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.'"
One facet of what he writes struck me as being very obvious, but I've never thought of it before. The activists against video game violence are always described as concerned mothers, whereas Dr. Jenkins, in spite of having raised a kid of his own, is merely referred to as a researcher. In his own words:
"On Donahue, activists are moms and intellectuals are presumed to be childless."
The nice thing about the internet is that you can say all the things you wished you would have said in the first place. Granted, he's reaching an entirely different audience than those who watched the Donahue in the first place, but he gave me something to think about when I see how people are labeled in the media.
I'm pretty sure "concerned mothers" are a greater threat to freedom than terrorists ever were...
I'm Peggy.
Anyone ever try to get news in the morning?
CNN has been taken over by morons doing all fluff. Fox is a pandering channel for Republicans that hide behind the fair and balanced crap (it's neither).
The best time to watch news is when you are out of the U.S. CNN International is a totally different creature than what you see here.
Shame we don't have the option here to get it in the states.
emotion over reason! woo!
--
fight global cooling
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.
wow, violence sells? controversy sells? way to go salon for horridly covering a moot issue.
games have ratings that classify what age levels should play them. the goverment and parents groups got that done. GTA3 is rated "M". the parents that care won't let their 13 year old play the game.
o'reilly is a brilliant catalyst... he knows his topics very well, and the arguements for both sides. no matter what you say, he'll have the perfect rebuttle ready. donahue, go home. these shows are ONLY about controvercy and it sickens me that they still argue about these topics that were solved a long time ago.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
They said "no cheap shots."
Was just another talk show.
Donahue is scum.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I learned from GTA 3 is that you can never outrun the cops. Not only do they have transporter technology to materialize wherever you are, but they have a clone army ready to take you out as well!
"Derp de derp."
What really gets me about this whole thing is that people are going to take the 'ultraviolence' that GTA3 offers and figure that it is this violence that made the game popular.
Forget the fact that there are over 70 missions, the ability to do whatever the hell you please at any time, including grab a taxi and play Crazy Taxi GTA3-style (which is really fun, GTA has way better physics than Crazy Taxi), or perhaps do the Emergency Vehicles missions..
Or maybe it is the massive parody that the entire game lays out, from a Mob Boss with Mommy issues, to a pair of troublemaking girls with a flair for S&M. Try listening to the soundtrack sometime.. (All the best pop music.. with lots of cool transition sounds!)
No, no, no, we can't accept that this game gets it all right, presenting the gamer with freedom, as well as an entertaining and engaging story that they want to play out. Instead, the media tells us that this game is popular because it is violent. Well, fuck, if that was the case, Postal would have been the best selling game of all time, or perhaps State of Emergency.
I dunno, that's just my rant on the media attention that GTA has attracted. These 'activists' should be sat down in front of the game, after the main character has already 'obtained' a taxi, and should be asked to play the game, doing fares for an hour or 2. Perhaps they will start playing conservatively, following roads and obeying traffic lights. Or, more likely, they'll realize it's a god dammed video game and they'll have a bit of fun, smash up a car or 2 and drive over the median. Only then, will they realize that it is the best game written since Half-Life. And all the while, I'll bet they won't think it's the same 'ultraviolent' game that they've been up in arms about.
It's obvious that video games play a minor part in the decadence of society. However, games like Grand Theft Auto III, Postal, and Doom should never make it into the hands of minors. Parents are in general a whole lot less effective than they were fifty years ago; while it certainly isn't fair to all of us that we must remove entirely from the public the forms of entertainment that might cause Junior to go haywire, it is probably the first sensible approach towards getting a handle on our run-amok society.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
... they really aren't dumb. If you treat them like they are, how are they ever supposed to become so independent that violence in the media won't cause them to go on a Robocop rampage?
"Derp de derp."
For a liberal Donahue equivalent, see Rosie O'Donnel. Or Sally Jessie Raphael, or whatever her name was. Jerry Springer can hardly be thought of as pushing a conservative agenda; I assure you that conservatives despise him as much as liberals do. (I'm not wrong in assuming that liberals find his show despicable, am I? I hope not.)
Why did he feel the need to politicize this? I'm very conservative myself -- slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, I believe -- yet I play and enjoy video games and expect my kids will too. So where does that leave me?
