Slashdot Mirror
Fox News Brings Video Game Violence Debate To a New Low
Fox News took another shot at the video game violence debate earlier this week when they asked whether Bulletstorm, an upcoming M-rated shooter from Epic Games, is the worst game in the world. The article links violent games with an increase in rapes, and suggests there should be greater penalties for selling to minors. Gaming website Rock, Paper, Shotgun breaks down the problems with the article's sensationalist claims and highlights the disingenuous cherry-picking of quotes.
"Scott Steinberg, CEO of TechSavvy Global, and all-round industry guru, got in touch with me to show me the answers he submitted to Fox when they approached him for comment. The full answers are reproduced below, because what results is a fantastic interview on the subject of adult game content and regulation. Fox chose to use none of Steinberg’s comments in their final piece, opting instead for the more sensational claims of those with no expertise in the subject (neither of whom have found time to reply to our emails). But seeing these answers also provides further insight into how the mainstream media coverage of gaming stories works. Far from being a reporter ignorant of the subject and twisted by naive contributors, Fox correspondent John Brandon was equipped with a wealth of factual information and informed opinion before composing his frantic article."
Sounds great, where can I buy it.
Hint: There's no such things as bad publicity for computer games.
The FBI's stats actually show rape is down yet people dont take the time to verify things anymore. News reporters are meant to verify and inform not spread idle gossip and misinformation.
We have the same problem in the UK too. Do not trust the media is the only outcome we'll end up with. This is not good.
I found this one via the B3TA Newsletter. http://b3ta.com/newsletter/issue465/
* HOW THE DAILY MAIL WORKS - Long, long blog entry, but interesting and quite damning. To put it bluntly, they make stories up. http://goo.gl/acMZq
Video games are a waste of time as far as NewsCorp is concerned. Every minute you spend actively engaged in a game is a minute you DON'T spend watching their (paid-for) movies, or (ad-filled) television prgrams, or (propaganda AND ad-filled) "news". If it's not good for Rupert Murdoch's bottom line, expect him to whip up FUD against it wherever possible!
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
But it's fine in movies?
The FBI's stats actually show rape is down yet people don't take the time to verify things anymore
When I was a kid, my mother went to a PTA meeting where the school director (a retired army colonel, BTW) presented police statistics showing a decrease in rape incidents. He interpreted this as an indicator of increased use of marijuana because, according to him, marijuana causes sexual impotence.
Conclusion: if video games cause rape that's good, because it will decrease drug use, same as piracy decreases global warming.
Also, Fox News causes rape.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
"It is about collecting a very large range of facts and opinions, selecting between them and constructing those chosen into a narrative for a particular purpose.Because there is selection and construction involved, different individuals will necessarily disagree on the result."
Wow, when you put it like that cutting out everything you don't agree with and lying though your teeth to create a misleading story sounds almost reasonable.
I doubt any Slashdot poster counts as a valid source of consensual gang bang experiences.
While that's certainly "doing journalism" it doesn't mean it's good journalism or immune from criticism. If I bake a cake out of shit, sure, I'm cooking something, but it's still a cake made out of shit.
As you say, the research is ambiguous. That's not what the article says. The article says that, according to the research, video games make you rape people.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
To be fair, Beck might not have raped and killed a girl in 1990. But the fact remains that many Americans are asking the question: "Did he rape and kill a girl in 1990?"
Nope just constantly shocked by the depths to which they will sink.
Fox News Brings Video Game Violence Debate To a New Low ... why?
and this is a shock to anyone
fox news isn't news, it's opinion pieces and bullshit, all you need to know about fox "news" is to see is Outfoxed : Rupert Murdochs War on journalism
Super Mario Brothers. He became very angry that the princess was always in another castle.
Journalism is ... about ... putting ... very large ... individuals ... on ... Fox
Or at least ... the ... "sensationalist" or "disingenuous" or "frantic" ... "and all-round" ... "fantastic", ... and ... Using pejorative language to remove someone's credibility without actually engaging with them in debate.
IMHO, I agree with what you said RE: what passes as "journalism" today.
