Slashdot Mirror

:

A SUMMIT CONVENED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MEDIA AND THE FAMILY AND IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY

Could it be that a politically motivated study by a political activist psychologist would come up with a conclusion that he had already decided on?

Remember, this is an organization that declared violent video games to be "Killographic Entertainment" and which claimed that Stubbs the Zombie was promoting cannibalism in our nations youth.

Sadly, the soccer-mom (or is that hockey-mom now?) audience for this anti-boy (notice the anti-male-children comment in the article "About 90% of Americans ages 816 play video games, and they spend about 13 hours a week doing soeven more if theyre boys." Even more, now that's precise, isn't it?) will read it uncritically happy that it confirms their biases.

Demagoguery works both ways...

Sorry, not buying it. Why can't grandma pony up 40 bucks, especially since she gets a fat social security check every month? Instead of your demagogic misdirection, how 'bout you face facts: The government is subsidizing mind control devices in order to ensure the passivity of the populace.

(As a person who hates TV and doesn't own one, it really pisses me off that my tax dollars are being spent on this boondoggle. Fortunately, the avarice of the convert-makers will ensure that the device costs far more than 40 dollars.)

You want demagoguery? How about this: The government should send a check for 40 dollars to every single cigarette smoker to account for increased prices (because of lawsuits & taxes). Or maybe the government should send 40 grand to Coca-cola for every soda/pop machine that is removed from our schools because of those uppity parents' groups.

Your demagogic judo misses a very salient point: TV is bad for you. It's bad for your mind, your body and your soul. Why is the government subsidizing something that, by almost all accounts, is detrimental to our health? Children spend 44.5 hours per week in front of screens -- as much time as I spend at my job -- and the government is not only unconcerned they're funding this? Don't you see something wrong here?

The posters who mentioned Bread & Circuses are right on. This is about pacifying the population. If we didn't have TV to numb our brains people might start to wake up to all the nefarious shit going on around us. Ideally, TV would be an excellent medium to tackle these social ills, but the mega-media-corps rarely seem to do so, especially when their own bottom line is at risk.

Instead, we will all continue working all day, going home to veg for a few hours and then waking up and doing it again... and with our softened brains we'll never have time to ponder why a highly-advanced country like ours works so much, yet has so little to show for it (besides bigscreen TVs). With American Idol on we'll never deduce that the rich are stealing from us through inflation, real-estate boom & busts, taxes and other financial trickery that make it possible for the middle classes' earning power to actually decline over the last 30 years despite the rich getting fantastically richer.

We are being FUCKED. But most people are too hypnotized to notice.

As I've said for years, some video games, especially ultraviolent and killographic games and certain industry practices deserve some public condemnation. The evidence for a causal link between violent games and violent behavior is mounting. And with so much money to be made, some in the industry often seem to lose sight of their public responsibility to protect children. As I've said before, however, there are a lot of very good video games. The term video game shouldn't be derogatory, and the term "gamer" shouldn't be a dirty word either.

Criticizing the people who play video games for the irresponsibility of some in the industry is nothing more than guilt by association. Millions of people-hardworking, responsible adults and healthy, happy kids-play good video games.

Censorship and demonization are not the answer. If we antagonize thoughtful, reasonable people, we'll only make it harder to reform a flawed industry and protect our kids. We'll never find "the better way, the more effective way, to allow both freedom and responsibility to co-exist," that Matthew Metzo hopes for in his letter.

In case you didn't know, NIMF is a right-of-center conservative, sensationalist group that finds things -- anything -- to complain about in the media. These are the same guys who gave a grade of 'F' to the ESRB's rating system. They also advocate -- with soon-to-be-ex-Senator Joe Lieberman as their mouthpiece -- a uniform media rating system monitored by an "independent" oversight group.

They're not nearly as bad as James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" group. In fact, they've actually told Jack Thompson to take a hike. But they are in no way the friends of the games industry. Given NIMF's record, the "summit" likely had nothing to do with a frank exchange of views or exploring the true nature of mass media and its impact on the human psyche, and was just a schmooze-fest for people bent on circumventing the First Amendment.

Attending would have only legitimized the event. The games industry was correct to stay away.

