October 18, 2007 -
As reported by GamePolitics and other outlets, TV shrink Tanya Byron has been enlisted by the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown to conduct a comprehensive study of video game violence.Labour MP Keith Vaz, a longtime critic of violent games, has posed questions about the Byron study to Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families Beverly Hughes. Vaz asked:
What process is to be followed by the online review into the effect of violent video games?
Which groups and organisations have been approached to take part in the review into the effect of violent video games?
When [Hughes] expects the review into the effect of violent video games will be complete; and when the results will be published?
Whether there are any other data collection methods the review into violent video games will use other than the online questionnaire?
Hughes' reply:
The review... will consider the evidence on the risks to children and young people from inappropriate or harmful content in video games and the internet and assess the effectiveness and adequacy of existing measures to protect them and support parents.
An open call for evidence was published by Dr. Byron on 9 October 2007, running until 30 November 2007... A children and young people's call for evidence is due out in week commencing 22 October 2007 and will be promoted through a wide range of media platforms (including social networking sites and online debates).
...the Byron Review will draw upon a wide range of existing evidence, including published commentary and research literature, and will undertake some further research.. Dr. Byron and her team will continue to meet with key stakeholders...
The final Byron report is due in March, 2008.
Comments
Fine, letting your kids play GTA is like letting them watch Scarface or Reservoir Dogs.
God damned media.
But will the positive voices be heard and actually used?
That's right. If you don't want this to be just another bogus study, then follow up on the open call for evidence.
@ WarOtter
From what I have read, Dr. Byron seems pretty sincere in her call for evidence. She wants to hear all sides of the argument. I don't think she will come out with a biased result. At least that is my impression.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
But is 6 months really long enough to look into this issue properly?
After all, she's already condemning "violent video games" as "inappropriate" and "harmful to minors". How can you expect a fair and unbiased result with such clear attitudes being expressed already?
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Not to be mean spirited but since when have "Fair and unbiased" ever been important to anyone on the Antigame front. Even the most moderate of them is still clearly and distinctly biased, let alone this bitch. Hell, jack thompson doesn't even know what the terms "fair" and "Unbiased" mean.
Hate to say it, but every time I see this, I keep thinking my old "SUE BACK" approach is sounding better and better every day
I've not seen any statements to that effect the closest is from the opening blurb which states "looking at the risks to children from exposure to POTENTIALLY harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games" ... my emphasis.
As many other sources have stated that violent games ARE harmful to children (which in my opinion is almost certainly wrong) it would be suprising not to see this sort of wording employed.
Also are you seriously suggesting that violent video games ARE appropraite for minors?
Tanya Byron has a Masters Degree as well as a PsychD before she ever appeared on TV.
Sadly enough, in most Western countries, people are more inclined to believe what is said on the TV than what is said at the end of a long exhaustive report by a University, there's enough evidence of that from some of the stories on here, so personally, I'd rather have someone who I know will try to take a balanced view of this while conducting it, which Ms Byron will do, TV star or not.
Never forget Ronnie Reagan ;)
The internet has been included as chatrooms and social networking sites are incredibly popular, and a great source of concern for parents.
The sensationalist press has demonised social networking sites even more so than games.
I don't know if it will be used, but at least this time, it's open to us too. I remember too many "studies" and "reviews" and "reports" that completely negated contrary opinions.
The study includes both video games and the internet in general, as both are fairly new technologies that those in power are unfamiliar with and afraid of.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
@ SaltyWound
You mean there are times when Keith Vaz doesn't look like a complete douche? Color me shocked.
The Government would be better advised talking to people like Joan Ryan, who actually takes the time and effort to at least attend these things, I'm not sure what her opinion is, but at least it isn't a soap-box of convenience for her.
All it might highlight is that parents do not pay attention to ratings. Thats it.
I'm not really bothered. I'm still living on my last bonus.
I'm more interested in what a waste of bloody time this is.
Had an ongoing argument/debate with "Graddy" in one of the Kotaku articles about psychological studies:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/thompson-watch/dissecting-jacks-latest-tv-spin-...
As you can see (and I've mentioned in GP many times before), I'm not a big fan of psychological studies in general. But, as in the conversation I was having with Graddy, I REALLY hate the taking out of the individual when these studies are done. Now, this "doctor" in this article is claiming to want to get to know the opinions of individuals. But she's also expressed her opinion, which she is entitled to, don't get me wrong, but I'm concerned how that opinion will play into this review of hers.
EvilJez,
Yes, she says "potential" on her website. But the quote in GP's article doesn't include "potential".
Also, my answer to whether ANYTHING is appropriate or not for a child remains the same and quite consistant from media to media:
It isn't my job, or the job of any other individual, organization, or government entity to decide what is, or is not, appropriate for someone else's child. Individuals are free to offer opinions as to any particular product or belief, but they don't have the right to force their views (through legislation or other form of dictate) upon other individuals.
