- say, a PS3 or swag -- it does. When an editor gets a demo at E3 and gives feedback to the PR rep (even if it's exceedingly positive), that doesn't compromise one's integrity. When that editor spends inordinate amounts of time collecting free t-shirts and trinkets from booths (and proceeds to wear those shirts) and pesters the PR rep for free shit, it does. There is never any good reason to accept "freebies," unless said items -- be they games, hardware, or transportation -- are necessary to perform one's job. To accept said items without mentioning it gives the appearance of bias.

This is why it's Bitmob's policy to always disclose when we receive a free game or are provided with transportation to an event/demo. Even if the free item is necessary to perform our duties, disclosing that information to readers removes any appearance of bias.

But how does accepting a free PS3 (in exchange for a hashtag) constitute a necessary function of our job? How are swag, trinkets, or freebies ever a necessary job function? What purpose do they serve other than to sway our opinion and influence our judgment (even if it doesn't)?

Accepting a freebie in exchange for advertising is not "selling our work." Pitching an article to a publication is "selling our work." Setting up a booth at PAX to pimp our products is "selling our work." Tweeting a hashtag isn't what I'd traditionally define as "work," nor is the payment in any way commensurate with the effort. It's a bribe, pure and simple.

I will agree that every journalist prefers certain types of games or genres, but that doesn't make him biased. Giving an unduly high score to a game based on external factors (how hot the PR rep was, how nice the preview event was, etc.) proves his bias. Fawning over a superstar developer, with no regard for professional objectivity, proves his bias. I've seen all these things, in this industry and my own. They all influence our judgment.

Being predisposed to the gaming medium doesn't make one biased. Do you think that ESPN reporters don't enjoy sports? And yet, any reputable reporter who covers sports on the national stage doesn't show bias to any particular team. Even the "homers" in local markets try to remain objective.

One's a fan and the other a professional journalist.

I suggest you read the seminal piece, "No Cheering in the Press Box," by GamePro alumni, AJ Glasser:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/257829/no_cheering_in_the_press_box.html

Look, I realize that this industry blurs the lines between journalist and fan. Everyone on Bitmob knows about my love for Heavy Rain -- but it's not a love borne out of freebies, bribes, or any special treatment by Quantic Dream or Sony. I own a Mortal Kombat II arcade cabinet and Portal paraphernalia decorates my desk at work. But I didn't receive these items from a PR rep (certainly not the arcade machine) with the expectation that I would give a more favorable score to a certain game. I didn't even receive them from anybody. I bought them myself. And I wouldn't have accepted such trinkets (large or small) for free because it would compromise my integrity.

Can you see the difference between professionalism and pure fandom? While games journalists often combine the two to a certain degree, we need to work hard to supress the one (at least externally) and emphasize the other to the public.

Games journalists make a habit of behaving like star-struck fans and then wonder why the profession isn't taken seriously.

This particular case was strange because I personally don't feel that the hashtag itself really made much sense as an advertiting tool. Furthermore, all those that used it were using their personal Twitter accounts which makes the criticism they received for it seem a bit harsh.

The other thing that bugs me about this is that every journalist present at the Microsoft E3 press conference in 2011 received a brand new 360 S 250 GB console and everyone at Sony's E3 conference this year got a PS Plus subscription. There seemed to be no big backlash in these cases and yet the hashtag incident caused a big mess at least here in the UK.

There is a difference that the hashtag thing was solicited whereas the Xboxes and PS Plus subs were not but they still amount to the same thing do they not.

AJ does make a very good point as well in his article about cheering at big press reveals. That's something I don't understand. Perhaps some polite clapping at a big reveal but I always found the whooping and cheering that goes on at E3 press conferences to be odd and very unprofessional.

A lot of our peers in this business do seem to have a bit of trouble treading the line between gushing at heroes and maintaining some kind of professional detachment.

Ben Cordell in his reposte to the hashtag incident (link below) suggests that fans are more critical of their beloved series and are in a better position to review them due to the intensely critical way in which they view the object of their affections.

http://bencordell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/gamers-dont-trust-fans.html

I guess the thing that really bothered me about the whole thing is the sniping and infighting that goes on when something like this happens when we all have accepted freebies at some point in our career. Whether or not we have allowed these to affect our writing is another matter but I reckon instead of all this infighting we should take a good look at ourselves as a group and see if we can't come up with some kind of communal ethical standard that we can all adhere to so that we can avoid thsi kind of thing in the future and earn some respect for our profession in the process.

Firstly, I appreciate your politeness and articlualte response to what has become a volatile issue.

Our job is very much to tell the truth. I'm just trying to highlight the way things are at the moment. There are plenty of journalists out there who managed to avoid being unduly influenced by any kind of carrots dangled dangled in fron of them by the PR machine.

My personal attitude is that PR's can throw all the free stuff at me they want but if the game that they're trying to get me to like is rubbish I will say so in no uncertain terms. In fact I am guilty of being overly cynical about the efforts that publishers go through in order to promote their games to the press.

I've seen other artilcles suggest that transparency is the best way forward and I highly agree with that notion. The main problem with the situation that we find ourselves in now is that everybody needs ot make a living. Advertising revenues afford games journalists to get paid to do what they love to do which is play games and talk about them. Sadly publishers have been  known, all too often, to twist this relationship to try and influence the way the press talks about their games.

