Flippity Flop

Thanks again to Ombudsman reader Sally Jacques for sending in her concerns about the headline for this GameSpot article. The headline reads, "New KumaWar level reenacts John Kerry's Swift Boat mission," with the subhead, "Downloadable mission lets you step into the senator's shoes--or at least his flip-flops." Sally asks, "do you think the 'flip-flops' reference was totally necessary? Should a game site really get political like this?"



For those who are too busy playing Doom 3 to follow one of the most important elections in years, the flip-flop line is a reference to a persistent charge by President Bush and the Republican party that Democratic candidate John Kerry often wavers on key policy decisions, flip-flopping between positions. The label has become almost omnipresent in national political debate, and the Republicans went so far as to hand out John Kerry flip-flops at their national convention.



Before I give my answer to Sally's question, here's what the article's author, GameSpot reporter Chris Kohler, had to say when asked about the subject on Instant Messenger:



"The use of the line 'shoes, or at least his flip-flops' is a reference to the two different scenarios in the game - Kerry's version of events, and the Swiftees'. Obviously, it does play off of the political debates that are currently going on. But clearly not in a way that endorses one candidate over another."



Kohler went on to say that the line wasn't intended to be an endorsement or an attack on either candidate, and said he doesn't feel that it reads that way. He added, "it's not only a well-known label, it's indicative of the whole nature of the video game. That there are two vastly different stories."



First of all, I disagree with Kohler's assertion that the flip-flop label doesn't endorse one candidate or the other. While the label is well known, it's definitely casts John Kerry in a negative light that I'm sure he and his supporters do not accept or appreicate. Saying the comment is completely politically neutral is not really accurate.



That being said, I feel this particular "political attack" is pretty innocuous. Kohler doesn't harp on the label, mentioning it almost in passing only once in the article's subhead. In the text of the article, Kohler calls the events "controversial," but doesn't make any statements about the truth of either version of events, or on the character of the parties involved. The use of the label serves a journalistic purpose too, highlighting the game's two different versions of events in a cute, concise way that most readers will understand.



With political games becoming becoming increasingly popular, issues like these are likely to keep popping up. In general, it's important for all journalists to keep their personal politics out of the mix when writing news stories. For game journalists, this means covering controversial games fairly, but also covering government laws and decisions regarding games with a balanced eye.



This policy only applies to news reporting, though. Reviews and commentary pieces represent the author's own opinion, and the author's personal politics can factor greatly into that opinion. To take political considerations out of the equation in these cases would be an unecessary limiting factor on the author's free expression and could lead to some rather bland opinion pieces. This is yet another reason why it's important to keep news and opinion writing clearly seperate, especially in the videogame realm where the two often mix together.