COLUMN: "The Magic Resolution": Doing It For The Kids
March 23, 2010 12:00 AM |
['The Magic Resolution' is a regular GameSetWatch column by UK-based writer Lewis Denby, examining all facets of the experience of playing video games. Are violent video games 'corrupting' our kids? We've heard that debate before, but perhaps not as obnoxiously as this...]
"Hearing the floor manager tell the octagenarian crowd to 'really let your feelings be known if he says something you don't agree with' seconds before filming was pretty disconcerting. I hope you noted the targeted 'he' in that sentence. I certainly did."
Tim Ingham admits he didn't expect anything less, though. As you might be aware, the CVG game website editor recently appeared on UK television's The Alan Titchmarsh Show, as part of a feature on the dangers of violent gaming to children. Hmm. Where have we heard this before?
Even if you didn't see the clip, you can guess where this is going. Titchmarsh, who made a name for himself in the clearly game-related profession of celebrity gardening, chaired a debate which asked the age-old question: are violent games corrupting the minds of our young? Thoughtfully, he turned to the expert first.
"I was fully aware that I wasn't going to be the most adulated guest of our green-fingered host," Tim tells me. "It would have been foolhardy to think that the core audience were anything but retired Daily Express [a British tabloid, with a certain reputation for conservative hyperbole] devotees, and that's the mindset I arrived and departed with."
It's a shame, though. In a section on gaming, one might expect the editor of a leading games website to be allowed to speak for more than a few seconds at a time, before being interrupted and shouted over by a hyped-up audience and the frankly reprehensible squeals of the lady sitting to his left.
That lady was Julie Peasgood. She's a sexual relationships expert. She hates video games with a passion. Shaking her head at Tim's very reasonable remarks that violent video games should not be played by children, and as such carry age ratings (a fact which appeared to thoroughly confuse Alan Titchmarsh), Peasgood launched into a furious diatribe. "Video games are addictive; they promote hatred, racism, sexism; and they reward violence," she enunciated, to rapturous applause and cheers from the studio audience.
Peasgood's rant wasn't over yet, though. "There is a proven link between behavioural violence and video game violence," she claimed. "In a recent American study, over 130,000 kids worldwide were monitored, okay? And regardless of age, sex or culture, the kids who had a regular diet of violent video games were found to be more aggressive, they were found to be less caring, they had low self esteem issues, and they suffered from depression."
Peasgood failed to cite which particular study that was. I've yet to track it down, nor have I even heard such evidence discussed in general before. Tim's rebuttal - that the Government commissioned Byron Review, published last year, found no link between violent video games and behavioural violence in children - was met with laughs from Peasgood and pantomime jeers from the audience.
Heard It All Before
This isn't the first time that ITV, the channel on which The Alan Titchmarsh Show occupies a regular late-afternoon slot, has demonstrated a notable bias against the medium. Last year, the station broadcast a documentary about video game addiction. In the half hour programme, a single games industry representative was allowed just a few seconds of air time in which to counter various extreme claims: that games have been proven to be addictive; that this addiction leads to depression and, in one case, suicide; that this can somehow be linked with the terrible murder of a Counter-Strike player in 2002.
It's difficult to know how best to oppose their bizarre anti-games agenda, though. Unlike the BBC, ITV is funded by advertising rather than by the public, and without an enforced remit for balance and objectivity the station is basically free to broadcast what it wants, within its internally defined set of regulations and within common decency. Julie Peasgood's questionable reporting of an unnamed study, and her claims that games promote sexism and racism, may have been construed as libellous had she not been so markedly vague about the whole matter.
Many have called for mass complaints, but it seems unlikely that these would do much good. There is, effectively, nothing to validly complain about. And there's always a risk that a cocophany of outsiders, fresh from their marathon sessions playing bloodthirsty shooters, all shouting at ITV at once could paint the medium an even worse colour than it's already adorned with.
I contacted ITV for comment, and was put in touch with Channel Television, the broadcast licensee responsible for The Alan Titchmarsh Show. As yet, they have not responded to my messages. [UPDATE: They have now. See below.]
