When reading the article I found for this week’s blog, I couldn’t help but dwell on a pretty staggering bit of irony. The article was about a brief filed with the Supreme Court by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) asking to repeal a California state law that restricted the sale of video games deemed to be “offensively violent.” The ESA argues that the law “protects no one and assaults the constitutional rights of artists and storytellers everywhere” (PR Newswire), and that it was initially passed unlawfully. This is a perfectly valid argument, and one that has been a subject of debate for almost as long as the medium has existed. However, what struck me as being odd was that the name of the case before the court was “Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association.” In a particularly egregious case of the pot/kettle name-calling, the good fight against video game violence is being led by an action movie star with a triple-digit on-screen body count.
Regardless, whenever anyone looks to point a finger at something corrupting their kids, video games seem as good a scapegoat as any. They hit on basically every facet of the social learning theory discussed in the Baran & Davis reading: modeling (are kids learning how to shoot from games?), priming effects (are they being trained to kill?), imitation (will they go out and recreate the violence they see in the games?), the list goes on. The Wartella, Olivarez, and Jennings chapter of the McQuail reader states that a 1993 report from the American Psychological Association concluded as well that “there [was] absolutely no doubt that those who are heavy viewers of violence demonstrate increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behaviour” (401). In the context of the social learning theory, violent video games seem to be a pretty serious corrupter of our virgin youths.
But in terms of social learning and adolescent development, what’s more important here? Are video games such a negative influence on children’s lives that we should abridge the constitutional rights of game developers to protect them? The Electronic Software Ratings Board (ESRB) was created to curb the sale of explicit content to an inappropriate audience, but has that really made any progress? Is there any way in this situation to both have one’s cake (release violent video games) and eat it too (not have children acting violently)? Does this open the door to future censorship debates in other media?
Article: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/video-game-industry-asks-us-supreme-court-to-maintain-first-amendment-protections-102630074.html
Heather Beaumont
ReplyDeleteBlog # 1
I think that social learning is a huge issue that impacts people, their decisions and behaviors. We as a culture thrive on media and consume it in large amounts each day. A problem I see that is prevalent these days is definitely imitation of what people see. I agree with Mike that people tend to point fingers so that they can try to make sense of why things happen, and video games are definitely getting a lot of backlash. I remember hearing stories on the news about teenagers who played Grand Theft Auto and decided to commit robberies, steal cars and wreck havoc in real life and harmed the police who tried to stop them. They figured that since they could do it in a video game, real life must not be much different. It’s almost as if these video games, movies, or television shows serve as a kind of way to coach people and teach them how to commit a crime. Seeing people get away with it must be influential for those watching, and therefore they believe they could get away with it too. This is the link to one of the articles: ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372684,00.html )
Imitation is also a big deal because we look up to a lot of the people represented in the media. Some people take it too far when it comes to role models and go to drastic measures. I have constantly heard stories about women wanting to get plastic surgery in order to look like a certain celebrity for reasons that blow my mind. I have heard everything from wanting to look like Kim Kardashian so this woman’s boyfriend wouldn’t leave her, or wanting to look like Jessica Alba so that a woman would be “beautiful”. It is okay to admire people in the media and emulate them in certain ways, but I think this is too much and is setting a bad example. Here is the link to one of the articles: (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/07/26/2010-07-26_kim_kardashian_begs_fans_not_to_undergo_plastic_surgery_to_look_like_her.html )
In the McQuail book they talk about the fear effect. “Viewers of television violence become fearful of the world, afraid of becoming a victim of violence and over time engage in more self-protective behaviors and show more mistrust of others.” (p. 404). I absolutely agree with this concept. In my Media & Society class I remember talking about how the news differs from the U.S. and Canada. Canadian news shows much less violence and crime than the news in the U.S. This causes Canadian’s to be much less fearful that something bad is going to happen. They rarely lock their doors, whereas in our country everyone locks just about everything. Since we view so much more violence we believe that it is way more common than it really is and therefore we take major precautions to prevent anything from happening to us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAdina Velasquez
ReplyDeleteIt is true that video games are the main scapegoat when it comes to trying to identify teenage violence. Though, with comparing new age video game systems like the upcoming release of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 Kinetic gaming system to classic controller based systems, games have increased in interactivity. If you have not heard of the Microsoft’s Kinetic gaming system it is the company’s competitor to Nintendo’s Wii console. There is no need for controllers, it has a built in camera that detects full body motions, facial and voice recognition and allows you to scan your own items into the game. Where once you played a game with a controller you now have the capability to just walk in front of the screen to begin playing a game. The experience that older systems had was with controllers. The controllers restricted the interactivity of the game. Though, with new systems like Microsoft’s Xbox 360 Kinetic, the physical aspect of performing the actual movements of slashing a sword or beating up a thug are real actions that are more influential than ever before.
