Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
The Internet The Media Entertainment Games

Making a Game of the News 91

As traditional news media struggles to find a new method and business model for dissemination over the internet, some are suggesting that news-related games could be an avenue worth pursuing. Rather than using such games solely as entertainment, journalists could make some of their reports more educative and interactive, allowing readers to choose which threads of a story they would like to follow. Georgia Tech is currently running a research blog to better understand how games and journalism can interact. "The point to consider here is that the two processes do not have to be mutually exclusive, and may even be complementary. Just a couple of years ago, we were wondering if the blogosphere was trivializing journalism; now, most of us, including traditional journalists, are willing to accept the fact that the two can not only live in harmony but also play off of each other. Similarly, online games could help break down complex topics, and stimulate audience interest in the more mundane ones."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Making a Game of the News

Comments Filter:
  • by AltGrendel ( 175092 ) <ag-slashdot.exit0@us> on Sunday April 19, 2009 @10:45AM (#27636481) Homepage
    You have unlocked the Wall Street Journal achievement.
    • You have unlocked the Lawyers Weekly [] achievement.

      • by mlscdi ( 1046868 )
        It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue. You will then be bailed out by the taxpayer.

        > what is a grue?

        The grue is a sinister, lurking presence in the dark places of the economy. Its favourite diet is bankers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of Economic Stimulus Packages.

        Sorry, couldn't resist. Zork is timeless.

      • I was going to say that usually, when there's a highschool shooting or something it's invariably linked to someone involved playing Counterstrike for hours on end. And then someone makes a map of the school in question and all hell breaks loose.

        But I guess it's funny if it's about lawyers.
    • The story thread you have chosen has drained the batteries in your lantern and you have been plunged into darkness.

      You have been eaten by a grue.

    • I earned this achevement by using only words in Todays Wall Street Journal to get 5 words in a row in Buzzword Bingo! As a reward I have recieved a 1 week free trial of Wall street journal, as well as a coupon for 50% off a 3 month subscription! As an added bonus of one word being in a coca-cola article, I also get a 25 cent off coupon for a 2 liter of coca-cola! I can't wait to play again tomorrow!

  • by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @10:47AM (#27636487) Homepage

    Does this remind anyone of the news reels in the movie Starship Troopers where, at the end of each clip, it asked, "Would you like to know more?"

    Of course, I thought hypertext filled this need years ago... Maybe I'm missing something.

    • by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @01:07PM (#27637395) Homepage Journal

      I thought hypertext filled this need years ago... Maybe I'm missing something.

      The traditional media doesn't seem able to use hypertext correctly.

      They commit atrocious crimes against HTML by doing things like "... in bangladesh. (click here to learn more about bangladesh)" instead of hyperlinking the relevant words like they should.

      Old media: We take the hyper out of text!

    • by Grail ( 18233 )
      That was the first thing that popped into my mind too! News as entertainment, would you like to know more?
    • It reminded me EXACTLY of this. You're absolutely correct :-)

    • It's not you but the "traditional" news organizations (and the bloggers as well) missing the idea of hypertext.

      Read almost any newsy article and it does not contain links. At best you get links to other stories from the same outlet. Why? Greed, and the resulting attempt to keep the reader/visitor on the site.

      May be this is the business model to pursue, publish a premium version of the news that does include hypertext, to the institutions and documents (and people) mentioned, talked about or cited as sources

  • ...but isn't the news mundane enough and catered to the lowest common denominator as it is? I mean, even after taking in account the bias?


    • Agreed
      Who would want to play a game where around every corner is murder and mayhem, for real?
    • My game is reading the Drudge Report. Except, I think of it as "The Drug Report." Let's check it out right now!

      Latin american leaders (railing against the USA) are on drugs.
      5 Houston children dead in swamped car, driver may have been on the cell phone (or on drugs)
      Iran convicts US journalist of spying (Iran's justice system, on drugs)
      Airplane passenger charged with a felony because he needed to use the restroom (Delta Airlines is on drugs, but I knew that already)
      Milbank: Why is the left so angry? (cuz

  • 3D Maps? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MRe_nl ( 306212 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @10:50AM (#27636521)

    Run around in Grozny, Ramallah or Waziristan while being shelled by the Russian, Israeli or American army!
    Live and real-time, just download
    I can't wait. Not that it's likely to be allowed.
    It might bring home the terror that is "asymetrical" war.

