Slashdot Mirror
Violence, Video Games And Donahue
nsda's deviant writes: "Salon is running an article written by Henry Jenkins, the director of MIT's new comparative media studies program. His article on Salon details blow-by-blow the shrewd tactics of cable TV's nightly debate programs like O'Reilly, Connie Chung, Cross Fire and of course the return of Donnahue. It also sheds lights on mass media's promotion of violence as ratings excitment and actively publicizing violence (ala Grand Theft Auto 3) for more ratings / controversy. The debate over video game violence has been a frequent topic on /. but this gives it quite a different twist. My favorite quote is 'those GTA3 clips seemed a whole lot more bloody when he (Donahue) was watching them before the show.'"
It really was.
An article bemoaning the absurdity of linking games to real-world violence is obviously preaching to the choir here on Slashdot, but it's worth reading for anybody with an interest in media (and media bias). It's unfortunate that Jenkins' ideas weren't given air, but worse is that they probably never will, as long as video games are "for kids."
I'm reminded of the troubles some comic book artists have been given over free speech, and the uphill battle of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. (Check out www.cbldf.org if you have a moment. They're fighting the good fight.)
Anyways. It's too bad such a well-written and insightful article ended up at Salon, rather than some Congressional hearing on the matter; it won't ever be absorbed by hyper-conservative parents and lawmakers who can somehow justify relinquishing responsibility for their children through legislation.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but an amazing thing happened to me last week. I stopped playing games, and I'm a HUGE game fan. In the last year I've played the following games
religiously(more than 60 hours total):
Everquest, Counter-strike, Nethack, Civ I and III, Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft I and II, Baldur's Gate II, Mechwarrior 4, TFC, Day of Defeat, Bards Tale, Wasteland, Metroid, Master of Orion, Master of Magic...and I'm sure I forgot more than a few.
Now I'm asking you, is there a single title above that doesn't have warfare as it's main theme?
I mean...it just struck me. Every game I play is about war.
"On Donahue, activists are moms and intellectuals are presumed to be childless."
If you search the media, especially television, this type of labeling is rampant. There is the view espoused by the network, and then there is the "other side." Those on the other side are labeled in a way to make them seem heartless, or at least like a member of some strange, fringe organization of which no "normal" person would ever be a part.
Thus, you have "Bob, a right-wing conservative senator" but rarely "Maria, a left-wing liberal senator." You have "Sarah, member of an organization of people concerned about child safety", but "Charlton, leader of a powerful right-wing lobbying group opposing reasonable gun controls." You get "Bob, professor of history at Foobar ivy-league school" (omitting that he also just happens to be a member of the extreme XYZ Anti-whatever group) and you get "Jane, lobbyist for ABC pro-whatever group" (omitting that she is a professor of law of Barbar ivy-league school).
Basically, you can't trust anything you see or hear on hear on TV these days, and the print media isn't much better. If they say Bob is XYZ. You'd better be wondering if Bob is XYZ or even if his name is Bob.
Bogus point.
Concerned mothers are identified as "concerned mothers" because that clearly defines their stake in the issue. Jenkins, on the other hand, uses his credentials as a researcher to argue his point of view. That makes him a "researcher" (and an extremely biased one at that). I don't see any presumption of childlessness here. If Jenkins wants to argue on behalf of intelligent parents, he must drop the pretense of being a professional researcher. As it is, his position is already compromised by the fact that he has engaged in "sponsored research." This is a rhetorical fact: You have to talk like who you claim to be. And while academics of Jenkins's ilk may bemoan the polemical nature of popular discourses and long for more nuanced intellectual exchanges, from the outside it just looks like some ivory tower dweeb got a whupping in a public debate. Instead of pointing fingers at Circus Media, a wiser man would inquire into the privileged status of his views, and the political implications of his isolation. How does somebody get through life thinking that everybody's on his side, or would be if only people would listen to him?
Life has pretty much always been a constant struggle. War has been an omnipresent fixture of human existance. There are games that don't deal with war. Games like The Sims, the various Tycoon games, Sim <whatever>, etc. They do fairly well in the mainstream. But there is a certain appeal to war and fighting games. Perhaps it's a way for us to take part in war without actually damaging anything or killing anyone. We get to experience some simulation of the decision-making, the strategy, the tactics, and to some (very limited) extent, some of the emotions of fighting a war or battle without the risk. Without conflict, there is not much you can do with a game besides create elaborate puzzles, or open-ended, non-goal-oriented games. Even sports are a conflict of sorts. Sure, it's not usually a life or death thing, but the conflict exists. It's just so basic that it's hard to imagine there not being a great number of games that use it as a basis. Sure they could make games that are non-violent, but that would rule out creating games about the vast majority of our history (and our present) without being highly revisionist.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I agree with you about 90 percent. This is the exact same way I view GTA3. Once I start playing it I can't stop. Now I would never advocate banning a game, but GTA3 certianly gives me pause. I consider my self a sensible, responsible, well adjusted individual. After I play GTA3 however, when I go out in my car, every car I see, I start thinking about stealing this car or that car, or how much fun it might be to blow this or that up. I can't help but think to myself, that If I am thinking this, what about the disturbingly large portion of population thats not quite right in the head.