Schwab

In case you didn't know, NIMF is a right-of-center conservative, sensationalist group that finds things -- anything -- to complain about in the media. These are the same guys who gave a grade of 'F' to the ESRB's rating system. They also advocate -- with soon-to-be-ex-Senator Joe Lieberman as their mouthpiece -- a uniform media rating system monitored by an "independent" oversight group.

They're not nearly as bad as James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" group. In fact, they've actually told Jack Thompson to take a hike. But they are in no way the friends of the games industry. Given NIMF's record, the "summit" likely had nothing to do with a frank exchange of views or exploring the true nature of mass media and its impact on the human psyche, and was just a schmooze-fest for people bent on circumventing the First Amendment.

Attending would have only legitimized the event. The games industry was correct to stay away.

Schwab

Ok, so MediaWise gave them an F. So who the hell is MediaWise, and why should I (or the ESRB) care about what they have to say?

Anyone can start an organization and give out Fs to everything they hate. It's easy, watch.

The Headcase88 Advisory Group gave MediaWise a D+ for "grading accuracy", a 0/2 for "ability to get to their site by typing the name of their organization and adding .com or .org", and an F--- for "amount of positive impact on society per dollar".

See, it's really not all that hard.

And from what I can tell, Gods Of War has "blatant pornography" that isn't hidden.

All their site lists for a "review" is: Description: Players take on the role of a warrior who uses chained blades and a variety of other weapons, meaning the player can create a unique method of vicious attacks. The main character can snap some characters in half and encourages the user find new ways to kill the other characters.

All categories including sex and nudity are rated STOP, yet they say nothing about the nudity and sex. That doesn't seem very informative to me. Not sure if it is another group, but there is one out there I recall seeing that really goes through the games and list lots of stuff.

So, you have a game which is rated M, with the label:

Contains sexual content, violence, drug use, heavy lifting, baby snatching, people getting their heads chopped off with katanas, swearing, bad language, improper use of commas, and buckets of blood.

Then, some people discover a mode which has you voluntarily patch your own game with a non-company made or approved patch so you can see a fully clothed male and a barbie doll engaging in quasi sex acts.

So, because of this *one* mistake, the ESRB gets an F for accuracy? How about we take a look at the other 100 games released last year and see how "accurate" the ratings are. Did "Katamary Damacy" deserve a "E" for everyone? How about "Chessmaster 8000"? "Resident Evil 4" deserved the M rating I'm sure, and didn't need an AO rating. So right there we're at a score of around 80% for accuracy, which from school is at least a B.

I'm guessing that the "The National Institute for Media and the Family" has an axe to grind - and looking at their review of Harvest Moon which rates the game's "Illegal/Harmful: Yellow" - I mean, it's a game about farming! Where's the "Illegal/Harmful" in the entire game!

Anyway. Organization with an axe to grind about entertainment in general being unsafe for, well, just about everybody gives the ratings board they don't control an F. In other news, Republicans give Democrats an F for being patriotic, and Democrats give Bush an F for managing foreign conflicts.

At least, that's my opinion after reading the articles. I could be wrong.

http://www.mediafamily.org/

Gratuitous Violence, Talking Heads, Slothful Media, the War Upon Iraq.

Question: does hacking the DVD constitute a violation of the EULA? If so, then here's someone else's kid, whose parents are allowing to play a game rated Mature +17. The rating is clearly marked on the box, on the cartridge and the start-up screen. Then the kid illegally hacks the DVD, and the parents are mad at the gamemaker?

Give me a break.

Besides, what's a bit of gratuitous sex; in between Texas Chainsaw Styled Contract Hit Massacres, multiple acts of deadly assault with the intent to carjack and, players looking really Soldier of Fortune GQ in high fashion body-armor, difficult to obtain in the Iraq Theater, while they engage in heavy artillery firefights with police? Sex puts the game over the top? What the hell is wrong with America anyway? The country is still hung up over the decade past Clinton's lies under oath about consensual sex with a willing and adult partner, but presently, a president led this country dishonestly into a war upon Iraq, and it is okey dokey Dubya, you tried...wink and a nod?

