Excerpt Eight: Blaming Entertainment

     Music labeling and rating has long been a contentious issue, driven in large part by a clean-up music campaign started by Tipper Gore in 1985. Her efforts culminated in the infamous Tipper Gore’s Parents’ Music Resource Center hearings, in which Gore claimed that 14 million children were “at risk” and in need of counseling due to the “graphic brutality marketed to these kids through music and television.” In the wake of the hearings, the music industry decreed that record companies would monitor their releases for offensive content and, where appropriate, label some albums, “Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics.” Fifteen years later, the labels remain.

     Like music, television shows now also carry labels to help parents choose the suitability of broadcasts for their children. A 1996 telecommunications law required that all new televisions thirteen inches and larger be equipped with v-chip technology. This system allows the set to block out shows that contain violent content.

     Yet according to a report to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, there’s an 80% chance that a television show containing violence did not carry the required “V” content label between 1997 and 1998, and a 90% chance that a television show containing adult language or sexual themes also did not carry the required content labels. It’s probably just as well, since most parents themselves aren’t concerned enough to actually use the v-chips and Internet filters anyway. A study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that only 40 percent of parents surveyed reported having a v-chip or other device on the television sets that can block programs with violent or sexual content and crude language. And only half of those parents actually use the devices. Parents aren’t much more worried about their childrens’ Internet browsing habits either; though half of families have Internet access at home, only a third of them have activated software filters before allowing their children to surf the Web.

     The fact that the average parent (and child) aren’t terribly concerned about Internet filtering suggests that, for the most part, the myth of the terrible dangers is perpetuated by advocacy groups and politicians. They hype the problems and dangers then proudly proclaim they can solve the problems to garner support and votes.

     In response to complaints about violence in video games (again, largely by politicians and lobbyists), a rating system was initiated, using ratings from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. The board rates games on a scale from EC (early childhood; suitable for persons three and older) to AO (adults only). The ratings are the products of a byzantine set of criteria, with specific categories such as “mild animated violence,” “comic mischief,” “animated blood,” “realistic blood,” “mature sexual themes,” “gaming,” and “use of drugs.”

     When New York State Senator Mary Lou Rath wanted to look into the link between violent video games and youth crime, she surveyed residents in her district about their opinions on the effects of video games on young people. Rath’s point of view is clear from this quote that appeared in the Buffalo News on January 1, 2000: “With the number of incidents of school violence which have occurred in our country in the last few years, it is imperative that we take steps to prevent this situation from perpetuating itself.” (The link between school violence and video games was assumed.) I don’t know what the results of her survey were, but I expect she found what she was looking for.

     Rath seems to miss the fact that the public’s perception about whether violent video games are harmless or not is irrelevant. Hopefully laws are not simply popularity contests, where if the majority of people feel that video games are to blame, well, then they should be held responsible. Scientific evidence, not opinion polls, should carry weight in drafting effective legislation. The public’s opinion is only relevant if the goal is not to actually solve the problem but instead to garner that public’s favor or votes.

     It should give Americans pause that, over the course of the last thirty years or so, nearly all manner of entertainment has gradually become pre-screened, examined, classified, rated, and, in some cases, censored. This is largely a reaction to sensationalized media coverage of scary myths and knee-jerk legislation.

     Blaming entertainment for social ills is nothing new, of course; Elvis Presley was accused of corrupting America’s youth with lewd hip gyrations in the 1950s, for example, and in 1880s London the play “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” was blamed for encouraging Jack the Ripper in his crimes.

     In science, outside of the agenda enclaves, the effects of violent video games on behavior is very much an open question. If we’re not sure there’s a problem, how then can we work to prevent it? One wonders how we ever got along before all our television shows, movies, music, and games were screened and rated for appropriateness.

     Public overreaction followed the spate of school shootings and the perceived trend in increasing violence in America. Parents, police, psychologists, and politicians all have a laundry list of theories about why crime is on the rise (never mind that it isn’t): too many guns; violent video games; violent rap lyrics; violent television programs; violent films; “antisocial personality” (ASP) disorder; single-parent families; school bullies; lack of parental control; drug use; teen sex; lack of religion in school; a “crime gene”; truancy; teen isolation; divorce; inattentive parents and teachers; the list goes on.