The basic conflict here wasn't conservative vs. liberal, it was sensationalism vs. intellectualism. Only someone harboring the basest prejudices against conservatives could make that mistake, IMO.
And the brethren went away edified.
Best Part of Article was at the end when the guy recieved angry e-mails from angry soccer moms regarding his view on computer games:
"You are obviously not a mother trying to raise teenagers you stupid freaking moron idiot."
"I'd like to take that stupid X Box and crack that moron from MIT over the head with it."
Now is it just me or is it a bit odd that most of the bad angry e-mails he got came exactly from the exact same people that oppose violence in video games??
Or another thought... I love all the religious fanatics who want to ban and censor any material which in their eyes promotes violence.. Shouldn't they try banning religious institutions first since afterall it is the religion itself that drastically slowed human progress throughout the history.. Not to mention that religion has been in some way or another a major fact behind most of the wars in world history that claimed millions of lives... Shouldn't they be the last ones to comment on anything? Since if I was one of them I would be too ashamed to show myself in public...
"Donahue thinks games are making me violent...... damnit, I'm going to bean him to a bloody pulp and run him over with a truck for saying that. "
How many times did you hear that joke before you decided to share it with us?
"Derp de derp."
when you get your ass kicked on national television, you just write a nasty article for Salon where you can make personal attacks against the people who made you feel so bad.
The upside: they can't even respond, whereas you they gave you the opportunity on the show and you blew it.
The downside: You'll teach the media never to invite you to appear again.
discussed rationally on one of those daytime talkshows where the guests beat the crap out of each other.
I think the ending of the article really hits the nail on the head. The issue of video game violence is largely driven by emotion and supported by short sound-bite statements. Mr. Jenkins went into this arena planning to use reason and rational debate.
/. about religion. When anyone challenges the beliefs of the hard-core Christians, they point to the Bible as their supporting evidence and say "but the Bible says this".
None of the talk-show formats are going to allow reasonable discussions. It doesn't get people worked up. They have to have emotional topics to bring in the viewers. And you can't use rational arguments against people using emotional ones.
It reminds me of the debates that spring up on
If most people had a clue, shows like Frontline would blow crap like Donahue out of the water on ratings....
from Dr. Jenkins can be found on joystick101.org. On one hand its a shame that his final article isn't available from another MIT branch off project, I understand the importance of reaching a venue that is a bit more well read. Personally, I think its a hard line to defend a game like Grand Theft Auto 3 in the face of a mother who lost a child. Everyone points out that the parents should be more involved, we don't need regulation, etc. But from my understanding thats just what her grassroots organization is about. If I was Henry, I'd have probably walked out on Donahue. It probably looks bad but if you've read the transcript it would be hard to get much worse.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
It's a sad state of affairs when even SOME american consumers are going to base their opinions on what they saw on Donahue. The media is playing the blame game, and some people (hopefully not most, but I'm not keeping my fingers crossed here) are dumb enough to fall for this shit.
Activists opposing violence in video games and those who support content ratings and age requirements on games often miss this fact as well.
Now, she had that level of control. Today, parents don't have that level of control with video games. Sure GTA3 isn't gonna turn a kid into a car rage murder or a pimp, but it still makes parents uneasy that their kid can waltz into Electronic Botique and but it without any parental consent.
Children are NOT full blown citizens and have limited rights, as they should. They lack privacy, they lack free travel, they lack free association. All this so that parents can do their job, whatever that may be. As such, I do think children should NOT be able to buy any violent video games. Period. Parents should buy it for them. Puts any "blame" in peoples minds where it belongs, in the parents lap. Not in the game, not at EB, not in the "media", but on the parent.
Of course given the nature of Slashdot, most will disagree in some way. That's okay, I've had Max Karma for a long time, what do I care.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Maybe if they gave everyone guns, things would have gotten solved!
*blam* *blam*blam*
"See bitch? I *told* you GTA3 wasn't too violent..."
hehe.
I read the title "Violence, Video Games And Donahue" and thought, "Finally! A video game where I can kick Donahues ass! Cool!"?
I can't be the only one...
Some friends of mine accidentally discovered that a large amount of the incidental soundtrack in GTA3 comes from the movie "Scarface." I encourage everyone to rent "Scarface" to enjoy this interesting parallel - and for its artistic merits of course.
