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.
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.
They said "no cheap shots."
Was just another talk show.
Donahue is scum.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
From my experience you can get very good news from the BBC.
They have a very international focus, as opposed to many news shows that are heavily-biased towards their country of origin.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
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.
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.
The BBC does a fair job, being British in America I've come to regard the BBC with something approaching reverance. where as living there I thought it biased, opinionated rubbish.
I would reccommend either the cable channel BBC America or the world service streamed across the net. The WS in particular is very cool. As a last resort get a short wave radio.
Of the Amercian news I tend towards CNN with the sound turned off. Local news is dire and national news about the same.
Activists opposing violence in video games and those who support content ratings and age requirements on games often miss this fact as well.
Just some thoughts..
I'd have to say that there are 2 reasons parents aren't as effective today as they used to be. The first being that the parents have immersed themselves in their own world of pleasures (tv, their own video games, sports, etc) that they're too selfish to put down and be parents. Second, there is a tremendous shift in the amount of marketing dollars which are spent on children - with the obvious reason that they wield the purchasing power of their parents, yet lack the wisdom to make appropriate decisions as to what is a resonable purchase.
Another thought: Violent video games don't necessarily make violent children anymore than non-violent video games do. What I think makes people in general more violent is the disconnection with others (loss of empathy) coupled with the immediate stimulation/reward of video games. This creates individuals who are trained to expect instant gratification and when this doesn't occur stress starts to accumulate. When you have this building stress level coupled with lack of respect for others you get violence.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think video games in general are bad, but any self seeking activity that takes up as much time as video games can cause some real problems in developing minds.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
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?
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?