Something I was taught early on by my best teacher ever, was that it doesn't matter who is making the argument, as long as it is sound. I don't care if it's usama, bush, the kid next door, a researcher, or a "concerned mother", I _try_ to listen to what they're saying, and try to expand on their ideas and/or think up counterpoints. That being said, no one is perfect, and often when I'm listening to something my own biases will creep in (or dominate), although often when I think of something later on, in isolation, I will be less biased and honestly evaluate what was said to the best of my ability. (Which is why it's best not to assume an argument is over after a single debate, but revisit it many times and hear from many people before making any important conclusion)
About the circus media, I'd say that although from time to time some insight into an issue is shown on TV and some idea I haven't discovered is brought to light, much of the time what is being said can be obvious, misleading, alarmist, ridiculously biased, and so on. I've never seen a news anchor or anyone on TV showing any actual thought, with the possible exception of Bill Maher and some of his guests on politically incorrect, which was of course not perfect, but sometimes brought out interesting points on issues that one would rarely see on TV normally. I don't mean to say that TV news has no value, it does, it's just that whenever any story requires analysis (or doesn't but it is given) it seems like good interesting points rarely come up. The people who are giving their opinions are so often simply assume they are correct, and people almost never admit they are wrong, or even could be wrong. Which reminds me of Dennis Miller of course, who always mentions "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Often (always?) it seemed like a very sarcastic statement, but the idea that it is shameful to be mistaken, and then admit you're wrong, is one that has always really bothered me.
Anyway to conclude, from my point of view, the best arguments I've ever had weren't so much arguments as discussions where neither "side" assumed they were right and argued from that point of view but brought out as many important ideas as possible, to try and acheive the best understand of an issue as possible. There is of course more to it than that and some of what I've said needs clarification, but it's an idea.
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
What good does it do to keep violent games out of the hands of minors, but let adults have them? Kids learn how to behave by watching older people. I've never understood why parents feel that it's OK to immerse themselves in all kinds of corruptive situations (violent games, R movies, porn, dirty jokes, sleazy clubs, bars) and pretend that it's not going to affect their beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Garbage in, garbage out. You think you can protect yourself, but you can't very much. You will be changed no matter how vigilant you are to fend off unwanted influences.
It's a conflict of effort to try to keep children pure but let adults run wild. The two realms cannot be compartmentalized. IMHO, if there's anything that would be inappropriate for a child, it's probably also inappropriate for an adult. If we're going to fight violence in society, we need to realize that we're all in this together! If something is too violent for kids, then adults, in most cases, should not have need or want of it either. If the adults are really serious - if they truly care - about blunting the effects of violence, they should be willing to sacrifice some entertainment and pleasure for themselves for the sake of the children and society. This goes for consumers of entertainment, producers of entertainment, and promoters of entertainment. Any effort to wipe out violent influences (but not all violent content; context and tone are everything - compare Schindler's List to GTA3) must be a concerted effort.
Most of you don't think there's enough evidence of the influence of video games. Advertisers certainly have full confidence that what appears on the screen powerfully both affects and effects (produces) behavior. It's ironic that the video game-producing companies argue that their games don't influence behavior, but then turn around and spend lots of money on advertising which they obviously believe does influence behavior. Follow the money - that's what they really know to be true.
Many corporations line up every year to pay up to $2,200,000 for 30 seconds of screen time during the Super Bowl. Maybe they have some research you don't know about? C'mon! We need evidence that media influences behavior like we need evidence that gravity influences behavior. Remember this story about the fast and furious influence of TV in Bhutan (the last place on earth to legalize TV)? The fact that TV (a passive medium) profoundly influences people is well established. Doesn't it make sense that an active medium such as video games would also have a powerful influence (albeit different in some ways)?
Furthermore, games don't last for a single 30 seconds, but hours and hours, days, months, repeated endlessly, being drummed into your mind. And YOU get to play the action in a first person situation, thereby internalizing its content much more than an advertisement. But you think you're so strong that you're not influenced? Yeah, right.
It troubles me that people have an appetite for violent content in the first place. Is amusement more important than character? Ha, stupid question to ask on Slashdot. I know I'm different.It's ironic that people are screaming for peace between nations, but they don't want peace in their own homes.
Slashdot community! Perhaps it's time to put the slashdot effect to good use. Let's fill his inbox. We /are/ the target market for this kind of drivel, really. We're the ones with the desired spending power, the intelligence, and presence to really make a difference. (Maybe) Anyways, my letter to donahue@msnbc.com is included below. Comments welcome in my inbox.
/barely/ controlled spin on teen violence stemming from video games absolutely ludicrous.
