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.'"
o'reilly is a brilliant catalyst... he knows his topics very well,
Please. O'Reilly is an obnoxious blowhard who illustrates his ignorance of his topics with his every word. Just recently I heard him give some shpiel about how Islam is the enemy of the United States, and that the Koran is on the same shelf as Mein Kampf. The man is a fool, and his audience are bigger fools for thinking that he has any insight at all other than faux-outrage.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
(What?? You what meee to feed my own children?? That's what government's for.)
Yeah. Starve the poor kids. It's their fault anyway. People like you should be ground up and made into food. And fed to poor children. Idiots like you are a great renewable resource. As long as we have Fox news, there will be jackasses like you.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Since the piece is talking about the author's experience on the Donohue show, the headline attributing the same tactics to other shows "assumes facts not in evidence," as a lawyer would say.
My problem with the Fox News Channel is they claim to be unbiased, when they're the worst news channel w/r/t that particular vice. Of course, whether or not it's even possible to be unbiased remains to be seen.
I can argue with him all day from the comfort of my living room, but unfortunately, I ain't a pundit. He's more of a bully than brilliant, like many other talk show hosts, they're more into discussing unrelated issues.
Example: The whole banning "under god" from the pledge in the US. Regardless of if you agree or not, she invited the fellow who brought the lawsuit, and instead of discussing the issue (the establishment clause, seperation of church & state), she kept implying he was a bad parent, and when he wouldn't play ball, she dropped into just repeating herself, like he didn't understand the questions. He obviously wanted to stay on topic, unlike her and this post.
Any how. O'Reilly does the same thing, and is especially condecending (sp).
Well, sorry, had to rant.
Dan
1. Juvenile violence is at a 30-year low.
While I'm not debating your overall argument, what's your evidence for this particular point? Incidents like Columbine give people (including me) a pretty strong impression that juvenile violence is on the increase--maybe in numbers, maybe in level, but things like that sure didn't happen 10 years ago when I was in school.