-- thinkyhead software and media
In fact, I think we should go over to Donahue right now and take a Rocket Launcher to his show and blow him up.
No.... sorry... Ummmm.... shoot him down with an Uzi.
No.... wait... Use my Sniper Rifle on him.
Argh... He be sellin' spank to my women! Me and Luigi will go take a bat to his face!
God damnit! No.... No... Must resist...
Okay... How about me and Donahue just sit down and talk it out...
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
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?
I believe it comes down to the "Theory of Context" by Gladwell. Pretty much it's the small things that matter. GTA3 is highly realistic. Thus you still have a sense of reality when playing it and so will most kids (they're smarter than you think). Joe Camel was a cartoon character modeled like many a cartoon character at his time.
So long as it looks like a muppet or a ink drawn character, kids will gravitate towards it and worship it. If there was a "Tickle me Hitler" I can ASSURE you, anti-semetism would rise when those kids hit the real world. Yes, kids are smart. If things are portrayed realisticly, they'll know it. But they're still children and if it's delivered by a cartoon character or in a childish manner.(anyone else dive off their furnature after seeing the live action peter pan movie when they were little, I know I did) Yes, I've been playing video games since I was 4 (an Atari 2600 and an NES). I played Mario but I never tried to jump on someones head. Thats where my raising comes in. My parents raised me so I instinctively knew doing that would hurt someone, so I didn't)
Again, all the small things matter. Attacking "violence" in general will solve nothing. But taking care of the small details. How that violence is marketed and represented, and how the parents raise their children are the key factors. And I'm not advocation that V-Chip "Please government, babysit my children for me" crap either. REAL parenting. Like I got. I ever have kids and raise them like that, expecting the government to step in and completely remove all violence so I can go back to sipping my Starbuck grande knowing TV will make my kids "normal" (which is a BAD thing in my eyes), I'll kick my own ass.
Anyways, I hope someone sees this and agrees with me. I did a research project on this exact subject at Rutgers and I'm simply using my findings to add discussion.
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
Several things disturb me about Conservative rhetoric, but most notably:
It would be truly refreshing to see a debate between a Conservative who can restrain these tendencies and a well-versed liberal thinker like Noam Chomsky.
-- thinkyhead software and media
In my experience, when you start getting into a debate about video game violence you have to limit yourself to three topics and just keep repeating those topics over and over:
1. Juvenile violence is at a 30-year low.
2. People serving time for violent crime consume less media than average. Also, the surgeon general's report stated home life and mental stability are the risk factors, not media exposure.
3. Finally, videogames are rated and the violent ones are clearly labeled "M-for-Mature, 17+" and the factors that lead to that rating are also clearly labeled. Mature rated games account for less than 10% of videogame sales.
All of these points were raised in the Salon article. Stay on these three topics and drill them into the other persons head. Try not to become disoriented and/or gag by their arguments of "think of the children" and "but violence makes baby jesus cry".
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
"I want to show you a picture. This is 13-year-old Noah. While reenacting the video game Mortal Kombat, he was stabbed to death by his friend."
Reenacting the game Mortal Kombat? How intellectually challenged must one be to accept such an excuse? Seriously, folks, just think about what this forbodes...
A minor (teenager, I presume) stabs a thirteen year old often enough, and with enough force, to kill him. There is No Way in Hell (tm) the stabber was not clued in to what he was doing. Unless the victim was taken completely by surprise and killed with the first blow, no one on Earth could fail to correctly interpret the screaming, fighting, and maybe even begging as an act.
The mere fact that anyone, much less 'soccer moms' in middle class burbs, would believe the Mortal Kombat crap should tell you something about the state of our society. It's on its way to Hell, and the handbasket is long gone.
Third page of the article, first e-mail quote at the end. It seems at least one viewer is implying a lack of parental experience on the part of the researcher.
How come nobody ever worries about the games Hitler played?
If you choose to use force, you are going to attract the police. The more force, the more cops. Pretty soon, you're going down.
That's the key. While all games aren't nearly as encompassing, I'm focusing on GTA3 here because that's what THEY seem to be focusing on.
