- The teaser to the story, featured at the beginning of the program, left me fearing the worst. After an introduction by Ed Bradley, a snippet of a Jack Thompson quote about games providing a "cranial map" for crime was presented with no meaningful context or skepticism. Compare this to the introduction that came right before it, for a piece on terrorist suspects being tortured overseas. There, a quote about the practice defending Americans was met with a question about the appropriateness of torture. I wish the teaser for this piece had been as balanced.
- Ed Bradley's lead sentence to the story also drove my hopes down. He asked viewers to "Imagine ... a video game in which you could decapitate police officers, kill them with a sniper rifle, massacre them with a chainsaw, and set them on fire. Think anyone would buy such a violent game?" He answers his own question, revealing that such a game exists (shocker!) and citing sales numbers of 35 million for the Grand Theft Auto series. The introduction goes on to call the game "360 degrees of murder and mayhem" which is pretty accurate, but also pretty cheesy.
- Things got better once the interviews started. Bradley led off with a rather skeptical question to attorney Jack Thompson about whether a video game can actually made an 18-year-old commit a crime. Thompson gave an answer that described the game as "primarily a cop killing game" (much less accurate than the 'murder and mayhem' line, in my opinion), and said that "but for the video-game training ... he would not have done what he did." No real surprises here.
- The next segment of the piece was particularly powerful. Bradley walked down the police station hallway where the crime took place and gave vivid descriptions of what happened, pointing out specific locations for each shooting as he went. The description was "according to [suspect Devin] Moore's own statement," Bradley said, so the fact-filled account was not really a matter of debate. They also cited police reports that cited Moore as saying, "life is like a video game. Everybody’s got to die sometime," after he was apprehended.
- So what is this game about, anyway. A law student from the University of Alabama showed off some of the game's more violent moments for Bradley and viewers. The student was introduced as one of those who "like millions of gamers, the overwhelming majority ... plays [the game] simply for fun." Score one for the pro-video-game side.
- Also sitting down to watch the game was child psychiatrist David Walsh who described the difference between teen and adult brains that makes the former more susceptible to imitate violent behaviors and have diminished impulse control. Bradley jumps in with talk of additional risk factors at play here -- a broken home, a handful of foster families and severe emotional stress -- that also likely played into the crime. Bradley asked about the millions of players who aren't violent, and the psychiatrist emphasized that they aren't nearly as likely to imitate the game "because they don't have all of those other risk factors going on." All in all, Walsh provided a great subject for a balanced interview.
- The piece now slides over to the brother of one of the police officers that was killed, who gave a tear-filled account of why he blames video game for the crime. Powerful, but very short. We'll be back to him later, though.
- Finally, we get to the actual civil case that sparked this thing, which cites Take-Two and Sony (which Bradley described as the maker of "the device that runs the game." Device?! Runs?!) and also Wal-Mart and Gamestop (which are later revealed as the locations he bought the game from). Both retailers sent in statements denying responsibility, Take-Two and Sony declined to comment.
- Here comes the cavalry for the video game side. Enter Douglas Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association and frequent defender of the video game industry. Bradley mentions that Lowenstein and the ESA are not named in the suit, so he can't comment on the case directly. I feel this puts him at a disadvantage compared to Thompson, who can and does address the particulars of the case many times. But CBS did try to get a comment from the parties actually named in the suit and got next to nothing, so I guess they made their own bed here.
- Lowenstein starts off talking about how it's not his job to defend individual titles and mentions that he wants to "defend the right of people in this industry to create the products that they want to create. That's free expression." But Bradley is right there with a tough question stemming from a quote from a police officer that said games like GTA effectively put a "target" on their backs. Lowenstein is ready for it, though, saying "if people have a criminal mind, it's not because they're getting their ideas from a video game." Overall, he didn't crumble under the pressure, but unfortunately was too broad to address the specifics of GTA and the case (see last bullet point).
- From Lowenstein, the piece jumps to a tough segment for Jack Thompson, about whether the idea of a video game making someone pull a trigger does away with the idea of personal responsibility. Thompson is quick to say that he does think the suspect is partly responsible, but that there's "plenty of blame to go around," and that the makers of a game that "in effect programmed Devon Moore and assisted him to kill are responsible at least civilly." Those last three words are important -- the case is a civil complaint against the previously named parties, not a criminal case. This fact is mentioned in passing a few times in the piece, but an inattentive viewer might miss this important fact.
