I dont think the problem is the broadcast networks, I think its their news divisions that get their information from academics, which tend to be left wing and therefore offended by violent entertainment. Theyre also more disposed to think the government is the solution to our problems.

This problem with the news media starts at the university level. Academics (excluding Mr Jenkins) have been arguing for decades that violent entertainment is bad, based on their mostly pacifist ideology and on their dislike of anything capitalistic, they see the video game industry as big business just making money off of selling violence.

Notice they dont have as big a problem with sex, because that doesnt conflict with their ideology. Most of the people opposed to sex in entertainmment comes from the conservative side. Watch any hearing on capital hill and youll see the republicans always talk about sex in media and the democrats always talk about violence. Theyre simply trying to censor that which offends their own ideologies, and their own base constituencies. Its poltics. And its politics for these academics that influence how the media covers the issue.

I dont know what the solution is, but I just thought Id give that perspective. I do think its time to go on the offensive though instead of always playing defense.

Between Brownback's bill and this recent news about the FCC, I couldn't help but think back to something I read. There's a great book out there called "Saturday Morning Fever" written by Timothy and Kevin Burke that took a serious and sometimes irreverent look at the history of Saturday morning cartoons and general Kidvid, which also had its time as a favorite cultural whipping boy for politicians (and as evidenced by the FCC report, still is to an extent, but not as much as it used to be).

The final chapter in the book takes a look at the purported effects of violence in children's television and why adults continue to be so freaked out about it. The interesting thing is how similar the arguments are to video games today. In fact, in some passages if you subsitute the words "cartoons" or "television," with "video games," it sounds EXACTLY like what the politicians are saying today. With all due respect to the authors, I'd like to post some of the particularly interesting paragraphs.

"Once again, though, the critique of violence in kidvid merely shows the odd durability of that peculiar Victorian invention: the innocent child. The same old moony rose-tinted fantasizing about some past golden age is at play again; whenever people moan about kids are more and more violent these days, they're usually hallucinating about the lost world of peaceful nuclear families living in the sububs. Never mind that the era immediately preceding the introduction of television - The Great Depression - was one of the peak periods of violent crime in twentieth century America. Never mind, as James Morrow points out, 'The night he shot Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth had not been watching television.'

Moaning about violence has been synonymous with bitching about them crazy young kids and their weird habits. Conformist adults in the late sixties and early seventies were terrified by the rise of dissent and discontent on college campuses, so they blamed kidvid for promoting this 'violence.' Bob Keeshan (alias Captain Kangaroo) said in 1970 that violent cartoons 'have immunized children to violence. Today on campus, for example we see a violent solution to almost every question. Spiro Agnew suggested something similar by condemning television for producing 'a fascination among young people with demonstrations as a means of communication.' A producer for Mister Rogers' Nieghborhood concluded that while television could decrease prejudice and 'increase wonder' it was also, through trivialization of adulthood, leading kids to protest and use drugs and other unwholesome things.

Of course, all these criticisms should have meant that the shows they were REALLY condmening weren't the mid-sixties superheroes or the core programs of the seventies, but things like The Howdy Doody Show or The Lone Ranger. No one pinned the pathological behavior of the cops of Chicago in 1968 on radio episodes of The Shadow or on pulp magazines from the 1930s. No one fretted that Robert McNamara must have been watching Space Ghost with his kids on the sly prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident. No one pointed with indignation at Jonny Quest for inspiring youthful National Guard troops to open fire at Kent State.

Whether it was Agnew, Keeshan or some other untrustworthy person over thirty, the basic message was the same in the late sixties and early seventies: Blame televsion and you get an automatic license to condescend. Then you don't have to explain exactly why it was bad that kids were in the streets protesting the war or why exactly turning on and dropping out was a terrible thing. The wheel keeps on turning: in the mid-seventies television got blamed for making you passive, and then once again in the eighties it was creating violence. It's the excuse that keeps on giving. Amazing thing, television: it can make you passive and aggressive at the same time. If you don't like whatever it is that young people are doing, it must be television that's to blame."

Interestingly enough, I recall similar arguments being made against video games. Back in the 80's, I remember there was some concern about video games making you passive and sedentary. Then once the school shootings started happening in the late 90's and Grossman and Thompson crawled out of the woodwork, they started being accused of making people violent. I had the feeling of deja vu all over again. After reading that book I realized that the rationale was the same, just the object had changed. Televsion had become too commonplace and familiar. It was "safe," and the perception of the cultural boogeyman had moved to video games.