I play GTA3 (and has become one of my all-time favorites) not because of the content (and certainly not because I have the option to "do" prostitutes), but because the technology and immersiveness are awesome. The violence and other aspects that depict an anti-social orientation are but merely part of a story. If anything, they demonstrate how scummed out (and snuffed out) one's life can get when they make stupid choices.
The previous post could be rewritten as the following, don't you think?
;)
"Several things disturb me about Liberal rhetoric, but most notably:
* The use of ridicule and ad-hominem attacks to discredit valid ideas. i.e., Calling someone a "conservative" as an implicit insult.
* The assertion of certain lies as universally-known truths. i.e., That the media has a conservative bias. That "conservative" ideas dominate state policies.
It would be truly refreshing to see a debate between a liberal who can restrain these tendencies and a well-versed conservative thinker."
Now, personally, I'd be more interested in seeing discussions where both sides avoid such rhetorical techniques to cloud issues, discredit their opponents, and avoid the facts
Are there any real discussion shows left, outside of PBS or NPR.
I highly recommend The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Seriously.
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)
Uh moron, exactly how do the "concerned mothers" pass themselves off as genuine researchers? How exactly is their opinion more valid? If a mother actually had a college degree WTF is she doing on a talk show?
For all we know, none of them have kids either; they provided just as much "evidence" as Jenkins did. And for the ones that do have kids, 80% of them are buying these games for their kids. And the ones that aren't, and their kids have them anyway, aren't doing their fucking job as parents.
Mr. Jenkins is.
And your whole statement about media circus and informed debate is actually the point of the article...did you even read the fucking thing? The "Childish Intellectuals" have actually recognized that this type of discourse is horseshit and doesn't accomplish anything useful. You and Phil Donahue haven't realized this yet. It's just a "whupping in a public debate".
Like the Salem witch trials.
A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's an erection for?
HAND
XML causes global warming.
I am working on a small game myself at the moment(just a freeware title for DOS, bad graphics, primitive code, weak music, but I take great pride in it, because it is my work, my piece of art, my experience to share with the world). Whenever I hear of some ignorant individual spouting off about the supposed wrath of violent video games, it makes me angry. Many times, I notice that the aforementioned "activists", are nothing more than leeches, leeching media exposure off of what should be a somber and saddening occasion such as Colombine, using a tragedy to further their political agenda in a way which should rightly cause horror and disgust in right minded people(I hate using the term, but really -- to use a tragedy like that to further your own political agenda is disgusting). Unfortunately, these people are also very often ignorant of the facts, so I am helpless against their torrent of misinformation. Video games are not the only thing which attract such leeches. After colombine, almost every aspect of popular culture which was found to have a connection to the two boys was exploited; the Matrix, violent music, the list is endless. As a game producer, I feel that the public has no concievable, legitimate right to tell me what I can and can't put in my games; be it philosophy, story, gore, violence, or mature subject matter. Those who believe it's somehow my responsibility to watch their children(while depriving other children with more mature parents of a mature, possibly enlightening experience) should grow up a bit and allow themselves to be parents. Some will say "but what if my child gets a violent game without me looking?", and to this I reply that if you make a rule that says that a child may not play or rent a violent video game, and that child breaks that rule, punish the child, not the industry! If you don't discipline your children yourself, you will find that violent computer games are the least of your worries when he/she reaches their teenage years.
It's been a long time.
From the article:
When I got home in the wee hours of the morning, I found that I had already started to receive hateful e-mails from the "Donahue" dittoheads.
"You are obviously not a mother trying to raise teenagers you stupid freaking moron idiot."
"I'd like to take that stupid X Box and crack that moron from MIT over the head with it."
"By the way, Moron, get a shave."
It's not video games that make the occasional, random kid violent... it's having parents with hypocritical attitudes like that that make kids violent. Can anyone be that illogical and clueless? **Boggle**
Violent video games are bad, but threatening a real person in real life (ok, via email) is OK?
Just when I thought I had the tiniest shred of hope for humanity... I am sad now.
sig fault
Sorry Mr. Data, I can't. I'm not Joe Piscapo.
"Derp de derp."
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.
This doesn't sound surprising in the least. Talk shows have never been about arguments but about arguing. The key is to slam the other person into submission... like in a rap battle.
