CSI Takes On Grand Theft Auto

Tycoon Guy was one of many to write "Looks like another 20 million viewers will be fed the 'video games promote violence' story tonight. Today's CSI: Miami episode will feature a group of kids who are inspired to go on a city-wide crime spree by a game that looks suspiciously like Grand Theft Auto. From the description: 'Delko witnesses a bank robbery and the CSIs soon discover that the culprits are playing out the action from the videogame 'Urban Hellraisers' on the streets of Miami. As they score points for each crime committed, the CSIs must discover what consists of getting to the next level in the game in order to stop the culprits before they strike again.'"

Comments

Eh... so what?

[XorNand]

I don't think that the debate isn't so much about whether video games inspire people to go on crime sprees (which is only the aspect that the CSI episode seems to address). Most of us agree that they can. Just like a violent movie, booze, extremely stressful situtation, etc. can push a person already with a few screws loose over the edge. The question is: Do video games make killers? And if so (and that's a big if) where does the line between social conditioning and personal responsiblity lay?

Anyhow, I wouldn't be in such a hurry to throw up your arms over this show. Knowing CSI, I doubt that they're going to devote much airtime into exploring the social and moral issues surrounding the debate. The focus of the show isn't the same as Law & Order, which is a bit more far reaching.

Re:Eh... so what?

[NoodleSlayer]

I think most of us will agree that video games are no more likely to inspire kids to go on a killing spree any more then violent TV Shows and Movies or an episode of "Barney & Friends."

However unlike the aforementioned Video Games have been noted in studies for reducing the subject's likelihood of displaying violent behavior, because the game serves as a release mechanism.

All this is is scapegoatism led by asshats like Jack Thompson.

Re:Eh... so what?

[SatanicPuppy]

I don't know about you, but "Barney and Friends" is MUCH more likely to send me on a killing spreee than your average violent video game.

Re:Eh... so what?

[deacon]

Things are much worse than that.

Some people actually believe the "News" that is on TV.

Re:Eh... so what?

[jmp_nyc]

It's good that we've got so many morally upright people in this country to make sure that people understand that modern secularized entertainment is solely responsible for the proliferation of violence in our society. After all, there would be no violence or crime if people only read the Bible like God intended.

Of course, most of these people haven't read the Bible sufficiently closely to notice that it's chock full of sex and violence, much of it downright gratuitous.
-JMP

Re:Eh... so what?

[timeOday]

I think most of us will agree that video games are no more likely to inspire kids to go on a killing spree any more then violent TV Shows and Movies or an episode of "Barney & Friends."

So what's the problem? If people aren't inspired by fiction (as you state), then anything CSI says about videogames will be taken as fiction by its viewers and have no influence on public policy. Right?

Now, you could argue some viewers won't distinguish CSI from reality, but then you'd have to admit the possibility of the same for GTA.

Re:Eh... so what?

[Idarubicin]

If TV (and other media) doesn't inspire some people to commit crime, then explain this...

Well, if we grant the assumption for the moment that it was exposure to television that caused the crime wave, would you care to comment on what aspect of television was responsible? Was it cable news that caused a crime wave? Was it exposure to Barney? Was it the introduction of televangelists? Was it violent entertainment? Was it horror movies? Was it McDonald's commercials?

Or did it have nothing to do with the television itself? Was it the influx of foreign cable company employees?

Was it the major cultural shift that drove Bhutan to permit television in the first place? Was televion the only new thing to happen in Bhutan?

Also, how can we reconcile the article's statement "...a culture, barely changed in centuries..." with "there were no public hospitals or schools until the 1950s, and no paper currency, roads or electricity until several years after that. Bhutan had no diplomatic relations with any other country until 1961, and the first invited western visitors came only in 1974"?

Re:Eh... so what?

[rpdillon]

Well, you touch on the heart of the debate and treat as though the resolution were a fait accompli. Here is another section of the article:

Every week, the letters page carries columns of worried correspondence: "Dear Editor, TV is very bad for our country... it controls our minds... and makes [us] crazy. The enemy is right here with us in our own living room. People behave like the actors, and are now anxious, greedy and discontent."

This is in direct contradiction of one of my beliefs, and even some beliefs that are taught to even the youngest members of our society: personal responsiblity. The TV didn't make these people do anything, they did it of their own volition. The lesson we teach our children is to think on their own: "If little Johnny jumped off the bridge, would you jump off too?" We reinforce this mantra time after time in various ways: your decisions are your own; don't blindly follow what you see others doing.

And yet, I find we continually want to blame some outside source for the stupid things we do. This is simply a new form of the fundamental attribution error, except it is on a much larger scale.

What this really all leads to is two camps. There are those who believe that we can prevent crime by isolating people from the evils of the world (as seen in this article; I like to call it the "Garden of Eden syndrome"). Once the idea has been put in someone's mind, it then requires an internal filtering process to occur: is the behavior I saw others engage in in appropriate for me? But if the idea never reaches you, then you don't have to filter anything yourself....you can simply rely on someone "greater" to decide what you should see.