Reflecting back on the readings, Baran and Davis stated that “more and more children are being socialized away from homes and classrooms,” meaning that they are being socialized by the media they consume. For new age systems like the Xbox Kinetic, the repetition of a violent action physically within the game is more likely to occur in real life. This is due to the realism factor of the product hazes the child detachment from the game. The slogan for the product is, “The only experience you need is life experience,” sending a message to consumers that this is as real as it gets. As stated in the Baran and Davis excerpt on social learning, the previous generations learned their ways from formal places such as school and religious institutions, while today’s generation is bombarded with mass amounts of media. The younger generation is more influenced by the media in which they consume because it is a more prevalent factor in growing up in this generation. The realism of the game and the amount of time a minor might be playing the game raises the risk of an individual’s urge to repeat the violence displayed in the game in real life.
Relating the issue presented in PRNewswire’s article “Video Game Industry Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Maintain First Amendment Protections” whether it is constitutional for the state of California to ban the sale or rental of any highly violent rated media content to minors. The banning of selling a specific item is considered unconstitutional, though it is still crucial to uphold the games rating and warning procedures when purchasing a game, an age limit is set for the reason to not have violent content be exposed to impressionable and developing children.
In response to Mike’s post, I believe that it is unconstitutional to censor video games. With the age requirement of 18 to buy a video game deemed not suitable for those under that age, it seems unfair to punish those creating the video games.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, are video games the cause of violence, or simply the trigger to those who are already aggressive? In a piece done by “60 Minutes” back in 2005, child psychologist David Walsh discusses that the impulse center of the brain in teenagers is not fully developed, therefore the ability to think ahead, consider consequences and manage urges is not as keen as an adult.
In 2003, 18-year-old Devin Moore, was brought into a police station on the suspicion of stealing a car. Suddenly Moore snapped, grabbed the gun from the officer, and shot him. Moore then killed another officer attempting to intervene, ran out of the building, killing a third officer, took the keys of a police cruiser and took off.
Moore had just spent months playing the cop killing game “Grand Theft Auto,” which he purchased as a minor. The question is: did the video game “train” Moore to kill the three officers? Moore also had a troubled background, going from foster home to foster home. Moore’s underdeveloped brain, coupled with his additional risk factors, spelled a recipe for disaster.
"You know, not every kid that plays a violent video game is gonna turn to violence. And that's because they don't have all of those other risk factors going on," says Walsh. "It's a combination of risk factors, which come together in a tragic outcome."
Baran and Davis would agree with Walsh that not every person who plays a violent video game such as “Grand Theft Auto” is going to go out and imitate the game, “…such gross examples of media influence lend substance to the argument that negative effects occur only in those “predisposed” to aggression---in other words, those crazy to begin with” (183).
In the McQuail reading for this week there is also evidence that it is not solely violence in media that causes violent outbursts: "No study claims that viewing media violence is the only , nor even the most important, contributor to violent behavior" (401).
It is easy to point a finger to video games for causing an already troubled teen to act violently. I do not think that there is an easy way to have their “cake and eat it too.” There will always be the rare case, such as Devin Moore, who will act violently, and who also plays video games. But chances are, the youth in question already has a history of violence. Censorship of video games could definitely lead to the censorship of other media, such as omitting all violent-sounding verses from music, instead of just curse words.
Overall, it is not the video game creators who are causing the violence, and I believe it would be unconstitutional to censor video games.
Article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml
As a kid, one of my favorite video games was a violent Batman video game on the Sega system. Never ever did it cause me to act out in a violent manner, then as a child, growing up, or as an adult.
ReplyDeleteChildren are easily influence and can soak up the information as well as behaviors that they are exposed to in every day lives. I see that perhaps if a child is exposed to such violent video games, and isn't told other wise that violence is "bad" and that acting in such a way could get them in trouble as well as themselves or others hurt, that they possibly could act out what they view playing the game. However, this is when I feel parenting comes into play. It is a parents responsibly to raise their child the proper way and teach them what behaviors are acceptable and which are not. Also, a child themselves would need a parent to purchase any video game for them. Thus, it is the parents choice whether or not to buy these video games for their children.
