Slashdot Mirror
New Mexico Newspaper Row Shows Game Violence Microcosm
Thanks to the Albuquerque Tribune for its pair of editorials, one praising violent games, tongue-in-cheek style, by lauding "the sheer joy of freeform gaming mayhem", and the other a rebuttal suggesting children are genuinely at risk. This provincial echoing of the ever-present worldwide debate starts with Sue Vorenberg's contention that: "There's nothing quite as satisfying as running over virtual French people with a souped-up sports car", and ends with Bob McCannon's statement that "the correlations between violent media and aggression are stronger than between smoking and lung cancer." What can be done to make such arguments a little more evenhanded?
I understand the concern posed by McCannon.
From what I see of his work in general (including this article), it appears that he tries to get people to examine who's bias is being presented in media content, and the possible motivations involved in presenting that bias. If you consider that as his main objective, the majority of the article is totally fair.
The one major fault in his article is the smoking/cancer correlation statement. My guess is that it was inserted as flamebait so that the rest of the article may get more attention (such as a sign that starts with "SEX! Now that I have your attention..."). It's unfortunate that it seems necessary to insert such claims.
The comic industry faced the same thing decades ago. The resulting Comics Code Authority effectively halted growth of that medium. Not getting the CCA seal on a book was pretty much a deathmark as no retailer would touch it with a 10 foot pole. This is only recently starting to change and the medium is finally getting a chance to mature.
The last thing we need is a version of the CCA for games. Imagine if all major retailers like Best Buy and Wal-Mart stopped carrying anything with an ESRB rating higher than E (everyone)? You would definitely see a shift in what projects publishers would fund. Many of the most critically acclaimed games would never see the light of day, as the publishers couldn't hope to recoup development and publishing costs.
Now, god forbid, something like this happens, I don't see it having as drastic an impact as the CCA did on the comic industry, but mature titles would shift to smaller, independant publishers with lower budgets. The big dogs would protect their sales by focusing on games that would get the most retail exposure. I would expect consoles to be hit the hardest by something like this. Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft would never license a game that would never be seen on a retail rack. (In much the same way that Marvel and DC kept all their stuff CCA compliant)
It's a bit before my time, so I'm asking. Did the motion picture industry face the same thing early on?
While the parent was a complete joke (and a funny one at that) it actually made me think of something applicable.
With media as it is in America today, has ANYONE not been exposed to violence in media? How do you find a control group for these studies? You'd have to find people who never see movies or television, never listen to radio, and to an extent do not read newspapers, magazines, or books. Otherwise, you cannot be certain that it is only videogame violence that correlates to physical violence. Basically, the results are worthless with multiple variables.