November 16, 2006
What do The Family Guy, CSI, The O.C., The War at Home and Nip/Tuck have in common?They've all been cited by the culture cops at the Parents Television Council as examples of Microsoft supposedly supporting "violent and vulgar" television programming via ads for its Xbox systems. At a shareholder meeting on Tuesday, PTC manager of advertising programs Glen Erickson said:
...Microsoft consistently advertises on programming that contains graphic violence, excessive sexual content and foul language and we think this needs to stop – now..
Mr. Gates, your philanthropic work through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has helped children all around the world... It is a shame that Microsoft cannot demonstrate leadership as a responsible corporate citizen as reflected in the support of the company’s consistent pattern of advertising on some of the most violent and vulgar programming on television...
Will Microsoft continue paying for the ‘cultural sewage’ that is broadcast into our homes on a nightly basis?...
GP: A tip of the hat to contributor Matt Paprocki for the heads-up...
Comments
I'm sorry, man, I don't know how to get to the GP forum, but thanks for helping me out. If you're right about this that games are being threatened as a whole, then they should all be defended by the first amendment. Thank you.
Hey, man, I'm not crazy. I'm simply as obsessed with defending these awesome games as Jack Thompson is at attacking them and maybe I shouldn't use the term violent video game industry. However, the reason why I always mention violent video games is because that's what this website is about. The controversy is on violent video games. That's what we're suppose to talk about here on gamepolitics.com.
Violent games are not what is at stake with this. Games, as a growing medium are being threatened as a whole. The meaning of the 1st amendment is a stake here.
The site is not Violentgamepolitics.com its gamepolitics.com
Now before GP comes and kicks my ass for off topicness, send me a message on the GP forum if you want to discuss this further.
Look, the world is %80 a better place already.
My favorite comment was about Family Guy. "Even though this is an animated series, this show is not recommended for children of any age." Duh. There's lots of animated series not intended for children. Look at Adult Swim. Thats an entire block dedicated to it. This is like saying: "Even though this is a live action series it is not intended for adults."
By the way, I was discussing this with my own mother, and she said, that if SpongeBob was the only show that anyone could watch, she would go and commit murder. See? Children's programming is dangerous, too.
What the PTC is failing to realize, is that not all shows need to be suitable for children. If you have to watch Barney and Little House on the Praire from the time you're 3 to the time you're 93, you will find few people making it to 93.
They make these shows because people like them. If they didn't like them or found them objectable, they wouldn't watch them. This in turns means fewer Nielson ratings, less ad revenue, and it will in turn cancel the show.
To finish. Protect your own children. Do not protect me. I don't want it, nor did I ask for it.
Dan, you sometimes come across as ranting. You also seemed to be completely obsessed with violent games. I also found my self annoyed with you several topics back where you used the expression "Violent video game industry". That is a term JT uses, to blanket the whole industry.
It was your mothers job to do what she did. It is her responsibility as a parent to decide what you should and shouldn't see. That is why many of us support the ESRB and industry enforcement of the ratings.
However this is off topic so back to the thing at hand.
I guess I should try to use paragraphs when I post comments. I love almost every violent act in video games and movies. The reason I don't use paragraphs is because I sometimes get carried away because I am the exact opposite of Jack Thompson.
By this, I mean that I am as serious and adament about defending these games as Jack Thompson is at attacking them. The reason why my comments bear striking resemblances is because I try to state the facts and I really want people to see the holes in the arguments of anti-game fanatics like Jack Thompson.
I want to crush his theories and try to get people involved in posting things on the internet and writing letters to people who can attack the cause of anti-game fanatics, such as judges and representatives. I am trying real hard to hurt their cause any way that I can. I used to take a lot of criticism from my mother, who believes the way Jack Thompson does that violent video games and movies are evil and satanic.
I hated that theory for many years and every time I watched a violent film, I had to make sure she wasn't around to yell at me. I finally got so tired of it that, as it says above, I bought an XBOX and watch my DVD's on there now and the reason I always stayed up until real late was, so my mom wouldn't be there to give me criticism and she doesn't even really know, to this day, how much violence I've really watched. I'm very proud of that.
