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.
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.
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.
Activists opposing violence in video games and those who support content ratings and age requirements on games often miss this fact as well.
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...
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?
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
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.
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?
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?
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?