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )
      The sad thing is, this is the type of thing they would do. Either than, or some CSI-like game where you follow the evidence to find a serial killer, or see why some depressed father killed his family then shot up his office. Hey,maybe they can do one where you are a SEAL sniper on a ship and you have to snipe a pirate before he kills a hostage! What they won't have would be the ones where you, as a US soldier, help build a school, or repair a hospital, or bring relief supplies to a small village that has
      • Re:3D Maps? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by WCguru42 ( 1268530 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @01:48PM (#27637665)

        It would only continue the bad parts of modern journalism: the focus on death, destruction, and polarizing events.

        That's because news has shifted to "entertainment." SEAL snipers coming onto a ship at night to snipe three pirates is exiting news. Private John Doe spent the last two months building a simple one room classroom that might drastically affect the futures of kids on the other side of the world is not.

        It's really sad, because the latter example has a much greater chance of saving many more people. While there was immediate risk of death to that ship captain, he was only one man. The efforts of soldiers, volunteers and others working on infrastructure in a war torn country has the potential to move that country out of a future of wars.

      • []

        I think this report was the closest thing to what you're describing, even though it's just an animated slideshow of events as they occurred. It perfectly explains the series of events that led to people mistaking an innocent man for a terrorist and shooting him in the face. It doesn't excuse them, but it changes to context from excessive police brutality and paranoia into a glorious chain of fuckups and unfortunate coincidences which were either unavoid

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Here's the game: listen to the hateful shit from MSNBC, the hateful shit from FOX, and then see if you have the ability TO MAKE UP YOUR OWN FUCKING MIND AN NOT TOE ONE OF THE TWO GOV'T APPROVED METHODS OF THINKING

  • The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19, 2009 @10:57AM (#27636569)

    A lot of journalists know nothing about what they're reporting. The more you know about something, the more you realize how wrong the news reporters are. And if they're wrong about that, what's to say they aren't also wrong about the things you know less about?

    • Why Speculate ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ciderVisor ( 1318765 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @01:57PM (#27637735)

      As Michael Crichton said []:

      "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

      "In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

    • Science news report. But there is worst than that : intentionally misrepresenting news. Need I mention the MMR scare ? The fact also that they never correct the stuff they get bad, is also a sign that at least the direction/editorial team don't care and target for the sale only. Seeing hown often that happen even on non-yellow paper for science, you can imagine how often that happens with politic. Case in point take anything controversial and look at the news on all side of the ponds and on various continen
    • It isn't that journalists get things completely wrong -- it's that they get them close to correct, but not close enough to draw any accurate or useful conclusions.

      Then they draw conclusions, or encourage their readers to do so.

      As another poster pointed out, it's the "wet streets cause rain" effect...

    • The real problem is that people don't instinctively challenge what they read/view in fancy publications or broadcasts. That's one thing blogs have going for them, people know to only accept posts as one person's opinion, which is all any mainstream news is.

    • by Trip6 ( 1184883 )
      Having done a fair bit of interviews and TV, this is absolutely correct in my experience. I don't trust any news story - you know it's wrong, you just don't know how.
  • by Quila ( 201335 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @11:05AM (#27636625)

    It's called "Spot the unbiased US news source."

    I haven't won yet. Anybody got some cheat codes?

    • by MartinSchou ( 1360093 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @11:44AM (#27636887)

      I don't think this counts as a cheat code, but it's close to god mode in my opinion:

      The Daily Show with Jon Stewart []

      • Pre-9/11 slogan: "Where more Americans get their news than probably should."

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Hurricane78 ( 562437 )

          Post-Cramer slogan: "Nowadays, the comedians ask the hard questions."

          • by maxume ( 22995 )

            Yeah, they really took down that straw-man.

