| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSThis past Monday bore witness to a horrific event, when a Virginia Tech student killed more than 30 other students and professors. Such a massive and sudden loss of life in a setting intended to be one of safety and growth is absolutely worthy of personal reflection and sorrow. Unfortunately, this tragic event, like others in the past, has also been seen as a prime opportunity for politicization.
There are a number of reasons for this politicization. For some, it might be a desire to understand why such an event could have occurred. For others, it might be a desire to prevent such an event from occurring in the future. For still others, it might just be a desire to seek the spotlight. Or perhaps a combination of all three. Regardless of the motivations, the rhetoric seems to stay the same: a call for greater gun control; questions why the signs weren't caught before it was too late; an examination of the quality of parenting; and of course, claims that violent media -- specifically video games -- might have influenced the shooter.
The other issues I can't speak to, and they are better discussed in another forum. But I would like to take a moment to address the violent video game claim, and to better illustrate it, I will talk about moths. Moths are generally considered to be a bad thing. When I see moths, I always see them fluttering around light bulbs. Obviously, light bulbs cause moths, and as a result, we clearly need to enact legislation clamping down on the interior lighting industry if we want to curb the moth problem.
Hopefully the logical fallacy is clear, and no one will throw out their light bulbs. My point is that correlation does not equate cause. A far more likely scenario than playing video games causing mass killers is that someone so obsessed with violence and death would seek out any media that relates to it -- like a moth to a flame.
The problem is, millions of normal, well-adjusted individuals play and enjoy video games. They play when bored and when stressed; they even organize social events around games. And they really don't like being compared to individuals responsible for heinous acts, solely on a common form of recreation. In fact, according to an FBI report on school shooters, potential shooters focus not on enjoyment of the game itself, but primarily on a constant exposure to violent stimuli (page 20), whether video games, movies, literature, or torturing the neighborhood cat. It's also worth noting that in the entire 52-page report video games are mentioned exactly once.
Only hours after the events on Monday, before the identity of the shooter was even known, video games were being mentioned as the primary influencing factor behind the shootings. From Fox News, to Jack Thompson -- the systematic rabble rouser on the topic -- to Dr. Phil, all levied charges against video games. And I'd be willing to wager that in the near future there will be some government figure pointing a finger and pushing for a bill regulating this "threat."
On a final note, I find it interesting that mainstream news so willingly provides a pedestal for condemnation of video games as desensitizing agents, when so many games are firmly based in fantasy. In fact, there may be more common means of desensitization -- something like, oh, broadcasting a video of shots being fired and presumably ending the lives of college students, and then immediately staging "debates" over blame; or shoving mikes in the faces of shaken students who just walked out of a classroom where only 12% survived, and then intermixing between this "content" commercial messaging. Perhaps before being so quick to examine others, those in the mainstream should spend some time introspectively. Besides, it seems some quiet introspection is a more appropriate activity after these unfortunate events, anyhow.
1 person recommends this article.
RSS FEEDS
In the 50s you didn't see such behaviour because there weren't 24 hour new channels making anti-heros out of suicidal mass murderers. Its that sensational and constant coverage, of what are really very isolated events, that makes you think we live in more violent times.
Just one point regarding "angry and agitated." It seems to me that should a form of entertainment causing anger and agitation be cause for it's dismissal or regulation, that the first thing we should look at is national sports. I mean, I haven't yet heard of a video game causing riots across Europe, or fights in stadiums, or in bars. What is the possible positive effect there, besides one of personal enjoyment?
I agree that things have changed from fifty years ago. My contention is that video games are the most ridiculous item to blame. Consider some of the sociological changes from the 50s on. TV brings class gaps into focus -- when in the 50s a kid growing up in a low or middle class household was content with what they knew, we now have shows like "My Sweet Sixteen" showing a culture of gluttony and abundance as the mainstream. Network News goes from being a loss in revenue for networks to driving profits; in order to accomplish this pandering to whatever will grab the most eyes for advertisers takes place. As a result, we have a national focus on the inconsequential and the perverse. Additionally, as a result of increasing gender equality (a good thing), we have an increasing number of households where both parents work. Increasing numbers of split families adds to the number of kids who are growing up without sufficient interaction with parents (a bad thing).
It's worth noting that after I wrote this article, evidence came to light that the killer at VT did not play video games at all in college. He had no video games in his possession at his dorm, and those that lived in the same area as him said they'd never seen him playing a video game. Apparently what he spent most of his time doing was writing plays on his computer. So if pastimes are to blame, perhaps we should be investigating creative writing for causing violence.
The editorial cites a USC sociologist who points out that "before this week's Virginia Tech massacre, the most deadly school shooting in history took place at the University of Texas in Austin… in 1966. Not even "Pong" had been invented at that time."
How about we focus on issues like mental health treatment and dealing with anger instead of wasting so much effort on blaming various forms of media?
There has been a breakdown in civility not only in our society but worldwide as well.
I sure do miss The good old days!
Robert Barmore
Anyone who desires immediate national attention-- hours of video coverage on CNN, name and picture on newspapers and local TV news across the U.S.-- has only to massacre several people for no apparent reason.
Unfortunately humans are violent animals and no amount of censorship will change that.
I've played first person shooters for years and would probably sweat and shake if I picked up a real gun.
This issue will go away in about 20 years when the people running the country are those who grew up with video games.