Gaming and the Politics of Fear

[CptStern]

Every gamer?s favorite academic, Dr. Henry Jenkins of MIT, has a lengthy post on his blog concerning what he calls ?the politics of fear.? It?s definitely worth a read.

Jenkins relates the issue to, among other things, a video game bill expected to be introduced before the Massachusetts Legislature:

Consider, for example, the case of a recently proposed piece of legislation here in Massachusetts which would regulate violent video games as in effect a form of pornography?

?the most outspoken backer of this law is none other than Boston Mayor Thomas Menino - who is, incidentally, the same local politician who is responsible for the city?s gross over-reaction to the Aqua Hunger Force signs the other week? Menino is? so out of touch with popular culture that he can?t tell the difference between a cartoon character and a bomb?
The politics of fear also works because the benefits of a fear-based politics are so high? Why do Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton line up behind pretty much any piece of legislation which would restrict free expression in the name of protecting young people? Because it allows them to adopt positions which make them seem ?moderate?

Jenkins sees the mainstream media as complicit in fostering the politics of fear. In Jenkins? view the media knows that such stories attract an audience. More sinister is the MIT prof?s suspicion that big media panders to our worries as means of staving off new media, which is continually pulling eyeballs away from old-school formats like newspapers and network news programs.

The politics of fear works because it serves the interest of the news media in two ways: First, the mass media are feeling the erosion of their consumer base to digital media. If they can convince parents that it is unsafe to allow their sons and daughters to go online or play video games, they may slow the erosion. They have little to fear from alienating those young viewers further since they are already defecting in great numbers and essentially mass media news speaks to an older consumer base. Second, fear-based coverage leaves us glued to the set, seeking out more information. We are doomed to go from one crisis to another, to have Anna Nicole Smith's death and custody battle push Barack Obama's announcement for the presidency off the lead slot on CNN, because fear and outrage trumps hope everytime.

mainstream media doesnt know how to cover gaming ..take e3 for example ..every year mainstream media descended on e3 but their coverage rarely actually discussed the games shown but rather reported on booth babes or line ups or people dressed as their favourite character ..they'd rather sensationalize that actually report what the conference is about because they want to keep their audience engaged and what better way than to spin an issue in a way that either titilates or outrages ..it's very effective in terms of getting people to take notice but ultimately it serves no purpose besides confusing the issue for the viewer.

the invasion of iraq is good example of the consequences of the politics of fear

So what do we do about it?

We need to stigmatize the politics of fear. We need to call it what it is -- not protection but fear mongering. We need to construct a counter-narrative in which fear-based politics is itself a threat to our families because it locks our young people out of access to knowledge, skills, and experience which they need to learn and grow and in many cases, because it prevents those kids who are most at risk from access to information that they need to pursue good jobs and educational opportunities in the future. Such bills are dangerous both because they undercut core constitutional rights and because they distract us from locating real solutions to the "problems" that they are allegedly designed to combat.

http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/02/the_only_thing_we_have_to_fear.html

 

[CptStern]

examples of the politics of fear:

Others speculate that Talovic played violent video games. Attorney Jack Thompson, who is lobbying Utah lawmakers to punish those who provide games that make child’s play out of murder and mayhem, sent an e-mail to reporters with the headline: “Salt Lake City Teen Probably Trained on Grand Theft Auto Video Game.” That rumor was stated as fact Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

Salt Lake City police… have not discerned a motive… With the permission of Talovic’s parents, detectives searched their home but did not take any computers or video games…

someone needs to punch thompson till he pees red (disclaimer: stern is not advocating violence, just wishful thinking)

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

someone needs to punch thompson till he pees red (disclaimer: stern is not advocating violence, just wishful thinking)

Screw that plan just murder the psyhco.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

I am getting so, so tired of JT'S bullshit.

Violence isn't the answer Atomic. Sure, it solves everything, but wouldn't we be shooting ourselves in the face if we were to use violence to silence this bastard?

 

[CptStern]

**** tumbleweed drifts by ****













all HL2.net members suck except Tollbooth willie and atomic piggy (both excellent names btw)

 

[Krynn72]

This only emphasizes what I already know. The media dont give a damn about anyone but themselves, so any chance they get they will attack anything that even slightly threatens them. They have a lot of power, but hopefully as the next generations grow up, they will stop watching the news, and get their information from better, more honest sources. Which means I hope that some better and more honest sources come into existence also.

 

[Max35]

Okay, I posted just so Stern doesn't get upset

In response to his post in the "What has happened to these forums" thread.

But, yeah, mainstream media is shit. What else is new? I do agree with the last quote though. This "fear mongering" needs to stop so we can concentrate on the actual problems.

 

[Stigmata]

I say everyone who lives in America fires off an email or letter to these guys. It'll take ten minutes out of your playing-videogames time, to ensure that in two years' time you'll still be able to find videogames that aren't censored, and alternative media that hasn't been marginalized.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

all HL2.net members suck except Tollbooth willie and atomic piggy (both excellent names btw)

:cheers:

 

[<RJMC>]

so the point is tat the mainstream media dedicates to spreads stuff like "omfg da videogames turn your kids into satanic nazi mureders run to the hills!!!!!!!111" cuz that gave them money?