- A summary by Bradley of previous cases on video-game-linked violence mentions a street gang that "played the game by day and acted out ... the game by night," according to a police officer, and a couple of teens who were allegedly inspired by the game to shoot at cars from an overpass. But Bradley is quick to add that "not a single court case has acknowledged a link between virtual violence and the real thing," an important point that many accounts skirt past.
- From this, we go to Paul Smith, a First Amendment lawyer who talks about the "hysterical attacks" that have dogged new entertainment media for decades. He mentions what he calls "hard to believe" attacks that said comic books caused juvenile delinquency in the '50s, and goes on to say that any restrictions on free expression because of the acts of one consumer would lead to a "huge new swath of censorship." This guy did a great job of framing the issue in the larger context of media history and defending the industry from a non-spokesman's standpoint.
- The final quote, though, came again from the brother of one of the victims, who poignantly asked, "Why do you make games that target people that are to protect us, police officers ... Why do you want to market a game that gives people the thoughts, even the thoughts of thinking it's OK to shoot police officers? Why do you wanna do that?" The words are delivered with real emotion that would likely make many video game supporters think twice about their position.
- Back in the 60 Minutes studio, Bradley closes with statements from Wal-Mart and Gamestop that they voluntarily card teenagers trying to buy violent games. Bradley also mentions the proposed state laws that would ban violent game sales to children under 17, but fails to go into any great detail about them (which is unfortunate, since I think such laws are vitally tied to cases like these).
- Overall, I was thoroughly impressed with this piece. Despite a shaky start that came off as overly accusatory, the piece bounced back to talk to some great sources on both sides of this issue and gave enough facts and opinions to introduce a new audience to this pressing issue.
Sunday, March 6, 2005
First Impressions: 60 Minutes VG Violence Piece
Just a few minutes ago, 60 Minutes finished airing a segment on a multiple-homicide that was allegedly inspired by the Grand Theft Auto series. (The complete text and a short video snippet from the segment can be found on CBS' web site). Being on the nation's most-watched news program -- watched by many gamers and non-gamers alike -- the piece has the potential to greatly influence the debate over video game violence in the United States. I'll be going over the piece with a fine-tooth comb in the coming days. For now, a summary and some first impressions:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After learning how Ed Bradley and 60 Minutes snipped the interview with Gary Gygax in the 1980's regarding the "dangers of role-playing games" in order to make their story more sensational, I would take any message 60 Minutes is trying to preach and flush it down the toilet. They are liars and noisemakers, nothing less. Ratings = Sponsor money and if integrity and truth must be sacrificed (see Rathergate), then so be it.
ReplyDeleteI was tired of people blaming video games for violence before. It hasn't gotten any better now. You could just as easily blame oxygen (he was breathing when he shot them), or sunlight (same logic) or any of those things. Or you could simply admit that he was a violent criminal. But that would require taking responsibility, something people are frequently allergic to. *breathes* Okay. Time for me to calm down. Maybe I should go play some Grand Theft Auto.
ReplyDeleteboring subjcet, boring shitty article
ReplyDeleteExcellent, excellent commentary. While I disagree that the piece was well-rounded, I always appreciate the Ombudsman.
ReplyDeleteJack Thompson is a hate-monger, at the core. He spews out rhetoric that is laughable to the gaming industry ("...switched to sniper mode.") however is very, very dangerous to the general public.
You must bear in mind that Thompson is counselling the families of the victims. He has successfully exploited their loss, and aimed it like a shotgun at the game industry. Unfortunately, Thompson is an idiot, so none of this will pan out. But I digress, the statements given by the officer's brother must be taken with the knowledge that he has been told by Thompson that the games industry is responsible for his loss.
Otherwise, excellent review. Thanks.
Regarding the brother's question: The industry makes games that "target police" for the same reasons that Mario Puzo wrote The Godfather and heist movies get made. Crime is a rich source of conflict and drama, and games recreate this sort of conflict well. Games can put you in the role of the criminal, rather then just sympathizing with them as a passive viewer.
