Slashdot Mirror
Salon On The Anti-Gaming CSI Episode
On Monday we mentioned an upcoming CSI episode using GTA as a prop in a tale of violent gamers on a murder-spree. Well, via Gamepolitics, Salon has a feature on the episode in all its game-hating glory. From the Salon piece: "In conjunction with the venom and disgust that infuses the word 'gamer' when it's spoken by star David Caruso, aka 'Horatio Crane,' it is made clear... that people who play games are but one step removed from pedophiles or suicide bombers in the social hierarchy of evil."
I love CSI but this one was so bad it was funny watching the guy play the game. What they never herd of gamefaqs.com?
but one step removed from pedophiles or suicide bombers
or bad television...
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
Us evil gamers are getting bad press on slashdot . Not all gamers are good upstanding people who just enjoy playing games to de-stress and have a good time . Some of us gamers actually do go on killing sprees , eat babies and Worship Satan whilst sacrificing virgins .
I cheer CSI for giving us forgotten gamers some press .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
When trying to figure out why some form of entertainment is made in a certain way or made to promote a certain message, the obvious and usually most simple reaction is to follow the money. Who writes the checks to get CSI: Miami made? Jerry Bruckheimer, the number one purveyor of non-cerebral entertainment in the U.S. He's been responsible for such gems as: The Rock, Con Air, Armageddon, Enemy of the State, Coyote Ugly, Kangaroo Jack, and more. Not all his projects are bad; in fact, I really enjoyed Black Hawk Down and Pirates of the Caribbean. However, all his movies are highly dependent on manipulating his viewers' emotions into what he thinks they should feel and rarely do they engage the viewers' intellect. He does this voluntarily and overtly, and his quotes listed on imdb even allude to that philosophy.
All that being said, when someone makes entertainment this way, his product is going to be emotionally engaging (either positively or negatively). Obviously, the write of the article was affected very negatively. On the other hand, i'm sure there were many people who were affected in a way that they did take the viewpoint of the show: that gamers are sheep and game companies will promote murder in order to sell games.
...and eating it too! Heaven forfend someone pick up and play one of the 5 CSI games (for three platforms mind you). The ones that have been rated by the ESRB are all rated Mature(17+) and feature healthy things like Bood and Gore, Violence, and , ooh hey, Sexual Themes if you pick up the CSI:Miami one.
blarg.
...then why do gamers care if gamers are depicted negatively on TV?
The reason that gamers should care is because the TV show is saying that playing video games does influence behavior.
You seem to be mistaking behavior (someone actually doing something) for image (the perception of someone doing something). This episode can influence the audience's image of gamers and strengthen the falsehood that games alter behavior. And although I don't personally think it could happen, the result could be lawsuits against game makers or sanctions against certain 'undesireable' game content. Lucky for us, CSI: Miami isn't the ratings hog that the original is.
Ask Twisted Sister what they think of a negative image. Their 'We're Not Gonna Take It' doesn't have a single violent, sexual, or vulgar lyric in it yet was used in a Congressional hearing to promote explicit lyrics stickers on music. Dee Snider got chewed out by Al Gore just to be saved later by John Denver who trashed the sticker when he said that people mistake his 'Rocky Mountain High' song as a pot-smoking song.
Image is all you have and once it's gone it's almost impossible to get back. Gamers should protect it whenever they get the chance.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
I often see hot girls make huge efforts to fit in with guys that are addicted to video-games. When the female actress in CSI was crying and said (paraphrasing), "You don't know what it's like. If you're not a gamer they don't care about you" to explain why she went along with the guys on their crime spree, nothing more true has ever been said. We live in a culture where hot women are forced to conform to the video game habits of young men. When I'm out at a bar or club I can't help but feel sorry for all the rejected hot young women I see. They just didn't have what it takes to conform to the gamers they so desperately want and they flock to bars in packs to drown their sorrows.
This is a major problem in America. Young women should not be forced to "fit it" with the gamers just to get some self-esteem. I don't know about you, but tonight when I'm out at the bar I'm going to make it my duty to help out some of these rejected non-gaming women.
It's all about context. Games can influence behavior; so can TV. Someone who, for some reason, doesn't understand that it's bad to mow down people with an automatic rifle may well be influenced by a video game to do so. Someone who has been normally socialized and understands that murder is bad will not be swayed by said video game.
Similarly, someone who doesn't understand that gamers are generally civilized human beings like everyone else will be swayed by a TV show that (by my understanding) effectively uses "gamer" as a euphemism for "murderer." The difference here is that many people actually don't know much about gamers or gamer culture, and are likely to believe that gamers are murderers - and treat them as such.
The key here is that influences on one's behavior or viewpoint are filtered through pre-existing knowledge first. If a source that is perceived as credible gives misinformation, and there is no pre-existing knowledge that contradicts it, the misinformation will take root because nothing suggests that it would be untrue. It's the same reason why Internet hoaxes last as long as they do.
While I'm on the subject, I should point out that I do not consider it possible for games to turn the average kid into a murderer because (one) most kids don't treat games as a credible source of information, and (two) most kids have been properly socialized to know that the acts in the game are unacceptable in reality. In the absence of factor (one), the kid knows not to commit the acts anyway; in the absence of factor (two), the kid is as likely to be influenced by a violent movie, violent song, violent book, or violent scene in nature as the video game.
The world can be wrong today for once.