If a parent does indeed make the choice to buy a violent video game, then it is their duty as a parent to make sure their child knows the game is pretend and that they can not act that way.
In other cases where a teen or an adult acts out violently and video games are said to be an issue, I think that perhaps it is the individual at fault and should probably be physiologically evaluated. An example of this would be the Devin Moore case in 2003. At the age of 18, Moore is more then capable of knowing the difference between a video game and real life and knowing the different between right and wrong.
I think that the makers of video games should be free to be creative and develop the types of games that they want. Everyday there are millions and millions are people, not only in the United States, but around the world, that are exposed to and play these types of video games, and these people aren’t acting out violently or living by behaviors seen in these games in everyday life.
As a kid, one of my favorite video games was a violent Batman video game on the Sega system. Never ever did it cause me to act out in a violent manner, then as a child, growing up, or as an adult.
ReplyDeleteChildren are easily influence and can soak up the information as well as behaviors that they are exposed to in every day lives. I see that perhaps if a child is exposed to such violent video games, and isn't told other wise that violence is "bad" and that acting in such a way could get them in trouble as well as themselves or others hurt, that they possibly could act out what they view playing the game. However, this is when I feel parenting comes into play. It is a parents responsibly to raise their child the proper way and teach them what behaviors are acceptable and which are not. Also, a child themselves would need a parent to purchase any video game for them. Thus, it is the parents choice whether or not to buy these video games for their children.
If a parent does indeed make the choice to buy a violent video game, then it is their duty as a parent to make sure their child knows the game is pretend and that they can not act that way.
In other cases where a teen or an adult acts out violently and video games are said to be an issue, I think that perhaps it is the individual at fault and should probably be physiologically evaluated. An example of this would be the Devin Moore case in 2003. At the age of 18, Moore is more then capable of knowing the difference between a video game and real life and knowing the different between right and wrong.
I think that the makers of video games should be free to be creative and develop the types of games that they want. Everyday there are millions and millions are people, not only in the United States, but around the world, that are exposed to and play these types of video games, and these people aren’t acting out violently or living by behaviors seen in these games in everyday life.
I agree with others when it comes to the issue of censoring video games. I do not think this is a fair thing to do. Although there have been some connections to people imitating things they see in movies and video games, I feel as though there is not enough proof stating video games are the actual reason for these acts of violence.
ReplyDeleteIn "Mass Communication Theory," by Baran and Davis, the authors talks about two forms of imitation in which people do what they see in movies and actually harm others in real life. They go on to say, "The problem for mass communication theorists, however, is that these obvious examples of media influence, dramatic as they may be, are relatively rare" (Baran and Davis 182-183). This statement proves that although in some instances a movie may give someone an idea to do something, it may not be the direct reason why they are doing the violent act. There needs to be more research about what is causing people to do these things. There are millions of people who play Grand Theft Auto, but not all of them commit and act where they kill three policemen and steal a cop car which is talked about in some of the responses above.
According to Denis McQuail's book titled "McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory," the author states how no study can prove that watching television programs or playing video games can be the only or the most important reason in someone committing a violent act (McQuail 400-401). Once again, this further proves that although video games may have an effect on kids, they are not the sole purpose of someone going out and trying what they do in the game. Often times there may be other reasons why a person does something. I personally feel if a person is going to go out and kill a bunch of people they are crazy regardless of what video game they play. I do not think the video game can make a person crazy. It may show them a fantasy world of how to do things, but it is not going to make them go out and create a crazy act of violence.
Video games even have rating which show whether or not the game is appropriate for children of certain ages. Therefore, part of the responsibility is up to the store to not sell the games to underage children. Children who want to purchase a game rated M for mature should be required to show their ID which says their age. This is supposed to be the case with movies as well. We do not seem to be a quick to censor movies when in fact they show just as much if not more violence than video games.
Finally, like many other people spoke about, parenting can come into play here. Parents need to be responsible for what their kids are playing and what their kids are buying from stores. Certain games are for kids of certain ages and parents should trust these ratings.
Overall, I do not think it is fair to censor video games. It is not proven that video games are directly linked to people committing violent act. As seen from examples from the text, it cannot even be proven that the video game was the most important factor for these rare acts to occur. Also, video games have ratings just like movies do. Stores should buckle down on who is buying these games. Finally, parenting comes into play. Parents need to monitor what their kids are playing and monitor how their kids are behaving after they start to play these games.
While yes, there may be cases were Children are playing and repeat what they see from the violent media, specifically Video Games, I do not believe a) children are (normally) that heavily influenced by video games and b) that the blame can completely fall on the media creators themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was younger, my favorite video game series was by far Mortal Kombat. I bought every game, rough housed a little bit with my brother, but it never occurred to me to perform a FATALITY (the classic finishing move in the Mortal Kombat series to anyone. I feel like a lot of these problems can also stem from troubled home environments and quite frankly, bad parenting.
Granted, its been quite a few years since I bought a video game but even a few years back the concept of the ESRB rating by which video games are rated, a lot like movies, was not the as strict as it was today. The text states towards the beginning of the reading that creators of media tried to tighten the belt on how offensive works were and how they informed parents about how offensive they are.
However, I believe there is only so much the media can do in this case, all across the board (TV, Video Games, and Movies) parents are well informed about what a media can do. If parents really believe that their child is going to act out to that extent because of this media, they need to do a better job watching over there kids. I draw from the cultivation theory which points to how certain groups are affected differently by different things. I believe that there is a certain group of kids who have that messed up of a home light that maybe they interpret this media and it sends them over the edge.
However, media creators do more than enough to warn parents and kids of what they are getting in to, they shouldn't need to limit their creative freedom to seem P.C.
I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to Robin's post. In light of what both Robin and Mike have said, I agree that video games have become the scapegoat for these types of incidents. In the case of Devin Moore, it is much easier to blame his actions on video games than it is to perform a psycho-analysis in order to determine the cause of his deep-rooted psychological issues. In any possible scenario you can imagine, there will always be someone who misuses what they are given. Not everyone who plays violent video games is aggressive in the same way that not everyone who eats is overweight, not everyone who uses Advil is addicted to painkillers, and not everyone who drinks alcohol gets in a car and drunkenly kills someone. Do these things happen? Yes. But if we were to eliminate EVERY little thing in society that has the potential to create any kind of isolated incident, we'd literally be left with nothing. And even in the absence of any materials, in a completely empty space with only people and no things, there will still be isolated incidents, and everyone will still try to blame them on someone.
ReplyDeleteIn Baran and Davis' section on video games and media violence (191-192), they talk about how the widespread belief in a "link" between violent media and viewer aggression "is accepted by all but the most ardent media defenders." They cite statistics that establish the presence of a positive correlation between aggression and violent video games and media. However, as I have learned in my statistics class that I am currently taking, a correlation does NOT indicate a causal relationship. It simply means that when one factor increases, the other factor increases.
Now, I am curious to know why people seem to think, or rather, ASSUME that violent video games cause aggressive behavior, when statistics does not necessarily prove this causal relationship. In fact, the relationship could mean just the opposite -- aggressive individuals play violent video games BECAUSE they are aggressive, and the violent video game appeals to him or her for this reason. Couldn't we argue, then, that having violent video games may actually be a necessary tool for these aggressive people? Isn't it better that they release their aggression in a video game rather than lash out in real life and harm people? I will be discussing this in my lead discussion on Thursday, but it seemed an appropriate question to pose now.
Wartella suggests that there is an undeniable correlation between violent media and overall acceptance of violence. Again, this correlation does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. However, Wartella goes on to an argument that is a bit more sensible, which is essentially the "mean world syndrome" that we spoke about in class. While perhaps people don't just suddenly become violent after watching violent films or playing graphic video games, it does make sense that these media may have a more subtle effect on an audience. Assuming that this theory is true, media consumers become subconsciously unable to distinguish media from reality. Children, in particular, may experience this, while adults may not have this problem. Children may believe the world to be a violent, crime-ridden place if they are fed too many violent images, and thus may feel the need to "toughen up" in order to prepare themselves for the world (McQuail 401-404).
With this in mind, I feel that the issue, if any, is keeping susceptible children away from violent content. This is the job of the parents, not society.
Kieran Wheeler
ReplyDeleteAs we discussed in class, there is no single factor with regards to the violent behavior that is often displayed by our nation’s youth. Other than a few very extreme situations, such as the young boy went on a rampage after playing Grand Theft Auto, violent video games cannot be the primary focus of blame for violent behavior. There is an enormous amount of people who have played and continue to play violent games such as Grand Theft Auto without displaying any sort of violent behavior outside of the video game. When I was growing up, my friends and I would always play Grand Theft Auto. However, none of us went outside and stole cop cars or went out killing people. This is because we all had a decent head on our shoulders and understood that violent acts of that nature are not acceptable in the real world. The fact that my friends understood that this was not acceptable made it a lot easier for our entire group as a whole to understand. Our friends are a great example of another factor that can shape our outlook with regards to committing violent acts.