     With all of these possible culprits, one might assume that research could single out a few true causes, or exonerate others. Certainly, some of the above may contribute to why an act of violence occurs, but surely not all of them do; and besides, regardless of which factors are found to be important, the insurmountable problem of free will remains. It doesn’t matter if every teenager carries a gun or watches violent and gory films. The ultimate choice to act, the ultimate responsibility, will lie with the individual. No matter which agenda advocates promote, which hot button they want to push, they will end up at the same place: personal responsibility. But that doesn’t stop them from trying to play the blame game.

     A quote by Suzanne Wilson, who lost a daughter to school shooters, is typical of the assumptions about violence and video games: “We teach our children, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ and then we let them play hours and hours of the most violent video games.”

     While a few studies claim that violent entertainment may be linked in some way to violent behavior, many other studies contradict that assertion. One study commissioned to examine the link between television and violence, The UCLA Violence Monitoring Report, noted that, “When the impact of television is discussed or when television is blamed for having caused something to happen, it should never be suggested that television alone is a sufficient cause.” Another study, The National Television Violence study, underwritten by the cable industry, found similar results: “It is also recognized that televised violence does not have a uniform effect on viewers. The outcome of media violence on viewers depends both on the nature of the depictions and the sociological and psychological makeup of the audience.”

     And where did the assumption that there are mountains of evidence pointing to the media’s culpability in fomenting real-life violence come from? Richard Rhodes, a writer for Rolling Stone, tackled that question and found that the alleged mountains of evidence are really molehills— and shaky ones at that. The approximately 200 studies on media violence are remarkable primarily for their inconsistency and weak conclusions. Some studies show a correlation between television and violence; others don’t. Some find that violent programming can increase aggressiveness; another finds that Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood does. Several studies, including the most-cited ones, are deeply flawed methodologically. In one case, a graph presented in Senate testimony apparently showed a dramatic link between violent television watching and violent crime later in life. Yet what neither the public nor the Senate was told was that the graph held true for just three boys out of a sample size of 145, hardly representative of the general population. Nonetheless, those fighting media depictions of violence happily cite the studies, blithely unconcerned about the lack of scientific validity to their examples and arguments.

     Rhodes notes that “The research no more supports the consensus on media violence than it supported the conclusions of the eugenics consensus eighty years ago that there are superior and inferior ‘races,’ with white Northern Europeans at the top.”

     The assertion that video games make people violent got a boost in May of 2000, when the American Psychological Association issued a press release saying that violent video games can increase aggression. That conclusion was taken from a study by two researchers, Craig Anderson of Iowa State University and Karen Dill of Lenoir-Rhyne College in North Carolina. The pair claimed that they had found a link between violent video games and aggression.

     The claim was widely reported and touted by the anti-video game lobby. Amy Dickinson, a columnist for Time, started her May 8, 2000, column with the subheading, “New studies link violent video games to violent behavior.” She goes on to write, “Two studies released last week go beyond anecdotal evidence and find that playing violent video games can contribute to aggressive and violent behavior in real life.…These [video] games teach kids to connect gore and glory in a fantasy world in which the most vicious killers are the winners.” Dickinson apparently relied heavily on the press releases and made no effort to get an alternative viewpoint or an expert’s take on the study (or, if she did, it never made it into her column).

     Yet an examination of what the researchers actually found shows how tentative their conclusions are. The study seems to show some association between the playing of violent video games and concurrent aggressive behavior and delinquency. Yet, as any social sciences or psychology student can tell you, correlation does not imply causation. One critic of the study, British psychologist Guy Cumberbatch, noted, “[F]inding that people who enjoy violent media may also be aggressive is tantamount to observing that those who play football also enjoy watching it on television. ‘The correlational nature of [this] study means that causal statements are risky at best,’ the authors admit.…All in all, Anderson and Dill’s new evidence is exceptionally weak, and in its one-sided approach it has a depressingly familiar ring to it.…[S]tudies to date have been notably biased towards seeking evidence of harm. This ‘blame game’ may be fun for some researchers to play, and knee-jerk reactions such as the APA’s press release may be media-friendly. But we deserve better.”

