Battle of the Reliable Sources

You probably heard rumblings from a variety of sources about a possible deal between Sony and NVIDIA for the PS3 graphics chipset. Chris Morris first broke the story on Aug. 27 (later updated Sept. 2) in his regular CNN/Money column. He based his article on the commentary of industry analyst Erach Desai who said that nVidia "are in discussions with Sony for the PS3."



You might not have heard about the report calling the link "ridiculous." Rob Fahey at GamesIndustry.biz broke that one on Sept. 1, quoting a "senior source" at Sony as saying that teaming up with NVIDIA, "would simply make no sense either technologically or commercially."



So what do you believe: The commentary with the named analyst, or the news article with the unnamed source? I talked with the authors of the competing articles to try and make some sense of this controversy.



When commentary becomes fact



First off, it should be made clear that Morris intended his article to be taken as commentary, not as a hard news story. "All of my columns... are labeled as commentary at the top of the page - above the headline," Morris said. "That affords me the luxury of interjecting opinion, speculation and analysis into the stories. When it's a straight news story (say, the launch of a new console), we put it in a news template and just go with a standard byline."



But just because it was a commentary piece doesn't mean Morris didn't do his homework. "Mr. Desai has been on record with those for some time and I called him to make sure they still reflected his thoughts on the matter. Sony and nVidia were also asked for comment and responded as they saw fit."



The commentary heading didn't seem to prevent many sites from reporting the story as if it were fact, without even seeking outside confirmation. Fahey said this sort of lazy journalism is simply unacceptable. "It's a bit sad to see dedicated, professional games sites spreading this kind of story without asking any of the obvious questions," Fahey said. "Obviously it's fair enough to expect sites to run the story as it emerges - that's the difference between web news reporting and print news reporting... - but nobody seems to have asked any tough questions about it, even a few days down the line."



Unfortunately, Fahey doesn't think this is a trend that is likely to change anytime soon. "It's not the first time and it's certainly not the last time that the online media covering the games industry will jump on a story like this and print sensationalist nonsense without really thinking about what they're saying."



The problem, Fahey said, is that many video game "journalists" are not informed or critical enough of the industry they cover. "Anyone familiar with both Sony and NVIDIA would have raised questions about this story as soon as it emerged, but apparently some elements of the games media... just chose to report the story in a totally credulous way."



Naming your sources



Setting aside such concerns, some might say that Fahey's refutation doesn't hold as much weight because he doesn't name the "senior source" at Sony who provided the basis for the story. There's no way for the reader or other members of the press to confirm what the source is saying, or that the source even exists!



Fahey said that while GamesIndustry.biz usually won't base a story on an unnamed source, he decided to make an exception this time. "In this particular case, our source was simply talking a lot of sense, and while I'd have loved to have named him, his comments still carry weight regardless," Fahey said. "It's always unfortunate when ongoing business negotiations or other concerns prevent very informed people from putting their names to their comments, but that's just how the industry works and I think we all appreciate that."



Fahey went on to say that the sources he used for his article go beyond the unnamed one that ended up being quoted. "Although I only quote one source, I've also spoken to a number of Stateside analysts about the story," Fahey said. "Writing a story that rebuts something which has been reported elsewhere is something that has to be even more carefully researched than an original news story, in my experience - purely because you're stepping on a lot of toes when you publish it, and if you set a foot wrong, the people who you're leaving red-faced will come in and tear your story to pieces."



As for Morris, he said he doesn't have any reason to believe that GI.biz didn't have a "senior source" to back their story. However, he did say that he had no way of knowing whether their source was a "decision maker" or not. "The guessing game about the next generation of consoles has been going on pretty much since the last batch came out," Morris said. "It will continue until the exact specs of the 2005/2006 machines are revealed."



Don't look back in anger



In the end, Morris said he stands behind everything in his story. "The column never said nVidia's tie with the PS3 was a sure thing. It speculated, based on reliable sources, that the companies are talking and that a partnership might make sense for a series of reasons. I'd write it again today the exact same way."



Fahey, on the other hand, said in retrospect that he could have handled his refutation a little better. "I could probably have been a lot more professional and less tabloid-style with the story - but it was the weekend after a very long, tiring trade show, so I guess I can be excused having a bit of fun with it. It's not every day that I get to write "MONSTER RAVING LOONY NVIDIA RUMOURS CONDEMNED AS DAMNED LIES!" style headlines, whereas some of the other guys out there seem to be making a living off it."



Whether or not Nvidia and Sony are actually in talks, I commend both Mr. Morris and Mr. Fahey for handling the matter professionally and for covering the story fairly.