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.'"

9 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. Ugh by Klerck · · Score: -1, Troll

    Video games obviously cause REAL violence. Just look at Columbine. I think that's reason enough to ignore the first amendment just this once and outlaw them.

  2. here's an article on violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    I got this article off usenet, its written by a guy named Stanley Feinbaum.



    Lets talk about Jon Carmack. Jon is the legendary programmer of such classic PC games as Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke nukem 3d, Quake 1, 2, and 3, unreal, and the upcoming doom3. Jon has single handedly created the genre known as the first-person-shooter. He has also popularized the Direct3d 3d format over Microsoft's competing Opengl format, as well as caused public interest in 3d cards when he first released accelerated quake for the s3 virge chipset. Jon carmack has redefined gaming on PC's.

    Now stop for a moment and think... What would have happened if Albert Einstein had worked creating amazing pinball games instead of creating the theory of relativity? Humanity would suffer! Jon carmack is unfortunately doing JUST THIS, using his gifts at computer coding to create games instead of furthering the knowledge of humanity. Carmack could have been working for NASA or the US military, but instead he simply sits around coding violent computer games.

    Is this a waste of a special and rare talent? Sadly, the answer is yes.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Not only is Jon carmack not contributing to society, he is causing it's downfall. What was the main reason for the mass murder of dozens of people in columbine? Doom. It's always the same story... Troubled youth plays doom or quake, he arms himself to the teeth, he kills his classmates. This has happened hundreds of times in the US alone. Carmack is not only wasting his talents and intelligence; he is single-handedly causing the deaths of many young men and women. How does he sleep at night?

    Carmack is a classic example of a very talented and intelligent human being that is bent on total world destruction. Incredibly, he has made millions of dollars getting people hooked on psychotic games where they compete on the internet to see who can dismember the most people. I believe there is something morally wrong when millions of people have computerized murder fantasies, and we have Jon Carmack to thank. Carmack has used his superior intellect to create mayhem in society. Many people play games such as quake so much that their minds are permanently warped. A cousin of mine has been in therapy for 6 months after he lost a 'death match' and became catatonic.

    It is unfortunate that most people do not realize how much this man has damaged all the things we have worked hard for in America. Jon has wasted his intelligence, caused the deaths of innocent children, and warped this country forever. To top it off, he got rich in the process and is revered by millions of computer users worldwide. Perhaps one day the US government will see the light and confine Jon Carmack somewhere with no computers so he can no longer use his intelligence to wreak havoc on society.

  3. Re:Childless intellectuals... by Hack+Shoeboy · · Score: -1, Troll
    I'm pretty sure "concerned mothers" are a greater threat to freedom than terrorists ever were...

    You are a tool and a half. Only an intellectual could believe something so foolish.

    --

    IN TEH FUCHAR, LITERSY WLIL EB OPSHANAL!!!!!111
  4. Re:from the weekly periodical: "duh" by metachimp · · Score: 0, Troll

    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
  5. Re:long live fretting mothers by metachimp · · Score: 0, Troll

    (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
  6. Chung? Crossfire? O'Reilly? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.

  7. Re:from the weekly periodical: "duh" by DrMaurer · · Score: 0, Troll

    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
  8. Re:Who's Worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Sex with a mare.

  9. Re:Three points to push home by achurch · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.