     We also deserve better journalism than Amy Dickinson provided in her column. The study itself contradicted one of Dickinson’s points, that “the researchers found increased delinquency among those who had played violent video games throughout their high school years.” In fact, had she read the study, she might have discovered that the researchers apparently did not ask the participants whether the games they had played “throughout their high school years” were violent. For all Anderson and Dill know, those in the study might have played Pac-Man or Space Invaders.

     Politicians pushing their constitutionally-challenged quick-fixes and alarmist agendas often don’t even recognize the contradictions in their rhetoric. How is it, for example, that American teens on one hand are said to be desensitized to real violence through playing video games and watching violent films, yet in the same breath we are told that those same students are shocked and stunned by the violence in their schools and communities? If young people don’t think much of killing because they see gore and violence in the video games Doom and Mortal Kombat and watching The Matrix, they presumably don’t need the phalanx of psychologists and counselors that flood into schools after each shooting.

     Government and political leaders are hypocritical in another way when it comes to televised violence and death. The American public is constantly told how damaging images of both real and fictional violence are. Seeing violence and death is bad—unless it’s the government killing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, in which case U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft will make sure just about everyone who wants a seat can watch as a person is killed in front of their eyes. Too many people to comfortably fit in one room to watch McVeigh die? No problem; they will bring in more chairs and broadcast it via closed circuit television to Oklahoma City. Whether victims should have the right to watch a convicted murderer die or not is beside the point: the government can’t even keep its story straight. In one breath we’re told images of killing and death are damaging; in another those images are said to be healing.

     The anti-gaming lobby has perpetuated the image of legions of young, violent malcontents playing violent and gory video games for hours on end, then heading to school to carry out their grisly mission. The reality, however, is quite different. A 2000 survey of more than 1,600 households found that most people who play video games do so as a way to interact with their friends and family. As Associated Press writer Gary Gentile reported, “Sales numbers tend to support the notion that family-oriented and nonviolent games are popular. The top two best-selling computer games in 1999 were ‘MP Roller Coaster Tycoon’ and ‘Sim City 3000’ — games which allow players to build simulated parks or cities.…Only one of the top 25 video games was what the industry calls a ‘first-person shooter’ such as the Doom or Quake games.” The common claim is that youth have a hard time distinguishing real-life violence from fiction. Ironically, in the post-Columbine era, it is the adults (teachers, parents, police) who seem to have difficulty making that distinction.

     The news media reported that the Columbine shooters listened to music with explicit lyrics about violence. That was enough for Wisconsin Senator Gary Drzewiecki to propose a bill that would make it illegal for minors to buy music with explicit lyrics. In his reasoning, the senator employs the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because if it”): just because the pair may have listened to violent song lyrics before committing the crime does not imply that they did it because of those songs. One or both of the killers probably drank sodas and watched television in the days before the killings; presumably those didn’t cause their rampage. In any event, hundreds of thousands of people also listened to the same music without committing any crime.

     Charles Manson listened to the Beatles’s Helter Skelter before some of his crimes; Mark David Chapman read Catcher in the Rye before gunning down John Lennon. By Drzewiecki’s logic, perhaps such classic songs and books should be made illegal for minors to buy as well. He might even suggest banning an all-time best-seller, a book with many accounts of rapes, torture, mass murder, and incest: the Bible.

     The courts, incidentally, also take a dim view of the claim that fictional violence instigates real violence. In April of 2000, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit brought by the families of three victims of a 1997 school shooting. The lawsuit named twenty-five defendants, including the makers of the violent film The Basketball Diaries and the producers of video games such as Doom and Quake. The judge ruled that the shooter’s actions were unforseeable, and that product liability law did not extend to ideas contained in movies and games. In 2001 a federal judge dismissed lawsuits brought by family members of Columbine victims against a Colorado school district, ruling that the killers “were the predominant if not the sole cause” of the massacre. The following year, U. S. District Judge Lewis Babcock dismissed a similar lawsuit filed against several video game and movie makers, claiming that they shared the blame for the massacre.

Back to top