What I can do now, personally to change this is to promise that I will always be honest and transparent in my reporting on the games industry. Where there may be a perceived conflict of interests I will either report the entirety of such a conflict in approprtiate detail or refuse to write about the game or organization in question if I feel that I have been compromised enough to warrant doing so.

Ewan, Bobby mentioned the case of journalists accepting bribes for personal gain, and you referred to advertising. Can you see how the average reader (or nearly anyone) could conflate the two? Graft is an entirely different concept than advertising. The fact that this corruption has become so endemic shows how broken this culture really is. The fact that numerous journalists defend bribery as the cost of doing business should disturb anyone with traditional journalism training.

The problem is that there is no difference really. Being showered with free gifts, food, drink and even entertainment is usually a very overt attempt at bribery on the part of PR and marketing. When journalists accept these freebies and allow them to influence their opinions that's when they slip from critic to advertiser and that's why most readers have this difficulty. Throw in situations like the Jeff Gerstmann firing then, of course, we're not going to look squeaky clean.

What they need us to say is: Yes, we are people and we do have relationships with the developers, publishers and PR. And, yes, they do send us free stuff. However, we don't we, as journalists and critics don't allow these friendships and any freebies PR's send in our direction to influence our opinions in any way shape or form. If we find this is happening then we must disassociate ourselves from the product in question and take no further part in producing journalism and criticism related to it.

Ewan, we're not obligated to accept freebies of any sort. In most situations, it's perfectly acceptable to refuse such "overt attempts at bribery." As I mentioned, Bitmob (and her sister site, GamesBeat) have very strict rules regarding freebies and swag -- in most cases, they involve not accepting them. So yes, there is a very clear difference between graft and advertising. One is for personal gain and involves the journalist compromising his morals and credibility. The other benefits the publication as a whole. I'm sorry that you cannot distinguish between these fundamentally different concepts.

You mentioned free games for the purpose of review in your follow-up article. These are also fundamentally different, in as much as they're necessary to perform our job.

I never said anything about us being obliged to accept freebies of any kind. And I certainly understand the difference between the kind of stuff that they throw into a press pack, like stickers or a keyring (I even got a bar of soap with my review copy of Red Dead Redemption - it didn't make me enjjoy the game any more of view it any more favourably) and a PR giving away console hardware.

There would be something innately corrupt about an individual whose opinion could be bought for a handful of stickers and a novelty pen.

I would feel insanely uncomfortable if I was given hardware and like I said in my follow up, if there was no way to refuse it I would find very constructive way of disposing of it.

As for the free games, they are a necessary tool for our profession but a lot of readers have this misconception that we're in it for the free games and that is probably at the heart of the problem.

When we get a game for free do we always have the cost of the game in the back of ourminds as we are writing the review. I do consider value for money (which is why, as someone who is very much a fan of single-player experiences, I don't buy Call Of Duty games any more) but I can't say that's true for all my peers.

I for one didn't become a games journalist because I wanted free games,. I did it because I love talking about games, I love the dynamics and I love just how much more expressive they have the potential to be beyond traditional art forms like cinema and literature.

Anything we get for free does have the potential to influence our choices. My point is that a good journalist should be unbuyable. I don't fear being bought because I know that no volume free bars, buffets or t-shirts are going to influence my opinion on a game when I come to preview or review it.

I wouldn't accept a gaming PC or anything like that but I know that the offer certainly wouldn't sway me into saying a game is amazing when it's clearly not.

You implied (and continue to imply) that these sorts of free gifts are unavoidable. I would argue that it's incumbent upon us to not accept these free gifts in the interest of avoiding the appearence of bias, real or imagined. We're basically on the same page here, but as Bobby pointed out, this article seems like an apology for the status quo.

When you say "winning a PS3 was not particularly wrong," "let’s point out why the idea of games journalists not making material gains from advertising is so absurd," and "We are merely selling our work," it makes it sound like you find bribery acceptable, or at the very least, something to be tolerated as the cost of doing business.

I consider a free game for review among the tools of my trade, no different than a tape measure for a carpenter.

I agree that we're both more-or-less on the same page in looking for a better ethical standard within the games media.

I defininitely didn't mean the article to sounf like an apology for the status quo. I was aiming more for an honest statement of how it is and perhaps highlight how trivial some of the very public bickering that goes within games journalism is.

John Walker certainly made a good point on his personal blog that no-one is really immune to criticism in this particular argument and that is what I was trying to say, in a very roundabout fashion.

Thankfully most writers are healthily isolated from the advertising side of things and I personally don't see anything wrong with taking a free pen here and a free t-shirt there because I have the ability to isolate the work from it.

Also, when I said "we are merely selling our work" I was boiling it down to a very basic level. All professional journalists sell their work but where we ply our trade is very much governed by our own personal ethics. I was using it as a device to illustrate where our salaries and freelance fees come from. I'm glad the site I write for uses blind advertising.

The real problem comes from the fact that the marketing arm of the games industry treats the games media as an extension of their advertising and believes that they can curry our favour with rubbish like stickers and bars of soap and for the most part we sit there and take it.

We need to start being more honest in what we say about games in order to correct their misconceptions.It would also fix the odlly skewed nature of Metacritic scorese. An average game should score round 50% but most reviewers pussy-foot around the 75 percent mark, never really dropping lower than 40% for something truly awful.

Things like that need to stop. Then perhaps the games industry and the world as a whole would take us more seriously.

More respect from the industry should mean less ridiculous acts that just look like out-and-out bribery and in turn it means that our readers will respect us more too.