ReplyDeleteI wish to point out that the video link to the CBS 60 minutes website does not link to a full length showing of the feature. Instead, it shows the first 3 minutes of the feature, with only the step-by-step recounting of the shootings and quotes from Jack Thompson. There is no footage of the opposing side; this of course leads to a very, very skewed view of the issue. While the entire feature itself may have been more balanced, the way they cut the clip for the web leaves much to be desired.
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
Michael Fan
Thanks for the tip, Michael. I've changed the post to reflect that the Web video is only a snippet of the full piece. The text on CBS' site is more or less a full transcript of the actual 60 minutes piece, though.
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of argument, let's assume that there is some level of blame to rest on GTA3 for the killings. (Not an assumption I agree with, but for the sake of argument.) Let's look at who Jack "Will kick puppies for money" Thompson claims is responsible:
ReplyDeleteTake-Two Interactive - They created the game. Assuming there is liability the question is "Did they knowingly provide / make available / advertise to children?" So they're an understandable target.
Wal-Mart and Gamestop - Sold the game to the kid. The question in this case would be "Did they knowingly sell a game unsuitable for children to a child?". So they're also understandable targts.
Now the interesting one (in my mind): Sony. My first reaction was, "But Sony just made the system. It's like suing Philips for selling you the DVD player that your kids watched Cop Killah III on". However, upon further consideration I realize that Sony is an understandable target and that Sony specifically chose to make themselves a target. The key: Sony vets every single PS2 game on store shelves. If you want to ship a PS2 game Sony gets to review the idea, then they get to review the final product. So Sony clearly knew what Take Two was shipping, was in a position to block or limit Take Two, and have in the past used that ability to block or limit other companies.
As I said, I don't think any of these companies are to blame. If a child is properly raised in a loving family that teaches right and wrong GTA won't screw the kid up. But I thought it was interesting that Sony (and every other console manufacturer) has chosen to expose themselves to more liability in this way. It's understandable because with that liability comes the profit (since third parties pay Sony for every game shipped), but it's a two edged sword.
Also in regards to the brother's question... Anyone who has played the series would know that no person in their right mind would draw parallels to actual police officers or anyone else real in these games; everything is a charicature generally played to its stereotypical extreme. The games exemplify stereotypes about the various peoples that are represented in them, the police included, and beneath all of the farce is a definite social commentary that it is disheartening is lost on people who accept these stereotypes and characters as "realistic". The games portray these people as our mass media does, including not only actual news reports but television dramas, the fiction of movies, etc... And someone has the audacity to cite it as real and imitatable.
ReplyDeleteIf the last sentiment from the brother was trying to gain sympathy, then I very well hope it backfired with regards to the rational viewers, who know the sentiment expressed is simply untrue. It's too bad most viewers consider a snippet of non-contextual footage to be "truth" enough.
-L
Shame on that Psychologist fellow. Everyone knows that correlation does not equal causation. The kid just as easily could have been playing violent video games *because* he was deranged.
ReplyDeleteWal-Mart, Gamestop and Sony are not valid suspects for suing in such a case. Wal-Mart and Gamestop are not responcible for how the products they sell are used. No matter how a court case is presented, they are exempt. Sony makes the system, they are as well, exempt. Most people don't realize that.
ReplyDeleteBesides...out of the many copies sold...one kid commits a crime. And how is that the game's fault? A criminal is a criminal, end of story.
EricsRangel: Obviously Thompson is a scumbag more interested in expanding his bank account than actual justice or ethics. Ultimately I think none of the companies sued should be liable. The liable parties are the kid himself and his parents.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's not quite so easy to say that Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and Sony are completely safe and could never in any way be responsible. Sony, oddly enough, is actually be most responsible. They specifically reviewed GTA's design proposal then reviewed the finished product. Games they found inappropriate for whatever reason were blocked by Sony. They knowingly became involved in the filtering process and as such are almost as responsible as Take Two. This is the danger of monitoring what was does. There is court precedent for this; telephone companies (for example) cannot be held liable for misuse of the phone lines because they specifically do not monitor the calls. I think this is perfectly reasonable: if Sony want the benefits of filtering every PS2 game, they much suffer the consequences of accepting responsibility for every PS2 game. (That said, in this particular case I believe the consequence should be nothing.)
