NY Times: Gran Turismo 5 “Best-seller”

You would think this an article about Jeff Gerstmann, but it’s not. Despite the hailstorm of controversy (firestorm has been a bit overused of late, after all) surrounding the debacle over at GameSpot, there are other happenings that the Watch would be remiss to overlook.

Last week the New York Times published a piece called “Some Essential Hardware (Even Away from the Street)”, an article aimed at executives who needed both functional gadgets and tech that could provide some relaxation. Slotted into relaxation considerations were the Wii, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, and while the Wii got its due factually speaking, there were tremendous blunders concerning the PS3 and 360 information – including price, processor type, and “best-sellers” that, ya know, haven’t been released yet.

Fortunately, the New York Times has since publicly admitted error and posted a correction. We think their addendum to the article best sums up its flaws:

An article in Business Day on Friday about favorite gadgets of executives referred incorrectly to the video game Gran Turismo 5. It has not yet been released, and thus is not a best-selling game. The article also referred imprecisely to the game Halo 3. It is the first game in the Halo series designed for the Xbox 360; the earlier games, though playable on the Xbox 360, were designed for the original Xbox. The chip in the Xbox 360 also was misidentified. It has a Xenon chip, not a Cell processor. And the article also misstated the price of the Sony PlayStation 3. The PlayStation 3 starts at $399, not $299.

Sure, perhaps the Halo mistake is forgivable, and maybe we can understand slipping up on “what’s under the hood” of the PS3 and 360. But also quoting the PS3 price as $299 and, more so, calling an unreleased game a “best-seller”? Perhaps the Gran Turismo 5 slip up wasn’t a slip up at all, and the Times forgot to mention the consultation of the office Magic 8 Ball for sales forecasting.

All jabs aside, errors do happen, and the important thing is that the Times did exactly what any reputable publication would do by posting a public admission of error. However, this piece is too sloppy for most any news outlet, let alone the New York Times. It wasn’t merely the fault of the writer, but also the copy editor(s) and anyone else associated pre-publication. Hopefully now they’ve got their article submission process ironed out again.


Note: This article has been bookmarked by a user. Please visit the source website for the complete article.