 

[Solaris]

so the point is tat the mainstream media dedicates to spreads stuff like "omfg da videogames turn your kids into satanic nazi mureders run to the hills!!!!!!!111" cuz that gave them money?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

I am so sick of Jack Thompson and his crusading bullshit. The man is a paranoid, delusional, childish madman one a power-trip. Why can't other people see that?
And while we're on it, why can't parents try to take responsibility in how they raise their children instead of trying to ban anything that they think might possible be harmful to them? Just make sure your kid doesn't play those games until he's 18, that's no reason to **** it up for allt he rest of us!

 

[DaMaN]

so the point is tat the mainstream media dedicates to spreads stuff like "omfg da videogames turn your kids into satanic nazi mureders run to the hills!!!!!!!111" cuz that gave them money?

Pretty much.

If you are a newspaper company, you get money everytime someone reads your newspaper (through buying the newspaper AND through charging advertisers money based on how many people are reading your newspaper). So, the more people that read your newspaper - the more people buy your newspaper and the more advertisers are willing to pay to have their advertisements in your paper. If your "news" is focused on what is actually happening, it makes for boring reading and not many people will buy your newspaper. If your "news" is sensationalized, more people will say "hmm... I'd better read that just in case". Pretty soon you start putting screaming headlines on your papers saying "BE AFRAID!! THERE ARE MURDERERS AND RAPISTS RIGHT ON YOUR STREET AND THE WORLD WILL END IN THREE DAYS!!". With headlines like these, who's not going to be slightly curious about what's inside?

For an example, take a look at CNN's website: http://www.cnn.com/

Here's what the headlines are:

# Girls' school bombed in Iran
# Anna Nicole Smith's dead son gets it all | Video Video
# Violence turns city to ghost town | Video Video
# Fiery wreck kills 2, shuts I-85 in North Carolina
# NASCAR bumps tradition to fight cheats | Gallery
# Troops tortured, pimped for sex, deserter says Video
# Loud shots echo in mall as cops target gunman Video
# Regulators aiming to curb TV violence
# Big lakes detected under Antarctica
# Frog in amber could be 25 million years old
# Elephant won't play polo, trashes van instead Video
# Ricky Martin defends giving Bush the finger

(I've bolded ones that are particularly about violence)

In reality, there isn't as much violence out there as the newspapers would have you imagine. When you walk down the street every day, how many robberies, rapes, car crashes, plane crashes, suicide bombings, anthrax outbreaks, nuclear meltdowns, etc). But when you open up a newspaper, how many of the same are headlines?

Newspapers have to sensationalize stories. Nobody would read headlines like "TODAY NOTHING MUCH HAPPENED" or "EVERYTHING IS OK". People would just read that and think, "Oh, great! Everything is OK! I don't need to read that everything is OK, because it just said it there!". Conversely, when newspapers hype up the news and say things like "YOU ARE IN GREAT DANGER!!" or "IF YOU DRIVE YOUR CAR YOU MIGHT GET KILLED!! (See inside for more details)" they get a lot more people wanting to know why they are in great danger or how they can avoid being killed in their car.

If nobody read newspapers, newspaper companies would not make money. If newspapers didn't make money, the people who ran the newspapers would go out of business. If the people who ran the newspapers went out of business, they wouldn't have any money and wouldn't be able to survive. Thus, it can be seen that the amount of "hype" a newspaper can drill up is directly related to the basic survival of the people who run the newspaper, due to the way the system works. (Personally, I think it's a pretty shitty system, but that's my opinion).

So, in conclusion, newspapers don't make money by informing people of what is going on, newspapers make money (and thus allow their managers to survive) by informing people of the very worst of what's going on, because people read that out of fear.

 

[Solaris]

I once saw as a local paper headline:

"Women, 83, Dies"

 

[AJ Rimmer]

I once saw as a local paper headline:

"Women, 83, Dies"

Oh noes! What caused it? Cancer? Aids? Was she gunned down viciously in the old folks home? I bet it was the global warming! It was global warming right?!

 

[DaMaN]

Oh noes! What caused it? Cancer? Aids? Was she gunned down viciously in the old folks home? I bet it was the global warming! It was global warming right?!

Yes, Rimmer. I'm afraid it was global warming. But not the global warming you read in the news all the time. No. This is super-violent-terrorist-waiting-in-your-home-to-kill-you-in-horrifying-ways-global-warming.

 

[DreamThrall]

I lol'd at "Elephant won't play polo, trashes van instead"

 

[Reaktor4]

the most outspoken backer of this law is none other than Boston Mayor Thomas Menino

If he finds violent games pornographic I think he has problems.

 

[theotherguy]

Yep. It's called yellow journalism and it began to be a common (a little ironically) with Pulitzer in the 1870's. All of the information is mostly correct, but its hyped to the extreme.

Yellow journalism was one of the biggest factors in the Spanish-American war, and it plays a major role in the opinion of the public. Fear causes people to react irrationally.

 

[<RJMC>]

here the news are not so yellowish I think

when they talk about kills or stuff like that they just go the point "x people died by accident,x people dead by attack" not like "x people where victims of massacreous murderous thieves"