Basically, there was a time in my life when I was once a very conservative person and I thought everything was bad. Then I had a friend with whom I played violent video games with and the last time we saw each other, we played Area 51 and Mortal Kombat Trilogy. After that, I had to collect video games and I started to like violent video games and started to realize that playing utra-violent video games doesn't hurt any real people, so even though my mom was against it, I didn't care.
I then started up a collection of these awesome games, with the permission of my father. About two years later, I got into watching violent films because, of course, if violent games don't hurt anyone, violent films sure don't. Then I started doing that and in the summer of 2001, I started staying up late every night watching those great films and, naturally, I took large amounts of criticism from my mom.
Since I was underage at the time, I started to hate the idea that violent games and violent films were innapropriate and I said to myself that I would never forget how I felt about it when I was underage and would never support rating systems which limit access to these awesome branches of violent media. That's why I always say that violent film and games are appropriate for all ages. I believed it then and I believe it now, as much as I did back then.
I have always despised people who are only against something as long as it effects them and I have taken great care not to become what I most despise. Finally, I will tell you the real reason I'm so eager at posting things like this that support violent video games and films. After watching a very violent scene in a film once, my mom told me that she thinks that one day, I might be telling people not to watch violent films and play violent video games. In essence, become a very conservative person again. This scared me to death and I quickly started to buy more violent films and games to prove her idea about me was wrong.
I tell you now that I will never be a conservative person again. I will never ever attack the best things I ever had in my life. I'm posting things and buying up violent video games and movies quickly to prove it wrong. I would be as bad as Judas if I attcked violent video games and movies who have been there for me for years. Quite frankly, I owe a lot to violent media. I am on their side for life. Thank you for telling me how I can improve myself at spreading the word that violent video games and movies are innocent and awesome. Feel free to comment on my posts anytime thank you.
Now, I know it's off topic, but I have a question.
I recall some time ago a report about a judge viewing the game Jade empire as part of Video game law hearing. Coudl someone tell me why?
I could understand grand theft auto, and games of that nature, but Why Jade Empire? It seems to me it's the type of game parents should use to try and teach there kids important lessons, as anyone who played the game knows that it often forces you to chose between right and wrong.
Anyway, Just curious. Thanks
@Daniel
I'm not sure what the point of your posts are, some of the are almost identical, most of them are walls of text and thus hard to read. It is always good to have someone new on board, but please man, try, try, to post in a calm(not that I can talk) and thoughtful manner. Please, use paragraphs if you can.
However on I disagree with you.
Games that exist purely for the sake pouring out the gore hurt the industry.
The insult the creative spirit and they only reinforce negative stereotypes about the industry. Do they have a right to make them.... yes. Are they trying to tell a story.
I don't understand the gore hound thing. I realize that people have a right to want see movies for the express reason that they are gory, I don't think that is a good reason but its your right.
now entering into the IMHO zone
/cue twilight zone music
Also to say that all games are appropriate for all ages is incorrect. A 5 year old really should not be playing Condemned, Escape from Butcher Bay, or Doom. 1st it is going to scare most normal 5 yearolds. They really don't need to see that kind of violence. Those games are for a mature Audience. A mature Audience. No one under the age of 6 is mature. Sorry not going to happen. Some 6 yearolds are still having trouble with the whole concept of TV not being real, that is why they have parents.
Pathetic.
Do they test for things like demographics and crossover audiences? Probably not.
If you're going to be sarcastic, you should do it to what I actually *said*. I said Gears of War advertises during Dora, not Spongebob.
And I wasn't saying that they would advertise to the wrong market like that. I was saying that the PTC should complain *if* they put inappropriate ads on children's programming.
Wait a minute... anything else seeing a contradiction there...?
I guess the PTC feels you can't advertise to more than one segment of the population. If you're sponsoring mature programs, you aren't allowed to sponsor kid friendly stuff as well, even if your company is either age indifferent, or has two different product ranges.
