Fat Ninja

The source of all of our trouble 

After yesterday’s post, I thought I’d give our Congress the benefit of the doubt, and hear what all they had to say on the subject of violence in videogames. So, after listening into the entire Congressional Hearing, I have to say that, while there were a few minute kernels of relevent discussion, the overall discourse left me wondering if there were a more gross misuse of taxpayer dollars than that institution that we refer to as Congress.That’s not to say that I think that the concept isn’t a good one, because it is. However, it is in watching it in practice over this issue that I’ve become a bit disillusioned.

To be honest, I don’t know quite where to begin. I suppose the first thing that I noticed was that the overall tone of the Congressional Representatives was antagonistic. The only broad minds at the hearing were those of the individuals representing the Electronic Software Ratings board and Douglas Lowenstein, the Entertainment Software Association President. The Congressional panel was very much entrenched with respect to their views. It was obvious that they had made up their minds on the subject and were looking to simply blow their own horns for the sake of those constiuents who might be considering their options this election year. In the end, it was just a hollow proceeding, rife with shameless grandstanding and altogether vaccuous on an intellectual level.

So, you might wonder what the target of all of this might be? What prompted all of this debate. I certainly did. It was one of the reasons that I endured listening to the session in its entirety. After all, I’m a gamer and the parent of a five-year old son who loves gaming even more than his father. This is an issue that is of some concern to me. But I was shocked to find that the only piece of evidence that Congress had to support their cries for stiffer regulation of videogame content was the Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series. I wasn’t surprised that GTA was the core of their argument, but I was a little miffed that it constituted their entire argument.

Do I think that the GTA series is comprised of great games? Yes, I do. They’ve certainly helped catapult gaming into an adult-oriented market. Do I, however, feel it’s appropriate for our youth to be playing it? No, of course not. Hence, my son does not play these particular games. It is, after all, my responsibility to serve as the filter between by son’s impressionable mind and some of the less savory types of media that are out there. But Congress’ notion of unloading this burden that I bear as a parent onto the shoulders of those businesses who design and develop this sort of content is not only completely unjustified, but also offensive to me as a parent.

Does this also mean that I should hold my local Public Library, or a book publisher accountable if my child happens to come home with a copy of Mein Kampf? What’s funny is most people would immediately scoff at this suggestion. And why not? It’s entirely absurd. Yet here we are debating a similar situation with gaming. The ultimate responsibility for all of this rests firmly on the shoulders of parents. As for “at risk” youth that don’t really have an active parent in their lives, I realize there’s a very real tragedy there.

Congressman Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania)

However, when I compare notes with Representative Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) who indicates that suburban children are less at risk due to their environment, I come away with vastly different conclusions. In his opening remarks, Pitts describes in great detail a child whose father is in prison, and whose brother is on the corner selling drugs. It’s a picture of life in an inner city ghetto that Pitts portrays, and he goes on to say, ”This game could be all it takes to nudge [this kid] on to the other side of the fence.”

Yet, just moments prior to that he said the game would not have this sort of effect on wealthier, suburban children. Now, perhaps my deductive reasoning is off, but when comparing these two types of children, I see a great deal more disparities than I do similarities. It stands to reason that those things that these two demographics have in common cancel one another out. So, from this I deduce that children who live in impoverished areas in which crime is often the only way of achieving the material wealth that our culture associates with success and happiness are at more risk of falling to a life of crime than a middle-American child that’s sitting on a college fund in Suburbia. Now, I just want to give you a second to catch your breath in the wake of that mind-blowing conclusion; and just think, I don’t even have a sociology degree.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) doesn’t know wtf he’s talking about.

Sadly, Representative Pitts was the more rational of the Congressional panel, and he even went so far as to commend the game developer community for its efforts to self-regulate content. However, other members of the panel were a great deal more antagonistic. Fortunately, some of them lost credibility right off the bat in their opening statements. For example, the “Distinguished Gentleman” from Michigan, Fred Upton said, and I quote, “I’m not happy with the consent agreement [between the FTC and Take Two Interactive]” less than a minute after saying he hadn’t even read the consent agreement. Now, maybe I’m just living on some other plane of existence somewhere, but I find it a little tough to put stock in someone’s opinion when they haven’t even reviewed the subject matter that they’re criticizing. Then again, perhaps I’m just too demanding.

Then you have Representative Timothy Murphy (R-Pennsylvania). As a former child psychologist, I thought for certain that if there was one member of this panel that could bring some convincing arguments to the table as to why further regulation of the videogames industry is necessary, this would be the guy. This was quickly dismissed by the fact that as soon as he finished introducing himself and providing his credentials, he shamelessly plugged his book. Personally, I was repulsed by Mr. Murphy’s attempts to use the debate as a platform from which to hawk his wares. Yet, my disgust, it turned out, was not nearly complete.

Rep. Timothy Murphy (R-Pennsylvania)

Apart from badgering those providing testimony to the panel, Mr. Murphy really spent most of his time hurling hollow, self-righteous rhetoric from his pulpit. Rather than actually providing specific examples, or citing case studies, the man simply alluded to his work with troubled youth and relied on melodramatics to plead his case. In fact, at one point, while addressing the representative of the ESRB, Mr. Murphy used an analogy that put the effects of violence in games on a young mind on par with those of being a victim of pedophilia; suggesting that the current rating system’s success rates would be unacceptable were it applied to how well childcare providers are screened for sexual offenses.

Unfortunately, the proceedings were utterly riddled with such instances of lunacy. The hearings were terribly one-sided, but worst of all, devoid of any real meaning. In short, they accomplished nothing substantial. The Congressmen/women simply dug in deeper against the barrage of solid testimony from the panel before them. The entire affair represents yet another missed opportunity for our representatives in government to sit down and actually tackle an issue of real social value, instead of trying to once more make parents even less accountable for the upbringing of their children. Still, most distressing of all is that some people out there will watch this, or listen to it, and think, “That’s my tax dollar put to good use”, because rhetoric works; and rhetoric will get you re-elected.

Share This