Here's what the Burkes said about all those studies on TV causing "aggression.":

"The experts are generally silent just why the vaguely defined idea of 'aggression' (or its even vaguer partner 'antisocial behavior') is a bad thing. Experts lack precision not only in their labeling of particular cartoon incidents as violent, but also in their presumptions about aggression, particularly among preschoolers. Even if we were to concede the 'violence' of Satuday morning to the experts (and we don't), we still think that they - and their political allies - have failed to explain EXACTLY what worries them about its consequences, EXACTLY what is wrong with 'aggression' or 'antisocial behavior', or for that matter EXACTLY what violence is. The don't because they can't. They don't because to do so is to expose the arbitrary way they exclude (and thus sanctify) some forms of 'legitimate' violence.

Violence and agression have - at least potentially - creative and socially constructive sides. Understanding and interpreting violence is a crucial objective for any child. If Saturday morning has shown something about the uses and prevalence of violence in daily life, then it is a mark in its favor rather than an indictment against it. Most of those we've criticized in this book probably also accept and support some social uses of violence - war, imprisonment and self-defense, for starters. They just can't admit this fact and instead contsruct a straw man of "cartoon violence" (or more broadly, televisual violence).

No matter how you add it up, we're in favor of more cartoon violence, not less."

I think that about says it all. Again, if you find this book, "Saturday Morning Fever," pick it up. It's a good read!

There is a war right now against Free Speech and young people's First Amendment rights. All of it under the guise of protecting children.
Whenever i hear the words "protect the children" it makes me sick to my stomach. Not because protecting children is a bad thing, children do need protection in certain instances of course (child molesters, drugs, and actual violence itself as opposed to images of violence within free speech). But what the government is trying to quote on quote "protect the children" from, children don't need protection from as there is no evidence (beyond extremely weak, inconsistant, incredibly flawed and of course baised studies) that the material in question is actually harmful to children (well at least older children and teenagers, younger children are a different matter). It's almost as if you are under some magical arbitrary age limit, these politicans believe you have no mind of your own and can't think for yourself. It's very freightning and i feel bad for young people these days.

Scary thing is, if the FCC idiots can do this BS (which hopefully will still get ruled unconstitutional, I hope), this will prove that the anti-game people can get away with doing stuff to our games and say that they're not going against the 1st amendment.

"Menino is… so out of touch with popular culture that he can’t tell the difference between a cartoon character and a bom"

Couldn't help but think, "oh snap!"

I agree that to politicians, there's "no real cost in trying to regulate youth access to digital technology." These anti-video game and such bills are just resume boosters.
Reading this entry has made me interested in reading some more of his works.

It's not the FCC that's the problem. It's the fact that the PTC (the group that files upwards of 99% of all complaints to the FCC) is the only voice being heard on the matter.

Grrr..... PTC. They're worse than Jack Thompson. If you don't believe me, just check out their website (www.parentstv.org). Every one of their press releases refers to them as "the Parents Television Council and its over 1 million members". Unless I'm mistaken, 1 million people is less than 1% of the population of this country. In spite of that, the FCC ends up bowing to their wishes 8 times out of 10.

Yeah, thats unfortunately true. Jack doesn't have the stones to go up against someone like this.

I just read that story. Thing is, there's five people on the committe and it says 3 of them are expected to vote on it. Even if the other two vote against it, we're still screwed. :(

I'm really starting to hate this country, as it seems the people in power are hellbent on taking away everything I like! I hope that the entertainment industry mounts a vigorous defense against this. If they don't, then I've completely lost faith in this country and I'm going to start making plans to go to Canada.

@ GoodRobotUs

How many politicians do you think actually read 1984?

As for the conspiracy theory, I can see the reasoning behind that line of thinking but I doubt it runs that deep. If anything I see the media networks struggling to adapt but happy to see new revenues of income. People still get newspaper subscriptions they still buy magazines so print is in good shape. The tv is safe and secure in its number 1 position. Internet advertising allows for a 3rd method of sponsorship and advertising sales. I see them welcoming it with open arms in my opinion.

I hate the FCC, I really do, they're nothing but a bunch of censorest, or something who want nothing better to tell us what we can and can't watch.

As for this article, that Jenkins is a smart guy, wish he'd go on a debate with Jack Thompson, he'd make mincemeat out of him for sure.

Indeed the media tends to take a small story, blow it out of proportion and run with it. Here in Mass, we are still hearing about that ATHF bomb scare. Not as much now but it tends to stick its head out now and again. That Ana Nacole Smith story seems to get a bulk of the press now. And we just might hear that story for another week or two if they play their cards right. Good thing I have plenty of video games to block out all these dry boring news storys.

Very impressive; it really put his point into perspective I thought.

Whoops, I see GP has already mentioned Hal Halpin's appearance. Guess I should have read the whole article instead of jumping right to the link.

Henrrrryyyyy, Jjjjeennkins!!!!!!!

First to say it, YEAH!!!

As for the article, go Dr Jenkins. His article explains alot.

http://www.feelingame.com