            CNBC is full of ridiculous cheerleaders (Cramer is among the loudest), but they don't market themselves as meeting the "safe, long term investment advice for everyman" standard that Stewart wants to hold them to.

            Anyone who spends a half hour looking into Cramer's advice will find out that he advocates for people doing their own research (his show is for ideas...) and that "Mad Money" actually refers to money that you can afford to risk trading (so it is in addition

            • If you had paid attention to the whole debacle, you'd have noticed that Jon Stewart actually pointed out that they weren't gunning for Cramer particularly - he was just the one that decided to take a stand. At which point they DID start gunning for him.

              This was even pointed out when the two met face to face in that half hour interview/blitz krieg.

              • Actually, you write "Blitzkrieg" in one word. (Like pretty much anything that is one thing in German.) :)

                Proof of concept: Rhabarberbarbarabarbarbarenbartbarbierbierbarbärbel. ;)

              • by maxume ( 22995 )

                I did pay attention to most of it; CNBC looked really bad by the end of it. I was just pointing out that I enjoyed the irony of Stewart starting the whole thing by railing against cheap populism (he specifically said this about Santelli after his (Santelli's) shout out to traders on the floor of the CBOT) and then devolving into a situation where he characterized CNBC as not serving the little guy trying to manage his 401k (which I don't really think they would claim is what they do, or are trying to do).


      • by maxume ( 22995 )

        Really? I think they are reasonably fair, but they also clearly have a bias.

        • Yeah, but the Daily Show is more honest about their own bias than, say, Fox News. They acknowledge their own bias and use it as a material for more jokes.

          You know that things are in a pretty shitty state of affairs, when the news channels seem to care less about journalistic ethics than a ****ing comedy show on a comedy cable channel.

          A lot of US TV news is now humiliatingly bad. And it's syndicated abroad. It broadcasts to the world an image of Americans as dumb, and arrogant, and shallow, and ethically

    • There is no such thing as unbiased. This is because bias is 1. relative and 2. a physical must. Unbiased is like ungravitational, or unpositioned. It's impossible in this reality.
      So what you mean is: A news source that fits into your reality.

      This is no bad or good thing. It's just how it is.
      And the sooner you allow this thought into your brain, the sooner you will be able to use any source of information, no matter where their bias is. Because then you can add an inverse filter, and get out all useful data

      • There is no such thing as unbiased.

        This is no bad or good thing. It's just how it is.

        I think you just directly contradicted yourself right here. Now, I agree that there is no news source that is out there that is unbiased, and that it is practically (if not actually) impossible to create an unbiased news source. It would require the news anchor to tell everything that happened that day, and I mean everything because if one omits something then one's bias shows that event didn't matter.

      • Take the recent tea party protests. Fox was absolutely glowing and promoting them. CNN had a reporter arguing with a protester, trying to prove his reason for protest was baseless. Olbermann on MSNBC was calling them "teabaggers" in a derogatory sense in reference to the sexual practice.

        I didn't see one instance of reporting that just laid out the facts. The editorial column has now expanded to be the entire newspaper, the network pushes a political ideology instead of just reporting.

        • by WCguru42 ( 1268530 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @02:13PM (#27637863)

          To be fair, Olbermann runs a political commentary show, similar to O'Reilly. I have no problem with those two (other than personal distaste for their views and methods) but they have no obligation to present an unbiased view of the news because they are, in fact, entertainment shows as opposed to news broadcasts.

          On the other hand, the news casts on those channels need to clean themselves up of their political views. If you claim to be a news broadcaster then you shouldn't act like a political commentator. And people in general need to stop treating political commentary like news. Too many people have told me that they heard O'Reilly say something so it must be true. Smarten up folks.

    • There's a cheat on PBS that filters out all the Fox bias: NPR
      • It is a somewhat liberal counter to Fox's right-leaning. Why we need yet another counter, I don't know, with CNN, NBC, CBS and MSNBC being firmly on the left.

        But NPR is probably the closest thing to neutral we get, the evidence being that partisans on both sides complain about it working for the other.