The Baran and Davis reading talked about cartharsis, which is “the idea that viewing violence is sufficient to purge or at least satisfy a person’s aggressive drive and therefore reduce the likelihood of aggressive behavior” (181). Although my friends and I played it strictly for entertainment purposes when we were growing up, I feel that if there was ever any built up aggression inside a child, playing a game such as Grand Theft Auto would help release that aggression much more than simply watching violence on television.
Although we are constantly viewing violence in the media, and sometimes even partaking in violence through video games such as Grand Theft Auto, the majority of us do not go out and actually put what we have seen on the television and done in a video game to actual use. In the Wartella, Olivarez, and Jennings reading, it states “By the time the average American child graduates from elementary school, he or she will have seen over 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence” (399). This is an astounding amount of violence that is being consumed by young children. However, the majority of young children do not actually go out and commit murder, proving that media alone cannot be blamed for violent behavior in children.
There should not be any ban on video games. I feel that it is up to parents to realize what type of game their child is playing, and to know whether or not the game may be having a negative impact on their social behavior. I do not think that the ESRB has made much progress with regards to stopping children from being exposed to violent video games. There are still plenty of kids playing violent video games. Even if they do not purchase them directly, they can still have access to them through friends and older siblings. There is definitely a way to “have your cake and eat it too,” as the majority of people who play or have played violent video games that deal with murder do not go out and actually murder someone, simply because they had done it in the game.
As Robin said above, I think it would be ridiculous for the government to censor video games. There is already an age restriction on who can buy video games containing realistic or extreme violence, why would there be a need to take the violence out if children cant even purchase them without a parents consent? Doing so, would be like taking the nudity out of Playboy. Like video games, there is already an age restriction on the purchase of pornography in the effort to keep children from seeing it, so why would it make sense to take out the nudity?
ReplyDeleteDue to these age restrictions, I feel that it should be the parents job to protect their kids from viewing or partaking in violent video games. OR, just chose to teach their kids proper ethics and morals and make sure they understand violence is wrong. My parents did it for me, and I played just as many violent video games as the next kid (if not more)and I have never gone on a rampage or hit a hooker with my car I stole from a cop. In fact, the one time I ever even killed a bird with an old pellet gun was a sad day for me.
Parents need to teach their kids that while committing violent acts is fun to do through a controller, doing it in real life is something completely different.
In the Baran & Davis reading, they discuss the idea of modeling,and above someone stated that kids may be learning to shoot from video games. However, shooting is not always a bad thing. Recreational shooting is one of the biggest activities in some parts of the country. I grew up doing it, and started out extremely talented at it, and I am pretty sure that my talent did in fact have something to with the amount of shooting games I played as a kid. Yet, I have always shot at targets never at people and even furthermore to put emphasis on the idea of putting the censorship in the parents hands, my parents never even let me shoot at targets that resembled a human being to make sure i would never get any crazy ideas.
When I was younger, I was one of those teens who had Grand Theft Auto, and so did all of my friends. Censoring video games in my opinion would only cause more problems than benefits. I agree with what Jason says about the restrictions on buying games if you are a certain age. Due to the violence and language in certain games, kids are already not able buy these games without the consent of a parent.
ReplyDeleteWhile the mass communication theory may be something that some people think is true because of some very rare cases, I am one who opposes this idea. I know about the story of the boy who opened fire in a police station because he said he saw the exact scene on Grand Theft Auto, but for every nut job like that there are millions of kids playing the game for sheer pleasure and no harmful effects. I think that video games and other media outlets are just used as a scapegoat for people who need to get out of trouble.
As you were talking about in class, the Columbine shootings done by Harris and Klebold got a lot of notable attention to the media, and experts actually blamed certain media groups for what had occurred. I am one to say that these kids clearly just had a problem and no media was the main cause for their actions. The Manson interview was such a great interview and he talked about many of the concerns about what happened around the events.
In conclusion, video games are a business and do so much more than create violent thoughts for our youths. For every one kid who decides to steal a car or kill somebody there are millions and millions of people who do no sorts of things. I can see why people may be susceptible to believe that video games are the main causes of our youth being corrupted, but in reality, parents and other outside influences should be the main cause of concern.