Video Gamer Challenges the National Institute on Media and the Family
4/20/2005
Long time video gamer, David Polus, has challenged the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) to explain some concerns he has with the group and to answer some questions he has brought up. The NIMF is often cited by many lawmakers as a trustworthy group for justifying government regulation of video games, though this group allegedly claims they oppose government regulation. Mr. Polus has noticed unusual, and sometimes, incoherent, statements coming from this group and felt they should be brought up and addressed.
Here is the actual e-mail Mr. Polus has sent the Institute. (The Institute, at this point in time, has yet to respond):
To whom it may concern,
I am writing you in regards to your group's stance on video games. First and
foremost, I do not work in the video game industry. I am currently a graduate
student, and have developed my own video games (independent/personal projects)
some of which have been for class projects that showcase certain elements found
in games (artificial intelligence, physics, etc). I have been playing video
games for almost 20 years, so I know a lot about games and game development. I
sometimes visit your website, and have watched Dr. David Walsh on C-SPAN
presenting the annual report card the last few years, grading the video game
industry. I am deeply troubled by some of the things that the National Institute
on Media and the Family has been claiming about video games and the video game
industry and was hoping that my concerns can be addressed.
Firstly, I notice on your website that you have a petition to "Tell Take 2
Interactive Software: Killing Cops Isn't Entertainment" specifically regarding
their "Grand Theft Auto" game/series. This brings up my first concern. Back in
2002, the NIMF gave the video game industry an overall grade of F, mainly for
violence against women by showing video clips of "Grand Theft Auto" where the
person that was playing the game when the footage was taped is attacking the
female characters in the game (and conveniently skipping over and not attacking
any of the male characters in the game). This was used to justify the F grade
the industry received (and your group had a petition going that you claimed
would be sent to the same company telling them not to create video games with
violence against women, just as you do now, but this time for violence against
police officers). Skip over to 2005, and you now portray this "misogynistic"
game/series as a cop-killing game/series. Why did it take you 3 years to come
out and tell us that this series features police officers that the player can
(choose to/choose not to) attack? The entire series features violence against
police officers, including the same 2002 version that "earned" the video game
industry an F grade for violence against women, yet the NIMF made absolutely no
mention about violence against police officers until now. To me, this seems like
a scam. Plan A was to portray "Grand Theft Auto" as a misogynistic game, and if
Plan A fails, go to Plan B. Plan B is to portray the game as a cop-killing game.
Plan A failed because though there are female characters in the game, there are
also male characters in the game as well that the player can choose to attack
with a baseball bat or gun or whatever, so portraying the game as a misogynistic
game is rather foolish. Even Senator Joseph Lieberman has made himself look
silly echoing what the NIMF has stated, by claiming that "Grand Theft Auto" is
violent and dangerous towards women and girls, and the industry shouldn't create
games like that if they want boys to grow up and respect women and girls. He
never mentioned that the game can be considered violent and dangerous towards
men, towards police officers, towards pedestrians, towards motorists, etc so I
wonder where he is getting this misguided information from? Hmmm. I can't wait
to see what he will say once your group tries to now convince him that this
misogynistic game/series is really a cop-killing game/series instead. (Let me
make a "psychic" prediction by predicting your group will give the video game
industry an overall grade of F later this year for violence against police)
Speaking of the report card grades, I would like to bring up my next concerns,
which are related to the 2004 report card the NIMF released, starting at the top
with your claims that parents are getting double messages. You state "Reviewers
across the country are hailing this game as one of the greatest ever. Reviewers
are lauding the game for its technical qualities while barely mentioning the
game's immoral story line. 'A game with everything but morals,' is the
equivalent of a four star restaurant review praising the eatery's ambience and
service but then adding as an afterthought the fact that the food is laced with
salmonella." Dr. Walsh has repeatedly stated that adults should have full and
free access to this game and any other game, while children shouldn't. The
reviewers that this report refers to are mainly (if not, all) adults anyway, so
this report card shouldn't have a problem with adults hailing the game as one of
the greatest, since no matter what the reviewers state, that doesn't reduce the
value of the M 17+ rating that the game carries, which helps parents decide
whether their children should play the game or not. Also, comparing the game to
a restaurant serving food laced with salmonella is rather ridiculous when you
take into consideration that Dr. Walsh says adults should play the game if they
want to (would he say that it is ok for restaurants to serve salmonella to
adults if they want to, as long as the restaurants aren't serving salmonella to
children?) Plus, you don't have to go beyond literature to find "immoral story
lines." I doubt the NIMF would say that a Shakespeare's play with an immoral
story line is comparable to a restaurant serving salmonella.
The next portion of the report card titled "Why Do They Act That Way?"
