Some Questions Around Media Concerns

The conversation around the Chatroulette web site (discussed in an early post and comments) and the Daily show’s satirical look at the media’s exaggeration of the web site as a “craze” tied into questions I have had relating to how discussions of fear around media are framed.

I have a particular interest in the debate about violence that surrounds video games. I’m not so much concerned here with the legitimacy of claims about the negative effects of video game violence, but more so interested in how much that debate has framed discussion around video games, to the exclusion of many other discussions.

I don’t dispute the fact that violence is a serious issue. I personally dislike watching violent movies (can’t handle Tarantino) and would definitely prefer not to have youth I work with be violent. However, I’m not quite sure what the long-running debate around video games and violence is supposed to accomplish. If it is conclusively proven that video games cause violence, is the aim to then restrict people from playing these games? To ban the industry from creating violent games? To restrict just young people? Or something else?

Whether or not we researchers, educators, parents come to the conclusion that video game violence is detrimental, video games are already deeply imbedded in our culture – and the video game industry is larger and more pervasive than perhaps even the movie industry in the United States. And it is the most violent video games that are also the top sellers, not necessarily just because they are violent but because they are often the most complex, largest in scope, open-ended and interactive, and generally the best-funded games. So what do we do? What discussions should we be having? And why is the violence debate so often the only discussion the mainstream media seems to be having?