Priorities please. They are not my children, nor my responsibilities. I am sorry if this places a burden on parents. I freely chose NOT to have children, and have carefully entered into and participated in relationships with this in mind. Isn't it enough that I am required by law to cover some of the tax burden that Congress has chosen to foist upon me, in an effort to shield parents from the fair market costs of procreation? Now, there are cries to censor too, because a pernicious preponderance of piss poor parenting prevails in our society?

Listen, off in the distance; is that the Urologist I hear gleefully snipping away in his outpatient clinic's operating theater?

To top it off, Corporate Media Outlets expose their lazily negligent practises again with their willingness to accept copy from any policy breeder org without researching the source. Why has nobody questioned the overtly commercial nature of the National Institute on the Media and the Family's website, dripping saturated advertisements for their services and products throughout. Is it because the org's title itself exudes the aroma of predictable reports fattened up after feeding on Adobe's bloat enabling Acrobat software? Their statements and public releases spew commercialisations. Their National Parental Warning Press Release regarding GTA last week began with an introductory sentence that was a blatant pitch expressing speaking engagement availability for the Chairman:

"Hidden Pornography Easily Accessible; David Walsh Ph.D. Available for Comment".

Within the meat of the release, a hook was incorporated into the warning, reeling the fish back to one of the National Institute on the Media and the Family's register trademarked product lines. It's an unseen below the belt subliminal sucker punch. From the release:

"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" never belonged in the hands of kids," said psychologist Dr. Walsh. "We are taking the unusual step of alerting parents to the pornography available through this game to any child or teen who is Internet savvy. This gives greater urgency to our message to parents: Become MediaWise: Watch What Your Kids Watch."

It is self-evident that any game with a Mature rating doesn't belong "in the hands of kids". Why is Dr. Walsh restating the obvious? Could it have anything to do with the fact that upon visiting their website, one discovers that MediaWise has morphed into MediaWise® a product-line for sale on the Institute's website with a price tag of $250 for the MediaWise® parent education kit, $995 for the

Gratuitous Violence, Talking Heads, Slothful Media, the War Upon Iraq.

Question: does hacking the DVD constitute a violation of the EULA? If so, then here's someone else's kid, whose parents are allowing to play a game rated Mature +17. The rating is clearly marked on the box, on the cartridge and the start-up screen. Then the kid illegally hacks the DVD, and the parents are mad at the gamemaker?

Give me a break.

Besides, what's a bit of gratuitous sex; in between Texas Chainsaw Styled Contract Hit Massacres, multiple acts of deadly assault with the intent to carjack and, players looking really Soldier of Fortune GQ in high fashion body-armor, difficult to obtain in the Iraq Theater, while they engage in heavy artillery firefights with police? Sex puts the game over the top? What the hell is wrong with America anyway? The country is still hung up over the decade past Clinton's lies under oath about consensual sex with a willing and adult partner, but presently, a president led this country dishonestly into a war upon Iraq, and it is okey dokey Dubya, you tried...wink and a nod?

Priorities please. They are not my children, nor my responsibilities. I am sorry if this places a burden on parents. I freely chose NOT to have children, and have carefully entered into and participated in relationships with this in mind. Isn't it enough that I am required by law to cover some of the tax burden that Congress has chosen to foist upon me, in an effort to shield parents from the fair market costs of procreation? Now, there are cries to censor too, because a pernicious preponderance of piss poor parenting prevails in our society?

Listen, off in the distance; is that the Urologist I hear gleefully snipping away in his outpatient clinic's operating theater?

To top it off, Corporate Media Outlets expose their lazily negligent practises again with their willingness to accept copy from any policy breeder org without researching the source. Why has nobody questioned the overtly commercial nature of the National Institute on the Media and the Family's website, dripping saturated advertisements for their services and products throughout. Is it because the org's title itself exudes the aroma of predictable reports fattened up after feeding on Adobe's bloat enabling Acrobat software? Their statements and public releases spew commercialisations. Their National Parental Warning Press Release regarding GTA last week began with an introductory sentence that was a blatant pitch expressing speaking engagement availability for the Chairman:

"Hidden Pornography Easily Accessible; David Walsh Ph.D. Available for Comment".

Within the meat of the release, a hook was incorporated into the warning, reeling the fish back to one of the National Institute on the Media and the Family's register trademarked product lines. It's an unseen below the belt subliminal sucker punch. From the release:

"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" never belonged in the hands of kids," said psychologist Dr. Walsh. "We are taking the unusual step of alerting parents to the pornography available through this game to any child or teen who is Internet savvy. This gives greater urgency to our message to parents: Become MediaWise: Watch What Your Kids Watch."