(suspiciously sounds like "cross advertising" since that is the same title as
Dr. Walsh's book) says that "The latest brain research shows that violent games
activate the anger center of the teenage brain while dampening the brain's
'conscience.'" Please tell everyone what part of the teenage brain is activated
when the youth is engaged in other mediums. What part of the teenage brain is
activated when children watch violent movies, watch violence on the evening
news, look at violence found in newspapers, read violent books like literature,
history, or religious texts? If the anger center of the teenage brain is
activated when the teenager plays video games, then the same would hold true for
every other medium, and refusing to study other mediums only shows that this
would be true (if researchers felt so confident in their research and if they
felt confident that ONLY video games produce this result, they shouldn't be
reluctant to study other mediums to see what kind of results they would get).
Just before your report was released back in 2004, the masterpiece movie "Saving
Private Ryan" was shown on national television uncut, uncensored, unedited, yet
your group never scolded ABC for airing the film during the time of day when
most children are watching television. So violence in media is "harmful" to
children and you tell parents to avoid violent media for their children because
it activates the anger center of a teenager's brain, but the violence in "Saving
Private Ryan" is fine and doesn't "harm" children and parents need not prevent
their children from watching this masterpiece film because apparently it doesn't
activate the anger center of the teenage brain. Who actually is the one coming
up with the "double messages" that you claim confuses parents, the video game
industry or the critics who scold violence in one item, but defend it in
another?
Your statement "Whoever tells the stories defines the culture" is misguided. Art
always reflects culture and life. Was Pablo Picasso's "Blue Period" responsible
for him feeling depressed, or was his depression the reason for him to use more
blue color to convey a somber mood during this period?
Your statement "The U.S. Army now uses video games as recruiting tools because
the games capture the interest of teens, shape their attitudes and influence
their behavior" is also misguided. I buy the "capture the interest of teens"
part, but "shape their attitudes and influence their behavior" I don't buy. What
you are saying is that all those years playing Pac-Man should've "shaped my
attitude and influence my behavior" and caused me to eat "dots" everywhere I see
them, but unfortunately for you, this didn't happen to me.
Though I don't necessarily disagree with the report when it says games like "The
Guy Game" and "Leisure Suit Larry" should probably have received an AO (adults
only) rating, the double standard that your group seems to convey is that nudity
in games should come with the most restrictive rating, but this shouldn't be the
case with other mediums. There are numerous (A LOT) of R rated movies out there
that feature nudity (full frontal nudity often times) but the NIMF has never
(not once) stated that these movies should be rated NC-17 instead of being rated
R. So nudity in movies can be rated R and the NIMF is fine with that, but a
video game that has nudity should not be rated M (equal to the R rating), but
rated AO (equal to the NC-17 rating). It's funny how Dr. Walsh has always stated
that a universal rating system is feasible and needed, but the double standards
coming from your group proves why a universal rating system can't happen.
But by far, the silliest section on this past year's report card is on obesity.
You state "Content aside, the amount of time kids spend playing games, even the
good ones, is contributing to the obesity epidemic among American youth. For too
many kids, the only parts of their body they are exercising are their thumbs. We
are particularly concerned, therefore, about the launch of games this year aimed
at children as young as two. We know that the industry wants to expand its
customer base and that it is in their economic interest to hook babies on games.
This trend, however, raises serious implications for our children's health" and
you gave the video game industry an F grade for obesity ("Screen time related to
overweight" to be exact). Now if video games get an F grade for obesity because
only a child's thumbs get exercise, what grade would your group give the
book industry? When children read books, not even their thumbs get
exercise, so I'd imagine a grade worse than an F (expulsion maybe?) if you had a
category called "Reading time related to overweight." (I suppose selling Dr.
Seuss books and Harry Potter books shows us that the book industry "wants to
expand its customer base and that it is in their economic interest to hook
babies on" books. It may disappoint you to know I started reading books at a
very young age, and that since then, I have been hooked on books and reading.
Darn.) Before you make such irrational conclusions and issue the grades, I
suggest you realize the implication of doing so in regards to other activities
(like reading books) and how those other activities will be affected. I urge you
to look at a game like "Dance Dance Revolution" as well as games designed for
the Eye Toy before prematurely claiming video games raise obesity levels. If you
try to convince the public that you are a group that knows a lot about video
games and a lot about the current video game market, I have no idea how a game
like "Dance Dance Revolution" and games for the Eye Toy never have made it on
your top 10 list of games you recommend for children and teens (unless you
purposely left out those games to justify the F grade for obesity; shame,
shame.)
I'm also curious as to how your group is a "non-profit" organization, yet
according to your website's "Store" section, you sell numerous items, including
a video tape "SEX, MURDER, AND VIDEO GAMES" for $80 (which may violate copyright
laws if the tape contains video game footage).
I realize that this e-mail is quite long, but I feel I have legitimate concerns.
I hope that someone at the Institute can address the issues I brought up.
Staying silent on these issues will only reaffirm my position that your group
isn't very trustworthy and your group agrees with what I have stated. I will
also send a copy of this e-mail to Senator Joseph Lieberman and Congresswoman
Betty McCollum since they always attend the conference when the report card is
released, and I will send them the e-mail again as a reminder later this year
before the next report card is released.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
David Polus