Example: His opponent first mentions she is a concerned mother right? And he is a father too? His answer should have been "Listen, if any parent was so stupid as to by a game called Grand Theft Auto for their children without even giving a second thought to the age 17 and up warning we should probably be more concerned that so many retards are breeding in our fine country."
Other examples I would have used: "Outlawing video games is like making war illegal 'cause some children might see the highlights on this fine station!!!"
"Hmmm, it seems you let the computer do a lot of the parenting for you... maybe we should call children's services."
Talk shows are about personal attacks. And although mildly interesting (like a bar fight) it really doesn't hold your interest. Why do you think they change topics every 5 minutes?
If you want real thought provoking discussions... watch PBS. Frontline is the best.
What is music when you despise all sound?
The main reason for all of this concern about the violence of children is this:
Children spend more time at home, indoors than they ever had.
What is the primary effect of this? Put much closer to parental supervision than they ever had.
And the effect of this? Parents now get to see how violent children are.
I forget the study but this ends up being cyclic. Parents are then concerned about who "taught" their child this. TV supplies the answer: the world is now more "violent" (which, in truth, it probably isn't... it is just more visible in this media saturation). So parents force their kids to not go out. But kids still have the same drives. If it wasn't chucking rocks at cars or getting into fights, you now do some Tekken 3 or Quake. But now the activity is well within maternal awareness (unlike before where children were wise enough to stay out of sight).
Mothers now just see more of the activity that has always been going on.
But the assumption is that a) kids are too stupid to try and hide things from their parents so b) they must be getting more violent.
So the best solution for all? Let the kids outside: get them some exercise and they will get into the same trouble although now you don't need to see it. Funny how self-deception seems to be the best course of action (as compared to over-parenting).
What is music when you despise all sound?
Both KGO and KSFO are Disney affiliates and sister stations.
It's Disney pandering to the extremists on all sides.
I have no doubt that all these DJs are good friends off mike.
good recommendation. very funny show, great satire, and when you least expect it, WHAM they made a good point. They even have an occasion interesting guest.
Last week they had a guy from the UN weapon inspectors on, it was cool.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Violence has nothing to do with computer games. It's in our genetic makeup as a species. In the last 100 years we have had wars that have killed many millions of people. This was BEFORE computer games were ever invented. A few hundred years ago, the Spanish Inquisition were torturing people and roasting them alive for 'heretical beliefs'. They'd never played GTA3. We're a violent species. Blaming computer games is not the answer. Computer games may even be a way to safely release our violent instincts. I love blasting people away on Wolf3D, but I'm not going to ever got down to my local shopping mall and do it.
HH
I can't say I've seen this episode either, but I did happen to catch an episode of Donahue today for the first time.
It was by far the most one sided, trashy screw fest I've seen on anything this side of AM radio. The issue was religion. Neet I thought, an insightful look into faith.
It turned into Donahue and one of his guests compleatly missing the point of the other guest and instead calling him a bigot and a racist in not so subtle ways. The fact that I agreed with Donahue is irrelevent. The point of intellegent discourse is to try to understand the views or at least the perspective of all sides; not to make personal attacks on the person you disagree with.
It's hard to forgive this kind of behavior when you're part of the chior, but even worse when you're not. I have yet to see any real link between video game/media violence and real world violence, nor do I see any logical reasoning that would make somebody think there is. However, there ARE people who do, but their message never gets accross when they are put on shows like Donahue with the goal of only telling me that I'm wrong, not why they are right.
The Internet is generally stupid
When my child demands I go out and buy Owens-Corning fiberglass insulation because the cartoon Pink Panther is their spokesmen alongside slick, hip jazz music, I'll agree that the media is controlling him.
The Internet is generally stupid
I enjoyed that show a lot.... but sometimes it was hit and miss.
I stopped watching it when it went off Comedy central to network. I never knew when it was on and never cared enough about it (or any television show) to seek it out.
Shame, too.
The Internet is generally stupid
You can point to somebody who has expressed both those viewpoints?
My personal opinion is that they're both bad for children. The difference is that GTA3 has big "M" and "17+" and "violence" stickers on the case and children cannot purchase the game without a parent's approval. It is the fault of the parent if they see these warnings but still buy GTA3 for their sprog, or knowingly let their sprog associate with other children that play GTA3.
