Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

November 15, 2010 -

In a response to a recent Tampa Tribune Editorial Board editorial backing California's efforts to ban the sale of violent video games to minors (called "Videos kids shouldn't play"), psychologist (and associate professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at Texas A&M International University) Christopher Ferguson pens a strong series of counter-points.

Among the litany of valid points made by Ferguson, is the emphasis on the fact that science just does not support what the state of California is trying to prove; a conclusive correlation between playing violent video games and violent behavior.

Instead of running down all of Ferguson's points, here are a few samples from the article:

As video games have soared in popularity, youth violence has plummeted to 40-year lows. Of course, video games are probably not the cause of this decline, but we now know video games have not sparked a youth violence crisis. The best studies that are coming out – those that carefully consider youth violence or youth mental health, find little to no evidence of harmful effects.

It's probably time to discard this hypothesis.

Another strong point is about Postal. Here's what Ferguson thinks about it:

The state of California (and the Tribune) makes references to a single game, Postal. Indeed, this is a vicious game morally unsuitable for minors. However, I've reviewed research databases of my own and colleague Cheryl Olson and the Pew Research Foundation in which children report on games they play. Of approximately 2,500 children, not one reported playing Postal or its sequel. So California is paying millions of dollars (which could have gone to children in need and families at risk or used to not lay off thousands of teachers) to prevent children from playing a game they already don't play.

Read the whole thing here.


Comments

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

From the article:

"A law that distracts us from real causes of youth violence and diverts precious money from education and mental health into a law that will help no one is what is truly harmful."

Thank you. God, thank you.

Everyone, please circulate this article to as many of your friends as you can. Not only is it a breath of reason and sanity in a drowning sea of ignorance over the California law, but is, in its own way, a commentary on public understanding of scientific findings and fear-mongering news reporting in general.

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

 The fact youth violence decreased so much should be the end of the entire debate.  Obviously, the anti-games people don't care about the facts, but the industry has been very lax in promoting this critical piece of information.

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

The problem is that those are just the reported youth crime statistics.  People like Jacko have claimed that the youth violence problem is so big that most of it goes unreported. There's no real way to prove him wrong about that (even though he almost certainly is).

 

 

http://www.popularculturegaming.com

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

Well I could buy that lots of violent crimes go unreported.  But even if that's true, the youth violence statistics are still valid in tracking trends over time.  Unless you had some rationale for why crime would be reported less often than 20 years ago (given massive efforts to destigmatize victimization, if anything, the opposite should be more likely). 

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

Yes, there is.

"Who are you?"

"jack Thompson"

"then you are wrong sir"

 

Problem solved

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

LOL, good ol´ Jack Thompson mockering. His ideas still make us laugh.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

"The fact youth violence decreased so much should be the end of the entire debate."

Not necessarily.  Who's to say that without violent video games, youth violence would not have decreased even more?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

Who's to say that without macaroni and cheese we wouldn't have achieved world peace in the seventies? I declare that sports drinks are why we haven't sent a man to Mars yet. Prove me wrong. 

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

Uh, we didn't achieve world peace in the 70s.

Anyway, here's a fact: as violent games have become more numerous and detailed in their depictions of violence, youth crime has gone down.

However, that's simply a correlation.  It's an interesting fact to point out but it's not a debate-ender.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

I think its intended more a counter to claims that video games have a massive impact on youth violence (10-30% according to Strasburger, 2007). 

 

So it's meant to "kill" the absurd arguments, not necessarily "reasonable" arguments.  However it's the absurd arguments that too often are being made by scholars and filtering down to the general public. 

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

Sure, but again, it's not a debate-ender.  Unless the debate is "youth crime has been on the rise since violent games were introduced."

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

No I'm not saying it's a debate-ender.  Neither is it an unimportant piece of evidence (although in fairness I don't think that was your point...not trying to straw man you).  I do think the violent crime data gets shoved into a black/white mentality.  Either it ends the debate or its unimportant (again I'm not saying that's what you said, but certainly the Anderson/Gentile crowd try to make that argument...and in a way that's hypocritical).  When folks make claims that 10-30% of crime can be attributed to media violence (as folks like Huesmann, Strasburger and others have done), they "open the door" for consideration of youth violence (and general violence) statistics.  Similarly many media violence scholars (Anderson, Bushman, Centerwall) happily pointed to violent crime rates while they were rising, only to hypocritically arguing they're unimportant once they are on the decline.

