Is it possible that playing a violent video game can be considered the same as smoking a pack of cigarettes? According to one Congressmen from California, yes. On Wednesday, January 26th, U.S. Representatives Joe Baca (D-CA) and Frank Wolf (R-VA) introduced a bill called the Video Game Labeling Act. According to this bill, video games that have a rating higher than teen (T) would have to warning that reads " WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.”. The rating system for video games in America is handled by an independent group called the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) but according to Congressmen Baca ESRB stands for Electronic Software Rating Board. In my opinion, if someone is trying to get a bill to pass, that person should do a little research and become knowledgeable about the topic first.
In defending the bill Congressmen Baca stated the following: (quote from ars technia, Ben Kuchera.)
“The video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families, and to consumers—to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products. They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility. Meanwhile, research continues to show a proven link between playing violent games and increased aggression in young people. American families deserve to know the truth about these potentially dangerous products.”
I believe that this statement does not make much sense in the argument because the video game industry already does warn parents, families, and consumers about what games contain as far as violent content. Every single game a person buys from the store has a warning on the front and on the back of the game is the explanation of that rating. For example I will use the rating on "Call of Duty: Black Ops". This game is rated M for Mature 17+ on the front of the game; on the back of the game the rating is explained by blood and gore, intense violence, and strong language.
As far as research that has proven a link between playing violent games and increased aggression, most people opposed to this bill argue that there is not enough research to make that statement. They feel that any studies done on the links between violent games and aggression are conducted under conditions that far too different from those conditions in which people play video games. Those opposed to the bill believe that this leads to misleading information in the studies.
In my opinion there is no need to add an extra warning to games that are rated over T because there is already ample warning on the games. I do not see this bill getting enough support to make it through all of the required steps to pass.
This video is of a man opposed to the bill.
This is a video of Congressmen Baca defending his bill.
Your information that you are presenting is very good information backed up by strong evidence and sources. I will admit it was kind of hard to read your post. I’m not certain if it is just me or not, however the white text on the black background was at times hard. Maybe it was the size or font style you choose, not entirely certain. I did like the fact that you put the links to your sources in a bright yellow; it was easy to read and pick out from all of the text.
ReplyDeleteYour youtube video with the man who is opposed to the bill is great, however who is this guy. I know he said he was from NextGenTactics but I couldn’t hear his name very well. Is he a higher up in this company or is he just a gamer who is just voicing his opinion about the bill?
A suggestion for a topic in the future would be to stay with this bill and see what happens to it in the end; if it gets passed or not.
Great first blog post. I like how you come right out of the gate with a post about a controversial topic and video game ratings. It seems like as long as I can remember, people have always been complaining or judging (or misjudging) the rating scale that the ESRB uses. I like the use of links in the article, they work well and bring the reader directly to the source. I was rather intrigued by the link to Prairie Public and the essay about 8 video game myths because I guess I never really thought of Prairie Public to be the kind of company to support video games. It seemed to go along very well with your point and was a great link to include.
ReplyDeleteA couple quick ideas for next time would be to put the YouTube videos in the correlating spots in the argument in your post (for/against) and align them to break up the page a bit more. Another suggestion would be to put the quote from Kuchera into block format so it breaks out from the page and makes the point more visible to the reader, reinforcing your words with the experts.
This was a great post! I found the videos to be the most helpful part. If you could match up your wordings to parts found in the video, like have them coincide rather than chunk them at the end, that would be great. This is a rather controversial topic, and with the information presented, even I'm conflicted as to what side I should take! The yellow type set was a bit confusing though, other than that, it was great!
ReplyDelete