Yes, I own and play GTA3. It's not nearly as violent as what I read in the newspaper or watch on the TV news. Games don't hold a candle to reality.
The stageplay's ending has Alex settling down at the end, and makes the point that the ultraviolence is just a phase he's going through.
Now, whilst not exactly in the Clockwork Orange league, I can certainly relate to this. I'm 30 now - not old, but possibly closer towards the middle than I'd normally like to admit, and I've been playing computer games for about 21 years. My attitudes towards violence in gaming have changed a lot. I'm not outraged - far from it. Rather I now find ultra-accurate, 'you can see the gore oosing out'-type violence to be just tedious. Seen it all before, just not with anti-aliased fog or whatever the current graphic trick is.
I've been turned off PC gaming for exactly this reason - everything seems to be a war-based resource management game, a violent FPS or some combination of the two. There are exceptions to prove the rule, but mostly that holds true. Sport-based games would be one catagory of exception, but I don't have any interest in sports beyond the odd driving title.
To wrap up the meandering (forgive an old man...), I would suggest that violence in gaming will probably decrease as the gaming population gets older. It will always be there - in my opinion the main demographic will always be under twenty-fives, maybe even under twenties. However, once you've shot someone in the head and watched blood spurt out in one game, you've shot someone in the head and watched the blood spurt out in every game and you end up just wanting a bit of fun back.
Now where did I put my copy of Super Monkey Ball....?
Cheers,
Ian
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.
Nah. Mountain Dew is the ninja assassin of drinks. You think you can see straight through it so you disregard its power, but it's got its own hidden agenda and it'll get you when you least expect it - like during a meeting. ;-)
Grab.
Somewhere on that article (or from this one), there's a link to the transcript of the Donahue show.
They keep on harping on two scenarios, killing a cop and killing a prostitute. The "concerned mother" keeps saying, "YOU GET MONEY! YOU GET HEALTH! NO CONSEQUENCES!"
Clearly forgetting that 10 seconds after the scene cop cars were suddenly much more agressive against you, and after more such infractions you eventually had the FBI coming after you with choppers. If you actually managed to survive that, please say hello to the National Guard, tanks and all.
Hello? No consequences? Getting run over by a National Guard tank isn't a consequence?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
OT: Then you've got some serious issues, my friend, as my P4-1700/512/GF3 handles it at 1024x768x32 with nary a stutter.
Bridge Commander, on the other hand, sometime just kind of stops for a second or two, and the audio starts looping (Sweeping through phaser arcs..through phaser arcs...through phaser arcs...we're draining their top sheild) but that's either the fact that my poor beloved Aureal2 card has drivers that are several years old, or the fact that ST:BC just isn't well made. :-)
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
grep -ri 'should work'
She was nervous to be interviewed, of course. If she had been, I'm sure her experience would have echoed this writer's. TV news, and a lot of the daily print stuff, is all about false dilemmas; they state everything as if it was about diametrically opposed positions, in order to heighten the drama of the story. That's what the style of O'Reilly is all about, only he takes it the extra, Rupert Murdoch-approved step of being an advocate rather than a moderator. Ray Suarez is about the only really great moderator I've heard on a talk show in the last ten years.
Alas, we will never know what Mom's interview would have been like. The news producers, it turned out, wanted mainly to have a picture of some employee getting a mammogram from a woman doctor. They were clearly interested in getting the juiciest angle they could onto broadcast TV -- hubba hubba. That made Mom uncomfortable, she didn't want to be exploiting peope whose care she was responsible for, so she told them no. They went to some other company and got their cheesecake mammogram.
Not quite Donahue, but it's bad enough. You think?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
HAND
XML causes global warming.
Maybe us video gamers can team up with drunk drivers. Our new slogan can be:
I don't know about you, but I always play Grand Theft Auto 3 better when I'm drunk.
Go ahead, mod me down. Fuck you if you can't take a joke.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Your mother in the show is blaming GTA3 due to her own shortcomings as a parent - the question should have been "why did parents allow their children to look at mature subject matter"?
Well, the problem is that many of these busybody types have already denied their kids from having the game. The mere fact that the material exists is seen by them as horrible, and they feel it's their duty to wipe it from the face of the earth.