We're probably arguing over details despite being 80% in agreement, but...debate ender...no.  Worthwhile and important piece of that debate...absolutely yes.

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

Agreed.  Not unimportant, not un-notable, not uninteresting, just not a debate-ender.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

Probably because they know they've done nothing wrong and feel no need to prove it.

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

I think the California Lawyer actually said that Madworld would "probably" be covered.  So the law is even more useless because with the exception of Postal 2, they couldn't reliably name another game that would trigger the law, and even the games that would "probably" be covered, no kids played them anyway.

 

-------

Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

Considering that Postal 2 was supposedly satire, that would mean that not even that would be covered by the California law due to it having merit. This thing really is useless.

Re: Video Game Editorial vs. Editorial

To be fair, CA did namedrop Madworld too but looking at that game's sales numbers, I don't think any kids played that one either.

 

Andrew Eisen

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
WonderkarpAndrew Yoon Died http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/rip-andrew-yoon-3096901/31/2015 - 10:26pm
Matthew Wilson@ea so much happened this week its not funny. fcc broadband, Nintendo, sega, and sevral other big stories. was not a slow week lol01/31/2015 - 8:50pm
Andrew EisenWasn't on the list but we can certainly talk about it.01/31/2015 - 8:45pm
Matthew WilsonI know its not directly related to games, but are you going to tak about the fcc raising the definition of broadband to 25/3?01/31/2015 - 8:33pm
Wonderkarpwell we had to christen it some way01/31/2015 - 7:13pm
Andrew EisenThank goodness the Shout box now goes back 100 shouts, eh folks?01/31/2015 - 7:10pm
Wonderkarpyouve said youre stuff. I gave you a point on one thing.01/31/2015 - 7:04pm
Andrew EisenNo, they're facts. Not beliefs. Not opinions. Facts. Do I need to list them all for you again? I'm happy to oblige.01/31/2015 - 7:02pm
Andrew EisenAnd I have seen no evidence (and would find it very hard to believe) that her fans and funders, even the most radical, would be the ones perpetuating that nonsense.01/31/2015 - 7:01pm
Wonderkarpabout as right as Glenn Beck is about the gays, man. Its all your beliefs and opinions.01/31/2015 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenI didn't say you did. And this talking head is still right about everything he's said so far.01/31/2015 - 6:58pm
Andrew EisenAlso, considering the number of non profits that merchandise, I'm going to guess you're wrong on that one too but I don't really know as it's not my area of expertise.01/31/2015 - 6:58pm
WonderkarpYou can keep saying that all you want. Its just a talking head, man. there's all the proof in the pudding. I never said she was trying to take away games, or get rid of male protagonists, or any of the BS thats perpetraited by her more radicalfans/funders01/31/2015 - 6:56pm
Andrew EisenNo, as I've spelled out throughout this discussion, you're wrong.01/31/2015 - 6:53pm
Wonderkarpok. that one I am wrong. I'll give you that one. That was one I didnt research properly. BUT I'm right on the others.01/31/2015 - 6:53pm
Andrew EisenFact: It makes no difference whether she recorded the footage or not. Fact: yes she does have a Section 107 'fair use' disclaimer at the end of every video and in the video description.01/31/2015 - 6:47pm
Wonderkarpsaying otherwise. I've presented a video with cited sources combined with opinion. Youre presenting just your opinion. 01/31/2015 - 6:43pm
Wonderkarpits still important information brought up on the original video. and by not saying anything, the casual observer thinks its her footage. there's no "section 107 Fair use" disclaimer. Its as if she's showing star wars and saying "look what I made" without01/31/2015 - 6:43pm
Andrew EisenIf that's true, maybe she's willing to lose her tax exempt status by merchandising. So? Also not a problem with her Kickstarter. And no, I don't have to be a rep of FemFreq to point out how nonsensical, irrelevant and untrue all this nonsense is.01/31/2015 - 6:43pm
Andrew EisenShe doesn't say it's not her footage and she never said she'd record all her own footage. So this isn't a problem. I doubt she's said anything like "no women or non white people are critics of mine." Regardless, nothing to do with her Kickstarter.01/31/2015 - 6:41pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician