Normally I dont believe in placing blame for one's action on anything else. The only exception would be definite clinically diagnosed mental disorder. but criminals blaming this or that for their behavior, it's a cop out.

However, I do believe that television contributes to how people behave in society. There is a social consciousness, a collective mentality that we all draw from and participate in. What is our biggest source for learning this? Friends sure, but also TV.

It seems that every week, someone has decided that the way to solve their life problems is to kill their family, co-workers, themselves in violent fashion. I believe that somehow and somewhere, the idea got into their head that this is how we solve our problems as humans. It at least became the dominant option.

Now people have been killing each other way before television. But what concerns me is what affect TV has on introducing the idea of "humans do this, in situation X". When they get to X, they consider that action because it is a learned social behavior just like any other. Even if the source was fictional, does the mind seperate that out in times of incredible turmoil?

So does that make it more or less valid that the study was done regarding violence in video games?

Circular logic for the win. People have more of a reaction to violence than non-violence on TV. People react more to violence. News displays more violent related news to attract people. Test studies show that people have more of a reaction to violence than non-violence on TV. Etc.

TV is what we have made of it. We accept it. We shape it. They are feeding us what we want by vote of our attention or cash. A group in the minority will come out every so often and tell us that our collective decisions on programming is bad for us.

We all nod and say they are right. Then, we go right back to it again. Same as it ever was.

I think there might be some guy somewhere influenced by some video game to a small degree. But he would already be on that path, and probably looking for any influence that goes along with his mindset.

Games and TV are different in many ways. TV is observable action, often portrayed as "real" even when it isnt. It is groomed for effect. For example, reality shows that are rehearsed or at the very least engineered to cause conflict. News stories are groomed and managed for ratings, to play upon fear or concern. We turn to the television for facts, the same device that spews out realistic looking fiction. I dont see that same practice on my PS2. I dont watch the news on my PS2, I dont turn to it for social information.

A lot more people watch TV than play video games. It is a social cornerstone, a technical member of the family.

But do video games actually inspire violence? Yes, even if it's just one guy the answer is yes. The question is too complex for a yes or no answer. So do movies. Movies have ratings, games have ratings.

I dont believe that video games have any measurable effect on the vast majority of gamers. I believe TV is much more likely to have an effect, even though it's still a small percentage.

Damnit, for a second there I thought someone was actually studying something besides video games. You made me cry irl.

I think you can blame the tv for violence among 5year olds. Thats when I thought karati kid rocked and the crane would help me kick a 5th graders ass. Didnt work.

As adults/teenagers we cant really blame entertainment. God damn resposibility.

TV? Games?

No, the REAL affector of emotions in studies is, well, music. Which is like the other media rate... oh, it's not. Right.

This article was a waste of bandwidth. Instead of just substituting TV shows for video games, a more worthwhile use of your time would have been to delve into the methodology of the study itself. As satire or parody this was pretty lame.

Yes, the video game study was bullshit. Wonderful, you win the fur lined bathtub for pointing out the obvious in a heavy handed and humourless manner.

Point taken? Sorry, there was no point.

There's no fucking humor in it. I'm glad you found the point.

Delve or rehash the same goddamned topic over and over again? No thanks.

How many more times is somebody going to write an article while waving a study like this over their head and screaming "it's not TRUUUUUE"?

Perhaps delving into Wertham and the Comics Code Authority? Been done.

There's absolutely zero point in trying to preach to the masses, here.

The sad reality of the situation, humorless and heavy-handed, is that regulation will come.

It always does.

There's regulation, and there's regulation.

Europe has regulation. It's fairly similar to your voluntary scheme, except selling the violent games to miors it is actually, y'know, against the law.

Then there's the regulation you're gonna get.

The thing that most comes to mind is "what happened to personal responsibility?"

We're going to wind up a nanny state just like you schmoes after all this bullshit.

Why bother raising a child when you can litigate the government into doing it for you?

I believe in personal responsibility, regardless of whatever influence has occurred. As humans, it is our responsibility to filter out those influences and to recognize right from wrong. Blaming outside sources for a persons wrongs is a joke, because many others have seen those influences and done nothing.

The only exception are people who definitely cannot tell right from wrong on a medical scale, clinically diagnosed. But they should never again be free, if that is the case.

On the flip side, I dont think media should have carte blanche to put up any sort of filth or violence it wants without some sort of regulation. We need movie and game ratings, and we need FCC regulation for family TV during family hours. Adults will still be able to get their fix for the dark side. Just show some ID.

I'm typically for less involvement by "the man," but I'm also of the opinion that certain limitations need to be in place.

Typically adult themed shows are only on at certain times and you are given enough time to realize it isn't something for the young'ins, but some of the cable channels don't follow those same guidelines.

I don't remember the channel, but after watching a show that was specifically shown for families to watch, which we all did together, we all got up to get a drink, do other things, etc. Well, we basically forgot to change the channel or shut of the TV.

A few of my kids (under 6) were playing in front of the TV when the next show came on. I was sitting next to them at the computer. I noticed that one of those CSI type shows was coming on and started to get up to change it quickly.

Before I could take 5 steps and change it, the first scene showed a small child my kids' age laying in the front lawn of the family house face down with blood-soaked pants in the area of his ass. You could see the family inside sitting down eating dinner.

It took 5 seconds and *I* was shocked. My kids didn't really know what to make of it since I changed it so quicky, but damn, what the hell? Not only was it only 8:00 p.m. It came directly after a family show.

I know better now and watch for it closer, but you can see why a large number of parents would overact to something like that. I wouldn't go so far as to say things need to be regulated because of that, but many many people would.

So let me get this straight. They are using our tax money on borderline child abuse research? I mean forcing children to watch Orpah and Dr. Phil's at the same time seems like a form of mental terroism IMO. So that would also lead me to believe that they are doing cross research on the potential damage of daytime television and quack psychology on the minds of children in age from 13 to 17. Or they may be they're doing marketing brainwashing, i mean research (no, i don't. i really do mean brainwashing.) under the guise of scientific research?

I'm not sure if this is funny or just painfully stupid.

You saw the Lovecraft reference right?

That was House episode Cane and Able. The few times they portray violence it's almost always as a catalyst to a medical condition. Medical conditions they do most realistically on tv at the moment.

Yea, we have (I believe almost from the first days of TV here) the "Watershed" - you can't show things like that before 9pm on terrestrial British TV. (And cable/sat services have to include parental control options for channels)

The only problem with shows that can only be shown late at night or such is that after a few years they go into syndication and get shown in the afternoon.