For example, M$ advertises E & T games during "family friendly" shows, and advertises M rated stuff during more mature content. For shame!
Basically, if it's mind numbing drivel that airs on the WB, it's OK with the PTC...
Thanks PTC, you're being ever-so helpful to parents, as always.
See, the problem I have with this, my problem with parental advocacy in general, is that the agenda is never "helping parents help themselves." It's always "telling parents how to think." We live in a culture that allows more mature programming, railing against that in a futile way doesn't help parents navigate these waters or make these decisions effectively. It just scares them, gets them excited enough and... oh yeah, justifies a biased nonprofit's "work" on behalf of "parents" (really on behalf of themselves and their culture-hating constituency.
For the record, I'm harsh on the ESRB, ESA, probably will be on the ECA, and I will on ANY group that tries to help parents with these kinds of misleading tactics. Microsoft IS being responsible by targeting their advertising this way. Just as they're appropriately selling Viva Pinata to young children on kid's shows. That's one of the few things I've agreed with legislators about, and I'm sad to see MS dragged through the mud for being responsible in their advertising.
That's corporate responsibility. That's social responsibility. Hey, "kid advocacy nonprofits:" Don't ever confused a AGENDA with "helping parents."
But, in any case, wouldn't a responsible parent generally have their kids in bed by the time that things like the Family Guy (9 pm) and the War at Home (930) (I dunno bout the other times) And I realize that parents don't send kids older kids to bed at 9, but when it -is- that time, the parents have a better chance of keeping an eye on what the kid is watching.
But, really, why should parents pay attention to their children...
But they're getting pretty close.
Does the PTC understand what the “CH” buttons and “Power” are for?Pff, forget CH and Power, how about the bloody V-Chip groups like the PTC demanded be installed in every TV sold in the US?
"The players of today’s video games find themselves assuming the role of the most despicable people to walk the earth by carrying out MIND-altering tasks with realistic graphics."
The PTC and Jack Thompson should get along well:
"The US military agrees, and uses simulators that are similar to first-person shooter video games to desensitize soldiers to violence and mentally prepare them to kill. "
I would really like a link to the scientific proof these organizations seem to possess, if only to make up my own mind rather than take their word for it, their word do seem a little extreme:
"In the face of scientific proof that there is potential for IRREVOCABLE damage when children play violent video games, as a society we would be grossly derelict to not enforce the standards that the video game industry itself has said are prudent and necessary. "
The PTC follows this article:
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/videogames/main.asp
with the latest highlights of impending legislation concerning the matter.
Children’s programming is great for children, and in some cases (like “Spongebob”) even great for adults.
I hope you were kidding. That show drives me mad. MAAAAAAD! Fortunately, my daughter is still in the Poko/Big Big World stage. ;)
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/cartoons/2003/0225.asp
Talk about a cartoon where you kick yourself in the teeth....
If the PTC looked really really closely, they would probably also see that Bill Gates' foundation and Microsoft itself (through employee matching funds in particular) probably gives money to causes they wouldn't like anyway.
So, it seems like they think that, somehow, putting adverts on during popular shows enjoyed by said adverts' target audiences increases the viewing figures for the programmes.
That's a little backwards don't you think?
I mean, I understand that obviously Microsoft has to pay for the advertising space, but why not advertise when your audience is watching? That's the frikkin' point!
I think they believe that if they bitch enough at companies, that the life-blood, aka advertising dollars, will go away, then the show they object to will get cancelled. So they do everything in their power to try to portray companies that advertise during mature shows as somehow being akin to perverted child molesters, but in polite terms...
So appropriatly targeting adds is a bad thing?
I mean sure, put up Gears of War commercials during fosters home for imaginary friends, that makes perfect fucking sense.
But they're complaining about ads for Microsoft during these shows? That upgrades from "eyerolling at the selfrighteous" to "pfeh, fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on."
They can't seperate a bad show from one that is targeted at older audiences.
It is either that or they are convinced that videogames remain a realm for children.
These shows are for older audiences. Some of these shows are pretty good. However they act as if all television programming should be targeted at children, and that there should be no shows for adults.