I don't hold to that. I believe this comes down to freedom and choice. I should be free to see and read all kinds of ideas. With that freedom comes the responsibility to filter appropriately and determine how to act. If others wish to blame their poor behavior on those around them, the TV shows they watched or the games they played, they are free to do that. But, in the end, their behavior was the result of their choices, and it is better to stand up and take responsibility for your own actions than to push that responsiblity off on someone who doesn't even know you exist (the maker of the game, the creator of the TV show, etc.)

That is my philsophical take on your post. From a logical perspective, you (and the article) are making the fundamental logical mistake of post hoc ergo propter hoc: just because the crime occurred after TV was made available does not mean the crime was caused by the TV's appearance. I think the post above mine treats this topic better than I can, though I thought I would point it out as an aside to my main point.

Re:Eh... so what?

[yali]

Fortunately, there is more evidence than Bhutan. Like this nice review of hundreds of controlled experiments and long-term outcome studies.

As a sidenote (not direct response to parent poster), I find it kind of amusing that people (a) gripe about there not being any controlled experiments, when in fact there are plenty, and then (b) ask for the ultimate uncontrolled nonexperimental test by saying "well why don't we see hundreds of GTA killers in the streets?" when they're presented with the controlled studies that they insisted, in the first place, were the only acceptible evidence.

Oh, and just because research supports a causal relationship between consuming violent media and behaving aggressively, that does not mean that ergo we must limit access to violent media, especially with adults. After all, we don't limit most forms of speech (short of direct incitement). It's just that you need to frame your defense in terms of the First Amendment, not by ignoring available evidence.

In other news

[dada21]

C-SPAN2 today will air an episode of Head of the Class 2005 where the students form a representative government that really is more interested in padding their pockets than in protecting their constituents.

We have to accept that the media has nothing to report on. They HAVE to report on games that may entice teenagers to murder, and the fiction media has to make it fact.

It isn't like Sharon quit the Likud or gold hit a 18 year high or GM is cutting 30,000 union jobs that it should have cut 20 years ago or even that Intel and Micron are colluding on flash memory. I know there's no real news out there for fiction-media to mimic.

The lady watches a lot of Law & Order (SVU primarily) and whenever I'm on the couch watching the show, all I can think of is "criminals are stupid" and "these cops are walkin all over people's rights." Then I realize it isn't reality -- but I do believe that a majority of viewers THINK this is real life. It isn't anywhere near what happens in the situations presented.

Wasn't it the Miami ADA who complains about how they have problems with getting guilty verdicts because juries expect DNA and other CSI-style evidence? Is this CSI pandering to the local legal authorities in pushing what may be a big issue for them?

I, for one, welcome our new "this is reality and you better accept it" overlords. The positive thing about shows like this is that it only helps in destroying the media regimes that exist today.

BTW, the advertisement to the right of this article is a GTA:LS for the PSP ad. Funny.

Re: Reconstructing images from low-res samples

[kin_korn_karn]

that's because shows like this are made as much for law enforcement propaganda as they are for entertainment.

As a gun owner

[GodBlessTexas]

and as a gamer, I'm happy to say "Welcome to the club." We're another group of generally law abiding people who get demonized for the stuff the batshit crazy minority does in our name all the time. And our paths are pretty well connected. I was told repeatedly by the media that it was guns and Doom that caused the shooters in Columbine to go on a killing spree. As Chris Rock says, "What ever happened to crazy?" If all 80,000,000 gun owners in the US were crazy (that's 1 in every three people), the streets would truly be running red with blood like I've been told they would by every anti-gun group. But they don't. How many gamers are there in the US? If the violent content of video games was truly a problem, wouldn't we have more of these violent episodes, not less? Of course, the true issue with Harris and Klebold is that Harris was a pure psychopath. He didn't want to shoot up his school for revenge. He wanted to kill them because he felt nothing but contempt for them. He wanted to be known as one of the greatest mass murderers in US History. So says the psychological profilers who examined his writings. So, it wasn't the game that caused him to be murderous, it was his disgust and contempt for people he saw as beneath him.

Re:Well, there are some causes for concern...

[garcia]

Consider a jury: 12 people too stupid(*) to get out of jury selection wonder why the scientific evidence is so bad.

While this is off-topic, I'm surprised you were modded up with that flame of a comment. I'm no fan of jury duty, along with everyone else, but it is that duty that gives some people a fair trial. In a time of lessening freedom I'm surprised that anyone would talk like that!

If you're talking about the hardships that certain counties place on their jurors, then we're discussing something else entirely.

Re:Well, there are some causes for concern...

[shawn(at)fsu]

I'm a bit confused, if video games don't influence kids why should we be worried about a TV show influencing adults?

Shit, that ain't the half of it.

[Grendel Drago]

I saw an episode of, I think, CSI, where a cop who'd been kicked off the force had fabricated evidence to get someone sent to jail who he was real sure was guilty. The guy turned out to be innocent--the real killer had gone free, and murdered again, partly because this guy had planted the evidence.

So, you'd think we'd be watching a tale about this guy's hubris, and his fall from grace, and how he learns the importance of due process. You'd be wrong.

The episode centered around our other leads buttering this guy up, telling him how much the force needed him, and how he couldn't let himself succumb to his guilt, because there were bad guys out there that needed catchin'.

I shit thee not. This is the kind of story they tell, which is why I refused to watch another damned episode. I don't care how cleft the leads' chins are, or how clever the zoom effects.