Not Defeated
Despite the ferociously unpleasant seven minutes that comprised the debate's slot, Tim Ingham isn't too disheartened - other than to be dumbfounded by Julie Peasgood's claims that games were in some way responsible for promoting racial hatred. "It was beyond any anti-game rhetoric I'd witnessed before," Tim recalls. "My face said it all, I suppose." Does he feel he missed an opportunity to confront Peasgood on this matter? "Off-camera, certainly."
Still, perhaps it's for the best that he didn't. "I was all too aware of the exigencies of - let's be honest - right-leaning daytime TV," he says. "I knew my argument would have been weakened by any hint of skirmish. I needed to remain patient and relaxed throughout - affable, even - to avoid falling from 'put upon' into 'pariah'.
"My objectives for the day were not rocked. I wanted to show a human face to an industry all too often painted as malevolent and Machiavellian by a frightened middle-market press. Despite the catcalling and boos of a mindless few, I believe I did just that. And if I snapped a couple of mothers into removing Modern Warfare 2 from their 13-year-olds' bedroom while I was at it, it was completely worth the rough ride."
Ultimately, Peasgood and co., evidently burdened by some sort of deep-set problem with the games industry, will always find a way of voicing their misinformed and misinforming views. They have the air time, and a willingly riled-up audience, and popular opinion on their side. From gaming's perspective, well, we have our champions too. There's The Guardian newspaper and its accompanying Observer Magazine, who are increasingly placing video game coverage among that of the more established cultural media. And there's people like Tim Ingham, who are prepared to cross the border into enemy territory, and fight our corner - with words, not guns.
Surprisingly, there's even somebody like Kelvin MacKenzie, the final member of the debate. His stance remained generally against video game violence - somewhat rich, considering he is infamous for some disastrously poor-taste war-reporting during his time as editor of The Sun newspaper. But, next to the horror of Peasgood's remarks, he in fact provided a breath of fresh air. "I'm not a gamer," he admitted, before noting that the average age of video game players is substantially higher than the debate's topic suggested. "Kelvin MacKenzie was vocally appreciative of some of the points I made during filming," Tim tells me, "not something apparently obvious from the released footage."
So there's hope. There's hope that, one day, gaming's acceptance in mainstream society will fall neatly alongside the other forms of art and entertainment which already enjoy general approval. Until then, it's a good idea to stand up for our rapidly sophisticating hobby and its ever-growing industry - but, equally, it's a good idea to stay calm and reasonable in the process.
Besides, it seems one side of this debate can safely claim the moral high ground. "I am categorically against violence for entertainment," said Julie Peasgood during the debate. "It is just wrong."
CVG have since revealed that, back in 2000, one Julie Peasgood starred in a violent video game.
UPDATE: Since this article was published, Channel Television have responded to my email. In particular, I asked about their stance on ensuring debates such as this one provide a balanced view on the subject in hand. Here's their response:
"We, at Channel Television, ensure that the show complies with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, and on this occasion were satisfied that although strong opinions were expressed it was a balanced debate overall. In addition to adhering to the standards set in the Code we have a responsibility to observe freedom of expression, as laid out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We cannot, therefore, censor contributor's opinions, but can take steps to ensure that other contributors are present to challenge and debate the issues in question."
[Lewis Denby is editor of Resolution Magazine and general freelance busybody for anyone that'll have him. If you tell him video games make you violent, he'll kill you to death in the face.]
Categories: Column: The Magic Resolution
12 Comments
I actually found the study the lady was referring to after a quick search for "130,000 children violent videogames"
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/50/35887/violent-video-games-cause-aggressive-behavior-children.html
Aubrey | March 23, 2010 6:27 AM
Great write-up, Lewis. Always interested in the UK media and games. :)
Daniel | March 23, 2010 6:30 AM
Aubrey: Interesting, thanks! Hadn't been able to find that. Interestingly, that piece makes no mention of depression, low self esteem or low level of caring among the study's participants.
Lewis | March 23, 2010 7:06 AM
No worries lewis. My first reaction was certainly something like "Strange that I'm quite interested in this stuff, and yet I've never heard that study."