It is self-evident that any game with a Mature rating doesn't belong "in the hands of kids". Why is Dr. Walsh restating the obvious? Could it have anything to do with the fact that upon visiting their website, one discovers that MediaWise has morphed into MediaWise® a product-line for sale on the Institute's website with a price tag of $250 for the MediaWise® parent education kit, $995 for the

But isn't this like asking whether there are studies linking smoking to ill health? If you've ever played video games, the effect is so obvious that the only people who need to have a "study" are those who profit from selling the games and want to try to convince people they're harmless.

Q: If I spend hours a day breathing toxic chemicals, will it affect my lungs?
Q: If I spend hours a day looking at porn, will it affect my attitude toward women?
Q: If I spend hours a day practicing killing people on a video screen, will it make me more violent?
Q: If I spend hours a day bathing in urine, will it affect my skin?
Q: If I spend hours a day watching Eddie Murphy comedy routines, will it affect my vocabulary?

Aren't the answers to these and many similar questions obvious?

Even though such a weblication could be stuponfucious, we really should think of the children.

they want their headline back!

BTM

When laparoscopy was first developed, the surgeon would peer directly through a rigid fiberoptic laparoscope to visualize structures within the body, both for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Nowadays, we just stick a video camera over the eye-hole on the laparoscope, and watch the pictures in real time on an attached monitor. The hardest part about learning laparoscopy is training your brain and hand so that regardless of the orientation, you can move the instruments in your hand such that they travel onscreen in the direction you intend. It's like using a mouse in three dimensions, but with the additional difficulty that moving the mouse "up" in physical space won't necessarily translate into one's instrument moving "up" on the monitor (and within the patient's abdomen). Once you get the hang of it, it's second nature, and you don't even think about the disconnect between what your hands are doing, and what the instrument is doing onscreen.

Even before this study was released, I realized that perhaps by playing more video games I could become a better laparoscopist, with the video game controller forcing my mind to overcome the disconnect between my hand movements and the movements of instruments on the monitor. Alas, I've never been into video games. I sold my copy of Halo because I could never get past the first level. Now my Xbox just chugs happily along as a media receiver.

1. real-life violent games are positively related to agressive behavior
   
2. violent games are becoming more prevalent
   
3. especially for inner city schools, violence is on the increase
   

1. real-life violent games are positively related to agressive behavior
   
2. violent games are becoming more prevalent
   
3. especially for inner city schools, violence is on the increase
   

Err... what does this have to do with high school students?

Harvard teaches other stuff than just medicine.

Getting into medical school requires an undergrad degree first.

I realize that you were trying to type quickly to get FP... but come on.

Maybe you were providing an obscure reference to some harvard study?

AC

Uh huh. Given that the expert quoted is also the Director of Research for The National Institute on Media and the Family, I can't consider him an unbiased source. (Besides, if they can't spell centre right, then they can sod off)

Humour is a relative thing, but I personally find a subtle parody much funnier than a blatant one. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and all that.

Enough with the victimhood nonsense! Enough pretending like it is being inflicted on you!

Is this a sick joke? Everyone is a victim. Everyone is abused. Everyone is being held hostage by forces bigger than themselves. We are helpless! Ohh no! Panic!

GROW UP PEOPLE. It is only a video game. Play it, don't play it. Who cares.

Perhaps this site needs a new motto. SlashDot: There place where Libertarians (or whatever this idiot is) know more about addiction than Psychologists.

If you have some conclusive evidence that video game "addiction" is not real, then you should present it now. Otherwise, you'll just have to accept that perhaps video games can be addictive (the jury's still out on that: see the bottom of this page for a list of articles in academic journals on the topic).

Perhaps these people are talking about becoming addicted to video games, and perhaps their addictions are real. I don't think you can prove otherwise. In the overwhelmingly likely event that you cannot, then your blase attitude not only foolish, but perhaps downright harmful (Imagine what it would be like if people reacted like this to alcoholics!) So stop acting like you know more than everybody else, including the people who are actually studying this issue.