  • by Misch ( 158807 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @11:10AM (#27636649) Homepage

    Your cabinet died of dysentery.

    Would you like to play again?

  • Gaming the News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19, 2009 @11:11AM (#27636655)

    It seems to me that the largest current problem with "the news" is quality. How is increasing the cost of presentation in the absence of improved investigation and analysis going to improve the quality of what is presented? This seems like yet another hopeful stab at using technology for the sake of technology with little or no regard to determining whether it is an appropriate question. News is information. If you want to understand how to improve the presentation of information, look up Edward Tufte [], his work, his books and his curriculum vitae.

    Rupert Murdoch & his ilk at the Tele-Virus Networks took this attitude to it's logical extreme. They played the game of ---> let's see how little we can invest in reporting and credible presentation of fact-based analysis and how much we can squeeze out of sponsors who care more about eyeballs than brain cells.

    They won, we lost... (long live Walter Cronkite).

    • You have noticed the "hole" in the newspaper. The hole is not where the ads are, it's where the news should be but it isn't. And since advertisers pay for the vast majority of the costs of the newspaper, they determine the content.

      When consumers dictate the content of the newspapers, then we will have real news because consumers will want real news. That could mean we'd have to pay for access. The problem is that the monied interests have far more concentrated capital to use to exert control over the
    • Re:Gaming the News (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ErkDemon ( 1202789 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @04:38PM (#27639135) Homepage
      With Murdoch's News International, the concept of "sponsor" is extended to include politicians.

      Murdoch has extensive corporate interests, some of which can be beneficially or adversely affected by legislation. So what he does is present himself and his network as "kingmaker". Before an election, he meets up with major candidates or major party officials and says: "I have a shopping list of political issues that I personally feel are important, such as the absence of international regulation on financial transfers. If you can impress me with your candidate's commitment to these issues, then I can deliver X million votes to your party by letting all my editors know, unambiguously, that I personally favour your candidate. Those editors will then slant the news to favour your candidate. They're my editors, I appoint them and sack them, and they know from my past actions that if they go against a stated preference of mine, they'll be replaced."

      So basically, Murdoch uses his news organisation as leverage to get himself and his organisation tax breaks, or exemption from certain investigations. In the UK he was shameless about his claimed ability to swing elections in the direction that he decided: when Labour got in, his "Sun" newspaper ran a large headline that read something like "It was the Sun wot won it", the message to politicians being, "I can make you or break you via my news media depending on how nice you are to me".

      If McCain had won, Murdoch would now be telling the Republican Party that it was his news network that had delivered them the election, and that they owed him and News International some major favours (and would have to continue being extra-nice to him if they wanted to win again in four years time).

      He figured that since the Republican Party had a structure that made it more easy to negotiate with than the Democrats, he'd have his news media head down the right-wing route and back the Republican candidates and their policies, ans a way to ingratiate himself with one of the two major parties. He'd also found from the UK newspaper market that it's comparatively easy to establish a loyal readership by whipping up nationalistic anti-foreigner fervour, and playing the patriot card (despite the fact that he himself was actually Australian rather than British at that point).

      As the long-time owner of a complex international web of financial structures that are partly designed to minimise or avoid tax by shunting profits around the globe, and as someone whose network has in the past sometimes been suspected of actually being technically insolvent, Murdoch is fiercely against many forms of international financial regulations (especially those involving making life more difficult for tax havens or requiring full disclosure of interests for corporations like News International). So playing the xenophobia card in each country that he operates in is also useful as a way of discouraging the local politicians from adopting, say, EU or other international guidelines on financial regulation of multinational companies. His media feed the local populations with stories encouraging their viewers and readers to resist any form of international meddling from "them outside", telling "us" what to do (unless of course, it's copyright or IP law).

      So I'm afraid that at least part of the US news media's current shiteness is actually due to deliberate biases being imposed upon parts of it, not for honest internal political reasons, but as part of the Murdoch financial/political gameplan. He's worked out how to "game" Western countries' political systems. There's a safeguard in US media law that's supposed to to prevent this sort of outside influence by foreigners, and that's part of why Murdoch had to become a naturalised US citizen when he wanted to expand his network inside the US.