People ... opposing ... [r]esearch carried out ... biased name-calling.
I think the real question here is:
If Glen Beck didn't rape and kill that girl in 1990, why won't he just come out and deny it?
What is he hiding?
-- Sig under construction...
At least the Weekly World News never took itself seriously and never expected anyone to believe that Bat Boy was real.
After this amount of time it shouldn't surprise anyone that Fox News can't be arsed to come out with anything resembling news or information. Facts and accuracy be damned. Death panels? Sure. Obama is going to sneak into your house in the dead of night and smother your grandmother *personally.* Similarly, playing this game will turn your kids into serial killers. Never mind the research. What counts is eyeballs and page hits.
If Fox News said that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, I would have to check the astronomical tables to confirm.
Fox News is a fraud.
Anyone who still watches Fox is confirmed for stupid. I don't care if your IQ is 200. You still watch Fox? You take anything they say seriously? Then I have nothing to discuss with you. Ever.
Fox News wants you to believe in them. Fox News wants you to believe in Bat Boy.
--
BMO
Hmm? Not sure how to take that.
If you mean the morality of it, I don't think you'll find many "liberal" perspectives that it's not so bad. In fact, just about the only ones who argue that there's any situation where the woman can't say no, are a subclass of the bible-thumping nutters, for whom God made the woman subordinate to their dick.
If you mean incidence or prevalence statistics, then opinions and political biases don't matter, only the numbers do. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the incidence has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, i.e., about six times. I don't see how any political bias can change that, short of going out and raping someone to make up for the difference.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
âoeThe increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games,â she said.
Emphasis mine. See? They never said rape has actually gone up,
STOP RIGHT THERE. "The increase in rapes" is what makes their statement actually say that rape has gone up. Simple English, yo. They are discussing a supposed increase in rape, therefore they have directly implied (this is a case of implication, NOT inference) that rapes have increased.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
because they were made in a lab. Don't get me wrong, back here in Britain we've got our own fair share of idiots, but what happened with Glen Beck and Sarah Palin et all is that there was an accident involving a military scientific experiment in asshole warfare where a couple of hybrid super-assholes escaped and then due to administrative error, they got put on TV. Why they haven't told us about the countermeasures, I simply do not know.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Did Fox News rape and murder a girl in 1990? They haven't denied it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
And why won't he deny it?
I am not accusing him of anything, I am just asking questions, but isn't it interesting: Why are we the only ones asking these questions? what the rest of the media trying to hide? The big journalistic rape and murder gang-bang of 1990? - I don't know, how would I, I am not a rape-murdering TV-personality.
"Because there is selection and construction involved, different individuals will necessarily disagree on the result. Soulskill doesn't understand this basic fact. Instead, he thinks that because Fox selected some quotes and disregarded others, selected some opinions and disregarded others, they are necessarily wrong."
I agree with you that this approach does not necessarily make the article wrong, if you would take the time to RTFA, you would see that it is, in fact, totally wrong. This little gem for instance:
See? That's just patently false. First off, what increase in rapes? Violent and sexual crime rates are on a downward trend. This is in the middle of a recession, which, historically speaking, is the most reliable predictor of violence that we have. Secondly, even if the rape rate were skyrocketing, how the Hell is this lady supposed to be able to quantify her statement that the increase is rapes is due to video games? That statement was clearly pulled straight from her posterior.
Or how about:
See? Weasel words. This odious statement is being uttered by "defenders" of video games. It is not attributed to anyone. It does not even make sense, and is clearly false if you look at the sales figures.
So, yes, the typical journalism tactics do not necessarily mean that this article is a piece of shit, but this article is an extraordinary piece of shit.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
One of the countries with the lowest rates of rape (Japan) actually has rape simulation games.
Wonder how Fox would spin that?
There's something even more troubling about the quotes you just provided.
Expert says: “The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games.” ...[says] that sexual situations and acts in video games...have led to real-world sexual violence."