/imply/ you want to be the 'voice of reason' and counterpoint to the unholy shitstorm that is media sensationalism, but I don't see you trying very hard.
i ns_on_donahue/index.html
TO: Donahue
FROM: Gary Javed (gnosis23 (-at-) hotmail.com)
TITLE: Henry Jenkins and 'violent' video games: a rebuttal from a concerned parent.
Your treatment of Henry Jenkins was absurd and pitiful.
Your
You
How about actually looking at the facts that violent crime, especially amongst teens, is down enormously! (30 year low!!)
How about actually seeking out the causes for teens to lash out at the world around them? Frustration at being supressed, mis-labled, pigeon holed into roles that truly aren't them?
Being tagged, over and over again, as the suggested source of everything wrong in the world, a world that they inhereited with these very same problems intact?
I'm well beyond being a teenager, and a father of three. I grew up on video games. I play all sorts of games with my kids, from GTA 3 with my eldest son, to incredibly rewarding, complex, and nonviolent games such as Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. My kids are well balanced, caring, empathic, and intelligent. They aren't going to be the ones to enact another Columbine.
And I know, because I actually talk to them, and listen to their problems, complaints, and fears of this world. You know what they fear most? They fear having the freedom to express themselves, explore for themselves, and skin their knees a little in this 'game' called life being taken away from them. They fear having no room left to play and simply be kids, growing up and learning the way they should. From experience, and their own honest mistakes.
Save for perhaps independent film, art, fine music, and of course, fine literature, these games offer the most dynamic and complex storylines and experiences available of all media.
Mainstream TV is worthless. It does nothing but emphasize, glorify, and amplify all that is negative in life. And it wallows in it, and seeks to shock it's viewers into fear-based submission and defeat through it.
Your 'alternative' viewpoints are merely one more disgusting example of it.
I certainly won't be watching your show, and I'll be telling everyone I know my objections to you as well. (All over the globe! Viva la Internet!)
Shame on you, Phil Donahue.
Shame on you.
If you have not seen the following article, you should read it, and perhaps comment on it on your show or website. That would take some honest werewithal.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/20/jenk
Regards,
Gary Javed
There's a difference between the people who sell GTA3 and Donohue. The folks who sell GTA3 are selling an entertainment product. It's clearly labeled that it contains violence and gore that would upset small children. It contains themes of conflict that one might find in a movie for adults.
Donohue, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to position himself as an educator, enlightening the masses and pointing out evildoers. But what Donohue is selling is eyeballs, to advertisers. He's a talking head, who exists for the sole purpose of spending eight minutes getting you interested enough that you won't walk away during the CONTENT of the show: ads for linoleum cleaners, correspondence schools, and get-rich-quick schemes. It's the same difference between Larry Flynt and a child molester: Larry Flynt makes it clear that he's selling a product for mature adults, who consent to viewing the product, which they have to go out of their way to purchase.
Now, a run-of-the-mill pedophile, on the other hand, will pose as a friend. A helpful mentor who loves children. Who cares about them and can be trusted with them. And in between "protecting" them, well, that's where the real purpose comes in.
I can respect someone I disagree with, who has reasoned opinions and behaves in a way consistent with his words. I have no respect at all for the kind of sleaze that is Donohue.
Let me tell you a story about the "freedom" the country down under has. Grand Theft Auto 3 was released and then recalled. It was re-released with Region-Specific Censors on it. In the land down under, we can't get the hookers to get into the cars with us. There are ways around it. That's your choice, whether you choose to patch the EXE, or whether you *shudder* change the Regional Settings, or whether you leave it as is, it's your choice. It also goes for the gameplay. You can do minimal illegal things to complete the game. Then, you may choose to keep on the straight and narrow and drive around the city, or fly if you can do this, or you can slaughter millions of people. Either can be fun, it's your choice.
*shrug*. I could pretty easily ridicule you for your inferred claim that 5 terrorists are likely to (in and of themselves) promote the destruction of more freedoms than 5,000,000 overprotective parents reacting to overstated non-threats such as this one. There are so few terrorists and so many parents so afraid for their childrens' safety (and yet so unconcerned for their childrens' civil liberties) that to claim that the former makes any kind of a dent is ridiculous.
In any event, terrorists don't take freedoms -- they only take lives. It's those who react -- such as the concerned parents -- whose political action actually causes liberties to be removed. 3,000 or 5,000 lives is inconsequential compared to the rights of millions.
Finally, the saganism is wrongheaded. Claims require proof. Bigger claims also require... proof. Smaller claims require... proof. What constitutes proof (or, at a minimum, a demonstration that ones' previous assumptions were incorrect) does not vary based on exactly how wrong ones' previous assumptions happened to be at the time. An experiment that demonstrates that time dilation occurs needs to demonstrate a limited set of things -- if it does so, time dilation does occur. If time dilation had been demonstrated before Einstein's theory of general relativity was available to explain it, would you have rejected the hard scientific evidence showing that it does for not being "extraordinary" enough?