      • Quite frankly that all comes off as a lefty paranoid rant fit for Daily Kos. I don't suppose you can substantiate any of it, can you?

    • So hold on - Murdoch has biased the news, and Walter Cronkite and his ilk were paragons of truth and virtue? Oh come on - Cronkite was the very template for the biased journalist. He very famously declared the Tet Offensive (a decisive victory) as a defeat. And it was, for no other reason than it was on the news every night.
    • I learned in writing school, never attempt to write about anything you do not know; for you will never make sense. I also learned; there are only seven strings (lines of thinking): mystery; calamity; treachery; violence; love; hope; success.

      Stories framed around these seven strings, have been written in: all the languages of civilization; have been acted out in: the histories of civilization; and are additionally acted out by: individuals; groups; communities, in daily life throughout all living things o

  • by ChePibe ( 882378 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @11:14AM (#27636681)

    Oh please.

    As if the profession weren't largely "trivial" enough.

    A Journalist is essentially this: a person with no education on a topic whatsoever and who likely already possesses an opinion of it is supposed to go out and write an informed, accurate, and neutral (or objective, whatever the standard is now) article on it for all the world to read.

    To say that "journalists" screw this up more often than not would be far too kind. Ever read a science article written by a "journalist"? I mean, how many miracle AIDS cures have journalists written about, all hoping to get the big scope, with nothing at all behind them? How often do run of the mill journalists get tech news even remotely right? As a law student, every time I hear a journalist covering any legal news I groan deep inside because the odds are quite strong that at least half of the time they will get things wrong. And heaven help them if they ever, ever have to quote a statistic or challenge a claim of a remotely scientific nature.

    It shouldn't surprise anyone that this is the case - journalism school is little more than half of an English degree with a few "ethics" and "media" classes thrown in. People don't make fun of Communications majors for nothing. How about a basic class on statistics so they could actually, you know, challenge someone on things like sample size or ask if an economic indicator is quarterly or annual? A basic introduction to jurisprudence so a reporter working in the legal field actually knows about procedure and the function of appellate courts?

    Journalists want to be the conduit of information to the world, and for a long time they were simply because real, qualified experts weren't easily accessible. Now, if I want to read up on legal news, I'll read the blogs of a few law professors, who are often kind enough to point to other blogs holding different viewpoints. If scientific news interest me, I'll look to blogs by experts in a field for more information. And if I want to know about politics, I'll look to bloggers in general. That there is a bias in their reporting doesn't bother me one bit - most are entirely open about their bias, and finding the other side(s) of the argument is a trivial task. Journalists, on the other hand, retain or attempt to retain a false, ridiculous "neutrality" - a bizarre, mostly American, concept in a world where most major papers freely admit to their slant.

    Now there are some great journalists out there, don't get me wrong. But good reporting is the exception, not the rule.

    Journalism was a trivial affair long before bloggers came on the scene, and journalists have only themselves to blame.

    • by ChePibe ( 882378 )


      Proofreading is my friend.

      And I have neglected my friend...

      Scope = scoop... and... yeah, there's a lot in there.

      My bad.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Right On!

      I've been mulling the state of "journalism" for years. When I worked in the aviation industry, I laughed when a so-called journalist covered a story about an 'event' deemed worthy of coverage by some editor who went the time-worn maxim, if it bleeds it leads, and sent some bonehead to the scene to get, "Just the facts, Ma'am."

      Most of these people wouldn't know an empennage from an expletive. They were lucky of they got the tail number of the plane written down and reported correctly, let alone

    • A Journalist is essentially this: a person with no education on a topic whatsoever and who likely already possesses an opinion of it is supposed to go out and write an informed, accurate, and neutral (or objective, whatever the standard is now) article on it for all the world to read.