Fox News concludes: "Carol Lieberman
Worse yet, when the average uninformed reader reads "have led" first, it won't matter that the expert only says there's a potential link, not an absolute one. Hell, you probably could have written the story like this, and I bet it wouldn't make any difference to the average reader:
Carol Lieberman, a psychologist and book author, told FoxNews.com that sexual situations and acts in video games -- highlighted so well in Bulletstorm -- have led to real-world sexual violence. “Nothing gets me off better than listening to two hours of Glenn Beck on the radio,” she said.
That's misinformation at its finest.
Just watch this video of some talking heads debating sexuality in Mass Effect, not knowing what their talking about, and getting their asses handed to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU
I don't think there's much of a comparison here. We have on one hand the claim sexual innuendo in games (and only in games) leads directly to rape. The counter-factual claim that rapes are on the increase, and concrete evidence that the reporter who wrote the piece knew full well that he what he was writing an utter fabrication.
On the other hand, I've been expecting an Democrat to be murdered for political reasons since the 2008 election campaign. It was obvious that it was going to happen when you have half of the political spectrum calling their opponents terrorists, traitors, and murderers. Eventually somebody is going to believe and then act on those claims. My only question is whether Palin and associates were evil enough to hope that it was Obama who'd get shot, or whether they're stupid enough to think they can act that way and there wouldn't be any consequences.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Unfortunately these questions can only be answered by Japanese. The statistics come from the UN and do state that it often shows willingness to report the crime. I would state one thing however, the difference between the #1 spot (South Africa) and and #54 (Japan) is quite substantial. The difference isn't quite as much between #9 (US) and #54, but still a marked difference. NB: This data is from the 1998-2000 survey, the 2008 data can be found here, but it's not as easily readable and is not ranked.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
If you can't see fox is the worst offender after watching 10 minutes of it, then I question your objectiveness.
Certainly other networks put spins on things, but fox is in their own league in the level and obviousness of it.
So the mouthpiece of the party that opposes gun control and governmental regulation in general is advocating stricter imaginary-gun control?
The post also claims Fox is mainstream media. I don't believe that to be true at all. They may have a following, but mostly, they're redneck, science-denyin', anti-queer, don't-tax-me, Nazi-claimin' bags of big wind.
And now, I'll watch as my /. karma twitches.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
This was picked up by a bunch of gaming sites yesterday, so I'm assuming that has something to do with the 1000 of comments slamming the article.
I gotta give you thumbs up, for thinking, but thumbs down for missing a couple important details. Julian Assange is not charged with rape, but rather some kind of sexual "misconduct". Only the American media has managed to exaggerate Julian's case into some kind of rape case.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
They're pink and invisible. I tire of the lies.
Bullshit. That is simply your own hallucination and interpretation which, as I stated above, supports what you choose to believe. When I do see a few minutes of the "news", whatever the station/channel/outlet, I am always amazed that people like yourself choose to *not* see the blatant attempt at brainwashing that these so-called "news shows" exhibit.
No, FoxNews is the worst. Does this mean no others are not guilty? Does this make the statement that Fox is the worst an hallucination?
FWIW - I stopped watching all of them 7+ years ago
I'd suggest that you can't have it both ways: not watching them and having an opinion on the current state of programming.
Also, does Glenn Beck kidnap and eat children? I don't know, I'm just asking questions. I know they'll try to silence me on this with moderation. That's OK. I'm posting this for you, not for me. I don't care what they do to me. This is not about me: this is about your right to know.
I am not a crackpot.
Rupert Murdoch is one of the sleaziest bastards on earth, and he's an opinionated sumbitch as well.
I'm not sure if that means Murdoch is himself opinionated. He uses public his influence on public opinion to further his goals, not necessarily because he believes that swaying opinion itself is good. A Linux zealot or a religious missionary wants to convert others to his way of thinking because his belief is that that conversion itself is for the greater good. (I'm sure someone can find a counter-example, but I believe my generalization is sufficiently true here.) But for Murdoch, it's a means to a different end.
The video game controversy is not this, though. Murdoch, or Fox News or Fox Networks doesn't stand to directly gain anything by generating an outcry over a video game. This "story" is just some "red meat" for the viewers. It gets them stirred up over something new and scary, like the new pool table in town. Not because you hate pool (but love billiards). No, it's to get the town to form a "boys band" to keep the kids out of trouble. And not because you oppose the kids getting in trouble, either. No, it's so you can sell them a bunch of instruments and uniforms, etc. and make a quick buck. I bet you could flesh that idea out and make a pretty good story . . .
In this case Fox is getting people stirred up over a video game to make them more susceptible to what they're really trying to sell. Stuff like "smaller government," particularly in areas where the government regulates its own business -- like relaxing FCC ownership rules. Did Murdoch become a US Citizen because of our proud history? Our culture? The beauty of our landscape? No, it was to eliminate the "citizenship" problem with owning media in this country.
ALL of his media and publications reflect those facts. Fox is no more conservative than I am a rocket scientist. Fox is a tool, designed for the purpose of shaping public opinion.
Can't argue with that. They take a "conservative" approach (however one might define that) when it fits their agenda to accomplish what they want. As you suggest, it's a tool. Like my screwdriver. I use it to drive screws, not because I believe in the greatness of the screwdriver as a tool, but because it suits the purpose.
I am not a crackpot.
You do realize that no one made that argument, right?
People simply pointed out that the right uses a lot of violent rhetoric, and, look, an example of it. Where others might simply used a checkbox or something, Palin decided to use a gun crosshair, because she's all 'gunny', don't cha know.
Although I personally find her 'reload' comment to be a lot more crazy.
I know you won't believe it, but the right uses much much more of 'shooting things' rhetoric than the left.
And, yes, I'm sure there's some examples of the left using violent-originating figures of speech, but the right isn't using metaphors. 'Targets' are metaphors. 'Bullseyes' are metaphors. 'War' is a metaphor. Even saying 'in our crosshairs' might be.
If some on the left have cherry picked those terms out and complained about them, they're wrong, just like they were wrong to complain about the 'Repeal the job killing health care reform' bill's name. (Well, they should have just complained it was dishonest.)
But actually drawing crosshairs on a map...that's not a metaphor. I've certainly never seen crosshairs used to identify locations or people outside the context of shooting at that location. A bullseyes, an X, okay, I can accept those and not read 'shooting' into them, despite the origin, but a crosshairs, no.
Talking about 'ballot, soap, jury, ammo', is not a metaphor. Talking about 'using second amendment rights' is not a metaphor.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
We have R and NC-17 movies that as a society we have agreed that minors should not be allowed to see. Why is it different with interactive media.
It's not different, I suggest you do a bit of research.
The ESRB rates all games, and video game stores epically outperform other stores when carding people.
It is twice as easy for a 16 year old to buy an R-rated DVD than a M rated video games. It's almost twice as easy for them to get into an R-rated movie.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Actually, I read that ruling. And the judge did find that the story was false. So did the jury on the first trial. They found that Akre was fired in retaliation for threatening to go to the FCC under the whistleblower laws. Those laws only work when you're whistleblowing the truth, you can't just make crap up and get protected for it.
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
and
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Reporters+sue+Fox+over+Monsanto.-a0129170235
The appellate court which did not have a jury overturned the jury ruling on the basis that the FCC's rule against false and misleading claims was not an official/formal rule. In other words, Fox News went to court and defended it's behavior of lying and distorting news and facts and won. The ruling wasn't overturned because there was no lie but because there was no official rule against lying.
Read it yourself. http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf
The sad part is that there are still people that believe what they see on that channel. The really sad part is the line you gave above is exactly what Fox reported about the subject and you believed it without bothering to do ANY fact checking.
You apparently don't understand that a) we do have literally exactly the same restrictions on video games as movies (a voluntary rating program, which b) has nothing to do with legality at all..you can legally take your 2 year old to an NC-17 movie. The law has no problem with it, assuming you aren't violating some other law, but that has nothing to do with the rating per se.
Like I said, do some research before commenting. The movie rating system and the video game rating system are essentially operated in exactly the same way (An industry association that publishers submit stuff to and get a rating back.) and have exactly the same legal force behind them. (None at all.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?