Slashdot Mirror
Is the Game Media Being Oblivious?
MaryAlan writes "The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy was this weekend, and almost no one from the game media showed up. In fact, the game industry seems to pretty much be ignoring the whole event. There's an article up on GamesFirst, which attended the summit, that criticizes the mainstream game press pretty hard for not attending. Apparently only one game journalist showed up. From the article: 'The video game media owes it to our readers to come to events like this and listen, come here and think, and come here and base our editorials on the reality of what's being said instead of an interpretation of the talking points that are published afterwords. Too many of the people discussing these issues in forums do so based on the works of the game media, and too few in the gaming media are spending the time to make it justified.'"
No, there are no real reporters in the game media. Those working in the game media are either in the pockets of the game publishers, or themselves without personal interest or experience in covering events where they would apply reportorial tradecraft (i.e., interviewing people they do not know). It's laziness, inexperience, and graft.
I used to run an independant newspaper, and every week I was deluged with a variety of hate mail, from readers claiming my stories were biased, to readers telling me I wasn't representing their views, to people complaining because I didn't feel the need to censor the occasional "shit" out of an article.
I always responded with the same form reply: "If you feel that your views are under-represented, I'll be happy to print an article in which you can explain them in detail. We support reader supplied stories, yadda yadda yadda."
You know how many people actually bothered to write in, even given an open forum and a paper circulation of ~30,000 ad-supported papers, left in prominent places all over town? Maybe one in a hundred.
People love to complain. You see it here every day, people expressing their outrage all over the place. But do they actually bother to try and take the message to people who don't already agree with them? Seldom.
So I'm hardly surprised that the Game media doesn't bother to actually cover events like this. They mainly work from press releases and secondary sources...Very sloppy stuff.
Maybe this is a sign that the gamer community is starting to get proactive, rather than reactive...The best time to stop a crappy game bill from passing in Congress, is before it actually passes.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
It really doesn't matter if the gaming companies attend or not because they are not going to be listened to anyways ...
This is very similar to what happens whenever an Oil company shows up to an environmental meeting, which believe it or not happens quite often; oil companies hire dozens of environmental scientists to ensure that they're doing as little environmental damage as is possible. (On a side note, most environmental damage is done because of govenmental decisions; oil is shipped from Alaska rather than piped through Canada because the US govenment's regulations, and shipping is prone to accidents). No matter what evidence they demonstrate to show that there is no connection between CO2 and global warming nothing they show will ever be listend to.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.
You will be looted because you have something to loot. Kudos for them on ignoring those who contribute nothing and yet seek to control the product of their minds.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
... they end up suing the state attorney general when said state passes an obviously unconstitutional ban on game content. The game publishers won't make any progress, and the bible-thumpers behind these bans -- because, let's get serious, what else will a conference titled "Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy be about besides cooking up new legislation? -- will continue with their ill-considered efforts to make the world into some kind of sick, dull Disneyland, free of anything of which they disapprove. They form the American, Christian answer to the nutcases running the show in Iran, or Afghanistan, and deserve as much respect.
Dog is my co-pilot.
The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy was this weekend...
I am sorry, but anyone from game media should not be attending any conference called "The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy". Why? Because it will only give more credit to the conference.
The fact of the matter is there should not be an public policy relating to games and youth at all. They're games for Christ sake. don't you think the government has more important things to set policy on? Like oh say, warrantless searches at airports?
Games and game content can not and should not be regulated any more than art or films.
Did the conference planners send out multiple invitations to the gaming press well in advance of the event? Or did they just announce it on their own website and expect everyone to find out about it on their own?
This guy's the limit!
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.
That pretty much sums the whole thing up in one line.
Actually, you could show up in any Congressional subcommittee with God in tow, and unless God happened to be made out of money, I doubt you'd influence any pending piece of legislation.
If the "games lobby" wants to make its voice heard in government, and keep itself from being run over as the Fox News scarecrow-du-jour, then they should take a very good look at what the National Rifle Association does, in terms of communicating with and mobilizing its support base, getting donations, and funneling those donations to where they'll have maximum political impact. I can't think of any organization that is as frankly successful and powerful as they are, and has continuously maintained such a high profile, and has done it while staying within the bounds of the law. (Some corporate lobbies might come close, but I think their cash burn rates are much higher for the effect they achieve.)
You can have logical arguments so beautiful they'd make Plato sit down and weep, enough scientific evidence to unequivocally prove a dozen theories of everything, but the government will still ignore you if you are not either a large force among voters, or have lots of filthy lucre to burn. Preferably, have both.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Well, since we are down to the "screw this and screw that". I'll join in. Screw your community. I am an individual and I don't care what your community says I should do with my life as long as I am not hurting anyone. And if you show up at my door and DEMAND me to be your keeper, expect to get shot. If you don't like violent games, don't let your kids buy it. Same goes for porn.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Well, my entire generation has played video games, and the murder rate has gone down.
As an aside, isn't it strange that for some reason, the people who want to ban video games because they're dangerous and might possibly show a slight statistical increase in violence tend to be the same people who call it a 'socialist nanny state' when you're talking about regulating food safety or the environment or something that could actually save thousands of lives at once, contrary to this video game tripe, which could allegedly cause a few dozen murders here and there over time?
It's been a long time.
It's not a simple issue. Many things communities do and hold in high esteem are trash. Extreme individualism is also correct and soundly critiqued by people like you.
Communities have no rights in reality. Neither do individuals. People in the community have power to act, and so do individuals. If your community decides to bad nakedness, and I go around naked, you cannot just remove me by force. Why not? Because even though I may be in the minority, I may have enough determination and power to make life for that prudish community living hell. Why? Because although I may be alone, my determination to go around naked is probably very high, or else, I wouldn't do something that obviously endangers my standing in community for no good reason. That means if you use force, you will not create a situation of peace, which is what you ultimately desire. You will simply polarize yourself further and create divisions. This is how gangs form. Although gangs are minorities, they are going nowhere and wield considerable power, just for that very reason. So, just because you are in majority, you can't just willy nilly control the minority, because minorities also have significant power, commensurate with their determination to apply it.
In no case does anyone have any inherent rights. I don't have a right to be dressed or to be naked. The community has no rights either.
This is why communities change and evolve. If what you say was true, then community standards would stay locked in and never change. But they change quite a bit over time. And guess how it happens, and will continue to happen, forever and ever more? It happens due to individual influence. It happens because someone ran naked across the street. And you can't stop it. You can participate in this process and throw your 2 cents into the pile. But you can't stop the changes and you can't really claim that any sides have any rights.
The rights are declared as a statement of faith or belief. And that's fine. But as you declare such things, it would be wise for you to understand the relative nature of any such declarations. Any person can declare anything they like. If enough of them agree, there you go -- a community. But this tells you nothing about the community or about how it will change.
You might have a community of naked people where running through the street dressed is an act of rebellion.
Things change. Individuals do matter. Individual still stands at the center of change, and your reasoning doesn't take anything away, but rather, it just explains the stage upon which the individual dances. This is neither selfish nor selfless. It's just how it is. I have no inherent right do slap you, but if I want to, I can, and there is nothing you can do to stop me, except post-factum, which is useless, except if you crave revenge. It's useless for the purpose of totally controlling the situation or for giving someone protection from some event happening.
As I see it, communities owe to individuals and individuals owe to the communities. It goes both ways.