      Interesting point, maybe journalists should be more like lawyers (gasp, but I'm serious, at least like some lawyers). I have no idea what number of lawyers actually do this, but I know some people that majored in chemistry, physics, biology, various engineering fields, economics, etc. as undergrads and then went on to law school. They will get all the education from law school regarding what is required of them as lawyers, but they also have a fair bit of knowledge on their particular field of undergradua

    • by swell ( 195815 )

      Government supervision of news will keep it clean and pure.

      Let's waste no energy with celebrity interviews, minor traffic incidents, fake news that actually promotes some business, PR announcements from politicians, etc. The government can be trusted to give us the straight scoop- news that matters, news we can use to build a stronger country.

      Not only is existing 'news' trivial, but redundant. In the US, every TV network & newspaper repeats the same news feed. Only the names of the newsreaders are chang

      • Government supervision of news will keep it clean and pure.

        The government controlling what you read, hear, and see about the world?

        What could possibly go wrong?

  • Anything beyond a historical quiz (like a Jeopardy format) is going to be childish and insulting... Unless its an 8 bit Dubya Bush Punch Out game.
  • Jacqui Smith: Expenses Raider?

    Players could compete to claim the most on expenses (homes, fridges, televisions, diamond rings, porn, et cetera) on expenses without being caught by the News of the World.

    • Players could compete to claim the most on expenses (homes, fridges, televisions, diamond rings, porn, et cetera) on expenses without being caught by the News of the World.

      Or a newspaper.

    • How about a FPS where you are John Prescott, and have to punch the greatest possible number of Paperrazzi before being hit by a tomato/custard pie/salacious revelation.

      Or even a porno game where you are a black prostitute and have to sleep with as many Conservative MPs as possible before they get elected. Read all about it []

  • I for one like to get my news from such established, objective, concise, accurate, informative establishments like /.

    What's this "karma hell" you speak off?
  • Not interested (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thermian ( 1267986 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @12:55PM (#27637313)

    No really. The television news services are really only interested in whose been raped/killed/imprisoned, and when it comes to foreign affairs, they show the nasty stuff more than anything.

    if ten people out of thousands in a protest start to fight, or do something like break windows, *thats* what they show, and they call everyone there anarchists. Honestly, it makes me sick.

  • This isn't exactly what the article seems to be proposing, but news games do already exist: []
  • Unmask a disloyal CIA agent and win a FOX News T-shirt!

  • has been doing this for a long time. All markets are essentially games about the news, whether news of companies, sports teams, or world events.
  • News usually refer us as violent peole who use their games as simlation for mass murders... does that mean i'll be able to shoot their newscasters?


  • Current Events for 100 Alex.


  • trivia

  • My friends have an indie game development studio [] that's basically been doing this for years. You might have heard of them since they did a MidEast "Peace Strategy" game [] that got lots of critical acclaim.

    However, just because they make great games based on real news, doesn't mean that they have an easy business model that just prints money. If you're doing traditional sales, you have to worry about piracy. And if you're trying what's popular now, free web-based games, then you're relying on almost the sam

  • We're doing this with BattleCell []. (Risk on Google maps for millions of players)

    Slashdot Submission []

    There are many variations, but the weather makes a good example. Say that you have cells in Florida. Now, suppose that the real-world Florida gets hit with a hurricane. Naturally, production rates of your cells in Florida will suffer.

    Obviously, news can be applied in many ways to keep things interesting.

  • Since Big Media already plays games with the news, is it a stretch to make the news itself into a game? Guess who the biggest loser is? Hint: not Big Media.

  • Back in January of this year, a cool little game closed it's doors at [] The idea was pretty simple - they present you with breaking news, or specific news stories that could have heavy bias etc, and then you guess what you think the outcome would be.

    It was a cool idea, and I believe was done as a demo for the whole news-as-a-game idea, but it was really fun!
    • Back in January of this year, a cool little game closed it's doors at [] The idea was pretty simple - they present you with breaking news, or specific news stories that could have heavy bias etc, and then you guess what you think the outcome would be.

      I don't know why these articles skip over PlayTheNews. It's pretty much exactly what the authors are talking about and it never gets a mention. They are not making any new games, but there are still some really interesting ones on the site to play.

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith