I was hoping caution and reason would prevail over prime-time punditry. Hoping, in fact, that the magnitude of the tragedy in Virginia yesterday was such that even the usual parade of demagogues cable news likes to trot out to fill coverage gaps would resist jumping to flagrantly one-dimensional conclusions in the public scramble to answer "why?" As usual, I was wrong.
GamePolitics.com paid close attention to last night's media deluge in the wake of the shootings, which included Phil McGraw (talk show's "Dr. Phil") on CNN's Larry King Live. The following exchange (from the transcript) occurred near the end of the broadcast, when King asks McGraw "why?" and McGraw pins the tail unmistakably on violent video games. (My emphasis in bold.)
KING: Why, though -- OK, you want to kill someone, you're crazed, you're a little nuts, girlfriend drops you, why do you kill innocent people?... Dr. McGraw, are they treatable?
MCGRAW: Well, Larry, every situation is different... They're usually dead after something like this happens because the police take them out or they take themselves out. The question really is can we spot them. And the problem is we are programming these people as a society. You cannot tell me -- common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they're on a mass killing spree in a video game, it's glamorized on the big screen, it's become part of the fiber of our society. You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high. And we're going to have to start dealing with that. We're going to have to start addressing those issues and recognizing that the mass murders of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.
KING: Well said.
I wouldn't dispute a broader perhaps implied point about America and violence in general, but fingering video games as some sort of programmatic root cause is scientifically baseless, irresponsible speculation. We don't yet know who did this, and we certainly don't know why. That's a puzzle official investigators will be piecing together for months and years to come. In the meantime, we need to keep our heads screwed on straight and be wary of witch hunts. And now more than ever, we need a media that challenges (not affirms or empathizes with) speculation masquerading as analysis. Also: one that reports what it knows, not what it thinks.
(If you missed it, you may want to have a look at my recent four-part interview with Iowa State University researcher Doug Gentile on the relationship between unhealthy aggression and video game violence. While Gentile's research suggests there are links, he's careful to provide context, as well as note the many positive entirely unique aspects of video games as learning tools.)
I don't see how what you quoted "pins the tail unmistakably on violent video games". Seems to me like he's pinning it on media in general ("big screen") and offering violent video games as an example. But that's just how I read the quote.
It would seem to me that any country which can make the carrying of firearms a bigger priority than the care of its poor and can bomb almost out of existence a complete section of lawful citizens (I refer to Iraq, here) has only itself to blame when things like this happen. I have to admit to feeling sick to my stomach when I saw the reports of this tragedy in the media; not at the senseless act itself so much as Bush almost weeping his crocodile tears. Does he mourn his Iraqi victims so deeply?
I really hate that the first thing that comes out of someone's mouth as far as violence period and violent causes is VIDEO GAMES. Although, I do agree that the kids today are a lot different because of this: You cannot give your kid the ass whopping of his/her life if they do something. If you do, you will end up in jail for child abuse. Most of the the 25-30 year olds are not the ones causing the shootings or murders cause we were raised by Mom and Dad , not the TV or Video Games. It is the kids that are 12-18 year olds. Because of the fact that PARENTS are now non-existent. Most the parents of these kids are about 19-24 themselves and they still want to party, and they are kids themselves. I think that the Government needs to stay the hell out of your business as a parent unless they want to raise our kids. Parents need to be parents and not friends. When the time comes, knock them into something when they do something wrong. It is that easy. They will wind up good kids I bet.
Numerous studies have proven that violent video games do NOT increase risk to causes violent crime at all. In fact many studies have shown the opposite; in short video games provide an outlet to vent your anger safely. The only correlation your going to find is that individuals that are predisposed as "violent people" (due to genetics, upbringing, environment and experiences, etc.) are more likely to play violent video games - this relationship in no way whatsoever can be drawn the other direction though. The media in general, video games included, may assist a violent person be more creative about their crime, but it is not and never was the CAUSE.
As the author states, we shouldn't jump to conclusions (whether we're professional broadcasters and analysts or ordinary people). We must look at the facts and base conclusions on evidence. Fact: This was a chinese foriegn national who was here on a student visa and lived here for about a year and a half. Who's to say he even played video games of a violent nature. My understanding of asian culture and marketing to asian youth is they prefer game systems like the Wii or Nintendo gamecube to Xbox360 or Sony PSIII = look for multiple marketing analysis with search criteria of "asian youth" "game systems" and preference. The games are remarkably different on each system and noticably less violent in most Wii titles. Hence to say that it was video games or hollywood that desensitized this individual to violence is irresponsible sensationalistic speculation (not surprising that it should come from the mouth of Dr Phil).
I do think his broader point was to take issue with what he perceives as a culture of violent imagery, but he singles out video games by name. This is someone who gets paid to pay close attention to every word he utters. I'm sure he understands that words in this context have unprecedented power in an era where they can go from nothing to front page in a matter of minutes. And in any case, whether he wants to indict film and books and whatever else, he's singling out a very specific medium and drawing causal conclusions about something with absolutely zero evidence. Could video games have played a role? Perhaps. But what about mental imbalance? How about drugs? Maybe prescription medication?
Let's wait and see what the investigation and the science tell us. That's all I'm ultimately suggesting.
Let's re-examine his quote, shall we:
"if these kids are playing video games, where they're on a mass killing spree in a video game"
He starts out with a conditional, and then he narrows it even more by reffering to video games that have content characterized as "mass killing sprees." Even the most staunch game defender cannot deny that there are some games that fit this characterization.
"It's glamorized on the big screen, it's become part of the fiber of our society."
Now he's referring to the media in general and the myth of redemptive violence that pervades our culture, NOT video games in particular.
"You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high"
Here's the crux of the argument. IF you have violent video games AND a violent media AND someone mentally unstable AND impotent rage, you have a recipe for possible disaster. The individual is ultimately responsible here