So, I mean, to her credit, she atleast did one google search to confirm her unmoveable rationale.
The problem comes when you search for the counterpoint to that. There's just as many opinion pieces and articles calling misadventure on the idea that it makes children violent.
As Eric Zimmerman points out, even animals have an established "magic circle" within which their violence is considered play-fighting.
Aubrey | March 23, 2010 8:44 AM
It's a bit rich that they are claiming that they are compliant with Ofcom regulations since I spotted multiple breaches of the code. When Peasbody brought up the study, it needs to be named or else it falls under 7.9 of the code.
With Ingrams evidence though, there was a 5th breach since it breaches section 5.6 and 7.3 in the broadcast regulations when the stage manager told the audience to be vociferous against "him" as that could be constituted as coaching the audience and prejudicing them to drown out his opinions which removes the impartiality.
So while we could plead ignorance and say "There is no point" now. There was a tremendous amount of regulation breaching that slanted a biased show. People should be encouraged to complain to Ofcom if they are in the UK as they do take action and there should be an apology for broadcasting a misleading show filled with false statements and generalisations.
RobotRocker | March 23, 2010 8:46 AM
Thanks RobotRocker for giving me the idea and pointing me in the right direction for the specific articles violated. I found a couple more while I was at it :P
Just submitted this complaint via OFCOM's online complaint form:
----------------------------
During the discussion regarding violence in video games on The Alan Titchmarsh Show, there were examples of bias against the video games industry and violence of Ofcom guidelines.
In this article (http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/03/the_magic_resolution_is_a.php), Tim Ingham recounts how the audience was encouraged before recording began to specifically boo him when they disagreed with him. This is a clear violation of the fairness section of the OFCOM code, specifically article 7.2.
In the same article, Ingham states that Kelvin MacKenzie's positive responses to his points were edited out to make him seem more skeptical. This violates articles 5.7 and 7.6 of the OFCOM code, which require that views not be misrepresented and that editing reflect the contributions made.
In addition, Julie Peasgood cited a piece of research but failed to name it. This violates article 7.9 which states that material facts must be presented in a fair way. By failing to identify the study, Peasgood offered no chance of rebuttal.
And finally, Peasgood's personal interest in the subject matter was never made fully clear to the audience, in violation of article 5.8.
Peasgood has a vested interest in the subject matter because she provided voice acting for a violent video game, a survival horror game called Martian Gothic: Unification. This would have an impact on her personal views for obvious reasons, but was never made clear as article 5.8 says it should (the fact that this underlines her hypocrisy is just an added bonus).
I hope that prompt action is taken to rectify this biased and unfair misrepresentation of the video game industry.
------------------------
Fingers crossed, I'll let you know if anyone replies.
Brian | March 23, 2010 12:59 PM
We've got a petition for an apology going over at Playstuff.net. Drop in and sign up!
http://playstuff.net/showthread.php/2125-Petition-for-a-public-apology-from-The-Alan-Titchmarsh-Show-and-Julie-Peasgood?p=29179
almightybob | March 24, 2010 11:46 AM
New public petition - no need for forum registration, just sign!
http://playstuff.tumblr.com/post/471266385/ignorance
almightybob | March 24, 2010 8:43 PM
Hey, I hope you don't mind me posting this here, but I also wrote about this whole nonsense fiasco. I couldn't believe the ridiculous approach this show took. I also found the study she referred to and it's nonsense.
http://bigdah.gamerkage.com/video-games-good-bad-depends.html
BiG DaH | March 25, 2010 9:28 AM
/signed
This so called "debate" was an absolute joke.
Dan Johnson | April 26, 2010 2:25 PM
Haha, well that is certainly embarrassing for me. Wasn't looking at which page I was on and posted it here; sorry guys!
Dan Johnson | April 26, 2010 2:39 PM
Haha, well that is certainly embarrassing for me. Wasn't paying attention to which page I was on and posted it here; sorry guys!
Dan Johnson | April 26, 2010 2:43 PM