As for Wal-Mart and Gamestop, like it or not (not in my case and I expect yours) there is also case law that can hold a retailer responsible for selling "inappropriate" things to kids. Again, I think they're done nothing wrong, but there is precedent for their liability.
As for Wal-Mart and Gamestop, like it or not (not in my case and I expect yours) there is also case law that can hold a retailer responsible for selling "inappropriate" things to kids. Again, I think they're done nothing wrong, but there is precedent for their liability.Except that doesn't hold water because the "child" in this case is an 18 year old man. Well over the 17 year old M rating threshold.
ReplyDeleteThis is Thompson's most desparate attempt yet and he's truly stretching the definition of child further and further from reality with every lawsuit.
I'm so tired of people in this society blameing everything but themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis is very simple, you kill someone, you go to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not blame Sony, Judas Priest, Wall Mart, Take Two, Kiss, or EVEN a talking dog!!
Dave
Just a brief comment. Regardless of the ammount of firearms and weaponry I find in a videogame, I have never found a manual or tutorial or matrix brain download thing that ever told me HOW to use them.
ReplyDeleteGuns are far more complicated than "Press 2 to select firearm, MB1 to confirm selection, then repeatedly press Mb1 to make the target go away." Even "Americas Army" has very limited details on the exact procedure for readying and using a firearm.(Of course, it's made in collaboration with the gov't, so they aren't going to cry over it.) Should it even be touched on that videogames like GTA FOLLOW the common and popular trends of "the time" as opposed to movies and music which make the trends?
Bah, I'm too tired to be saying something "insightful". Short version: Just because you're a master marksman in Halo 2, UT 2k4, or Call of Duty, doesn't mean you could hit the broadside of a barn in real life. The Adrenaline is there, the encouragment, aggression, and required ability are not.
Just a brief comment. Regardless of the ammount of firearms and weaponry I find in a videogame, I have never found a manual or tutorial or matrix brain download thing that ever told me HOW to use them.
ReplyDeleteGuns are far more complicated than "Press 2 to select firearm, MB1 to confirm selection, then repeatedly press Mb1 to make the target go away." Even "Americas Army" has very limited details on the exact procedure for readying and using a firearm.(Of course, it's made in collaboration with the gov't, so they aren't going to cry over it.) Should it even be touched on that videogames like GTA FOLLOW the common and popular trends of "the time" as opposed to movies and music which make the trends?
Bah, I'm too tired to be saying something "insightful". Short version: Just because you're a master marksman in Halo 2, UT 2k4, or Call of Duty, doesn't mean you could hit the broadside of a barn in real life. The Adrenaline is there, the encouragment, aggression, and required ability are not.
Here's a thought that came to my mind after watching the segment.
ReplyDeleteNot one mention of parental responsibility. Where were the kids parents when he was playing GTA for hours and hours on end? Why aren't the parents responsible for the upbringing? This wasn't even a talking point. They said he had a rough upbringing, but that was it. It's so easy to pass the buck, and blame someone else for your problems. His parents could be equally at fault.
Handguns are not complicated. I never held a gun in my life until my friend took me to his farm and taught me to shoot. It's hard to shoot anything further than 6 feet away, but anything closer is little more than clicking the safety and pulling the trigger.
ReplyDeleteDevin didn't need to be a master marksman. All he needed to do was overcome the psychological barriers one faces when under arrest in a police station. The most physically demanding part of this particular situation was grabbing the gun from the officer. From then on, Devin had the element of surprise and a very short range- and it obviously worked (unfortunately).
"As for Wal-Mart and Gamestop, like it or not (not in my case and I expect yours) there is also case law that can hold a retailer responsible for selling "inappropriate" things to kids. Again, I think they're done nothing wrong, but there is precedent for their liability."
ReplyDeleteWith the ESRB on all games, the vendor is not liable. No matter what any prosecuter sais, or what news reporters say, it is not valid in a court case. This is not my opinion, it's part of the constitution. The company that made the game is the only party liable for lawsute. However, the case is separate from the child murderer. They can not sue any party in the same case with the child. It's a state or nation vs. killer case. The companie's being made liable for his actions would take place in a later case. If they use this one child, there would be no support for their cause, and the case would be dismissed. Learning about law is fun!
I say we ignor him for now he won't win there is no way he can win and there is nothing to worry about for now
ReplyDelete