My personal game journalism vows and why I have them

 This is just a retrospective post on what I vowed to myself when I decided to become a regular games reviewer (and this applies to all other relevant media). This is NOT anything with official backing or sanction from my current employers at ChristCenteredGamer, this is just my personal code of honor, though to my knowledge none of it is in conflict with the expectations of my current employer.

1. The subject I'm reviewing must be the primary topic, and nothing else.

These days, some of my more politically and socially partisan brethren in the games journalism business will typically derail a review about a game to complain about not enough people of some sort of minority group, how capitalism is evil incarnate, sexual identity and gender politics, and other things that are clearly more interesting to them. The game review part is practically a sidebar to what they actually want to talk about.

Not me. I work as a volunteer, but even if I were paid, my first duty is to primarily discuss the topic I'm writing about. Not only is that why I have a job to begin with, it is not my place to play ideologue or force my politics, social positions, or religion on anyone. I do at present write for a religiously oriented games reviewer, but even the obligatory moral section is written as dispassionately as possible. It is not my job to tell my audience what to think, merely what I've seen and experienced. I do not and will not insult my audience by assuming they need my guidance outside of information on the media I'm reviewing to make an informed decision about the media in question.

2. The audience and the game developer are owed nothing from me but objective truth, and I'm owed nothing in return.

At more socially driven writing outfits, it's their custom to tell the audience about topics I would refrain from discussing in point 1, then call the audience bad if they take umbrage to being told what to think. They also have a rather foolish tendency to insult the developers of the games they review if they think they aren't politically, socially, or culturally in tune with their own views.

I consider both to be the height of idiocy. The reader of my reviews is owed calm, objective analysis of a media on its technical flaws and virtues, after which my job is done, the reader can do the rest. The developers of the things I review are owed nothing more than my prompt willingness to do a review, give it my best objective effort, and tell the truth about the product itself without getting on my soapbox and insulting them if they fail to live up to my personal standards. If a developer does something that is clearly not in the best interest of the consumer, I consider it my duty to note this and advise they reconsider if only to make sure they can continue to be profitable, but I do not spit in the house I've been invited as a guest to appraise the interior.

3. I draw a clear line between my professional and personal life. 

This should be common sense, but some of my more ill-advised colleagues at other establishments think having no filter on social media is not a bad thing, and generally get shocked when their indiscretionate comments and actions get them adverse attention.

Again, I consider this foolish. In formal settings in the context of my reviews, such as responding to comments on them on social media, I believe I need to be polite, calm, and civil. Honest questions, criticism, and compliments should be accepted as such and responded to with courtesy. Anything done in bad faith is not to be responded to in an unprofessional manner. If anything, I should always keep my temper and passions in check.

4. I do NOT believe it is my duty to incite harassment, doxing, break NDAs and embargos, or do any other act that would leave me and my publication in disrepute.

I am a journalist, and my job is to tell the truth about what I cover, that is all. I stay away from social media in a formal setting except when absolutely required, and there I always try to remain civil even in the face of those who clearly show me absolute contempt. If I have any social power or clout whatsoever, and that's assuming I have any to begin with, it should be used to promote my employer as reputable and honorable in their dealings with the public. On and off the clock any time I am asked to comment on something representing my employers it should never be done to injury of my employers or the party I respond to. For reasons of common sense, legality, and basic decency, I do not encourage harassment, doxing, any form of violence, or otherwise make clear I want ill will done to my critics. As regards NDAs and embargos, they are contracts of trust I am supposed to honor until they are lifted, unless for reasons of law (with proper warrant) I am required to breach them in the interest of resolving legal matters. Otherwise, it is my duty to not break trust with those agreements.

In this very post, I have refrained from naming any names as to negative examples I have cited because, as I said, I do not wish any of the parties mentioned to be harassed or distressed, at least I want no part in fanning those flames.

5. Finally, I need to not hate my audience or my job

My work, when published, is free for comment in the public domain. I have no power over what the audience thinks, or how they will react, nor do I have the right to demand them to only react a certain way. My audience is composed of intelligent people with free will who will do whatever they see fit, and I can and must accept that. Neither am I to show contempt for my profession by poor workmanship, refusal to admit to proven error, or failure to retract anything clearly wrong when it is proven I was in error.

This all said this is my personal vow to my job. I rather believe if all had the same, we would have higher quality work at all review establishments and the profession of reviews and criticism would enjoy constant honors, but I lament not everyone would seem to concur.