Certainly, you can probably argue something that many of us would agree should be limited, but for the most part, the argument remains. Even something such as exposing their child to bigotry and hate through various religious beliefs. As dishonorable and unethical as such an act is in my personal opinion, I can't dictate what one Parent teaches their child.
I, as the Parent of my own child, know my own child better than anyone else. What I find appropriate or inappropriate for my child may be different than another individual or Parent. And the same goes for what they decide is or is not appropriate for their own child.
And that's my stance on that specific issue.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Anyway, I'm sort of deviating from my main point. Basically, the only reason they're carrying out the study again is because they didn't get the answer they wanted the first time round i.e. that violent video games are the single cause for the fall of human society. The fact that they're having someone who has no expertise in video games, and perhaps any form of digital media and artwork whatsoever, conducting the study only serves to prove this.
And the problem IS the parents. I've been IDed in games stores across the UK when I was younger when I was buying restricted media, and have at times been turned away (tried to buy a 15-rated games, when I was actually 15 but I didn't have any ID on me), so obviously the games stores are doing their part. If a parent buys their kid a violent game then blames the game for their kid's bad behaviour, then surely there needs to be education.
I'm with you on the whole not being a fan of psychological studies, I'm not a fan of psycologists in general.
That is really why you should a least take a gander at the link before passing comment.
Whatever your personal view, the fact of the matter is that many parents in the UK are extremely conscerned about the effect that Games and the Internet are having on their children. Given that the popularist presses go out of there way to demonise both in search of attention grabing headlines it is hardly suprising.
This study is about determining if there really is a problem, or if the presses really are blowing things out of all proportion. It isn't about tell children what they can and can't watch, we already have the BBFC to do that.
I agree with Paul Kerton, this study won't change anything it is merely a way of reasuring parents. Games are a big industry in the UK, the goverment won't do anything to drive them off.
No, buying a kid a game like Manhunt is like letting them watch Saw or Hostel.
Full stop. They've already decided that content is "harmful" to "children" and "young people".
They're not trying to decide if content is harmful, they've already decided that, and they're going to show how harmful it is to "children" and "young people".
- What is this content they've already decided is harmful?
- What is the age of the "young people" they're looking at? Technically speaking a "child" is under 18. If you're going to differentiate then the question must be begged as to the age limit of "young people".
- The assumption is that the measures in place are there as a pro-active position to "protect" as opposed to being an informational resource to parents.
So much for "even-handed".
I mean, I played Mortal Combat before I was 18, I thought it was pretty awesome that Kano could rip somebody's heart out for a finishing move, but I didn't grow up to be a serial killer. Or a heart surgeon.
Heart sureon. :)
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Gah! I need to learn to proof read.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
"While video games do not necessarily make children more violent, they might result in temporarily increased aggressive behaviour and could spark an interest in violent street culture. Our recommendation is that parents monitor what their children play to make sure it is appropriate, and keep control of how long they spend playing."
I accept PayPal.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am
@ BlackIce, Leftie
Fine, letting your kids play GTA is like letting them watch Scarface or Reservoir Dogs.
Which is kinda funny since BOTH movies have games made based on the movies.
:D
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I would also like to note that there can never be a study where the studiers play the games and see what happens to them. On one hand it does not follow the scientific process, and on the other there is something called the "3rd Person Effect".
The "3rd Person Effect" is when you catch yourself saying "It may effect someone else, but it dosent effect me." All media effect people, all the time, with no exceptions. It has it's influence on you, me and even children. The problem is that the type of effect is never fully explained. Every study that has come out show that all violent videogames effect the people who play them. This study will be no diffrent. The question is, how does it effect and what actions, if any, are taken after the fact. This will be the classic example of looking in the wrong place for the evidece and comming to a wrong conclution. And if squirly boy is barking then you know that no matter what the results are it is going to be used against videogames.
THe question is if they are only going to continue to condemn video games why do they keep doing studies?
Its not like the majority of the populous even knows they exist. TThey just believe what they are told like its 1984( the book obviously)
~Sol~
Well it would be the logical thing to do. If it doesn't help him why wouldn't he demand a re-do?
We don't draw things out. We accept the first results we're given, no matter what they say.
las, attorney Says:
October 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am
@ BlackIce, Leftie
nightwng2000 Says:
"Fine, letting your kids play GTA is like letting them watch Scarface or Reservoir Dogs. "
"Which is kinda funny since BOTH movies have games made based on the movies."
So could it be said that by letting your kids play Scarface or Reservoir Dogs is like letting your kids watch Scarface or Reservoir Dogs?
Yes, and that BBC reporter..