Violent games and movies: can we talk about parents?
Movie and videogame violence is a common scapegoat for real-world crime. But what about the role parents play in all this, Simon wonders...
Just before we get going, it's worth making something straight from the start. This is a piece that deliberately isn't being written or timed in response to some of the horrendous tragedies that have taken place over the past year or two, for which games and movies have got the blame. This isn't a knee-jerk reactive article. It's deliberately running in slightly calmer times, as that seems to be the right point to have some kind of rounded debate about the issues I want to talk about.
Basically, I want to chat about the proverbial elephant in the room.
I've just finished reading David Kushner's book Jacked, about the life and times of the Grand Theft Auto series, and the controversies that have surrounded the games. It's not quite at the level of Kushner's excellent Masters Of Doom (a must-read book for videogame fans), but it's just as immaculately researched, and Kushner tries hard to present a balanced argument, even if you don't always get the impression he buys it.
In the case of Grand Theft Auto, he cites a series of cases where shootings took place, or incidents happened, and a Grand Theft Auto game got the blame. He follows those stories up, and notes that, long after the media has lost interest, generally a piece of evidence comes up that suggests that such crimes are nothing to do with videogames at all. By then though, the tabloid press and rolling news channels have whipped politicians up into some kind of action, successful or otherwise, and then turned their attentions elsewhere.
That's not to say that there's not some argument about the influence of games somewhere along the way: it'd be naive to suggest that popular culture doesn't resonate somewhere along the lines. But it's where violent games and movies fall in the line of blame that's worth taking a look at.
In the UK, I distinctly remember one of the most bizarre articles on the subject I'd ever read a good few years ago. Somewhat inevitably, it appeared in the Daily Mail, who asked erstwhile daytime TV presenter and word spewer Anne Diamond to give her verdict on modern day videogames.
I don't know how long Anne Diamond has spent in the company of videogames, but upon re-reading the article, I'm led to conclude 'not a lot'. It's a bit like asking me to comment on the fashions of various celebrities. I could try and bluff it, but you'd quickly realise I knew next to nothing of one designer to the next.
The article in question is still available on the Daily Mail's pretty poisonous website. I don't like giving them links on Den Of Geek, but it seems as I'm quoting one the paper's key arguments to be the right thing to do here. You can find Anne Diamond's words - written back in 2008, to be clear - right here.
Diamond's conclusions about violent videogames include a damning indictment of modern day classic Resident Evil 4 ("this kind of violence can only be bad for you"), and her somewhat stroppy thoughts on Clive Barker's Jericho ("I stopped playing when I was set on fire and something splattered blood all over my visor"). However, elsewhere in the article, Diamond - almost by accident - stumbles on the point I want to make.
Talking about the pretty much forgotten about Scarface videogame, she declares that "it's disturbing that so many teenagers presumably have access to this mindless garbage over and over again". The illustration to the right of her words clearly shows an 18 certificate on the box.
I keep hearing the argument that violent games are ending up in the hands of the young. Yet in the UK at least, there's a system in place. Certificates or PEGI ratings are given out, which retailers are supposed to enforce. It's a thankless task of course, and it was a badge of honour for most of us to play or watch something underage. But still, how can you put the blame at the door of a game or movie maker, when the age restriction that's clearly marked on their product isn't being enforced?
Let's look at another example. Moving over to movies, back in December, the National Rifle Association of America held a press conference. In it, the organisation's vice president, Wayne LaPierre, waved the finger of blame for recent horrific violent incidents at the door of the movie industry. This was at a point when calls were at their loudest to introduce more gun control in the US. The NRA, clearly versed well in the tactical game of distraction, thus came out on the offensive. Bizarrely, the NRA's views seemed to have some impact. But then it was Scott Weinberg on Twitter (@scotteweinberg) who put his finger on this: if videogame companies want less hassle from the US government, they should fund the legislature to the extent the NRA does. Spend millions funding politicians and political parties, and you might just get a bit more of a hearing. There might just be something in that.
Back to LaPierre, though. Instead of suggesting guns had a pivotal part to play in all of this, he instead cited films such as Natural Born Killers and American Psycho as part of the problem, although if you go back through time, movies such as The Dark Knight and Child's Play 3 have been drawn into the debate over the years. Basically, something terrible happens, and there just happens to be a movie or game title that fits the identity of a necessary scapegoat. It's an argument that always leaves me to wonder this: would the tragedy or horrific event concerned have happened if the game or film being cited hadn't existed? It's an easy question for me to ask, being detached from many of the incidents that have happened. But surely it's one of the key questions that has to be considered.
That said, it's not just more extreme groups like the NRA who ask whether it's films and games that have to shoulder the blame. Back in 2008, a less extreme man, Sir Richard Attenborough, suggested that movies were responsible for the growth in knife crime.
Could he be right? If there's a general acceptance, as there has been for some time, that it was the movies that glamourised smoking to a degree, could it also be glamourising violence? There's a good, grown-up debate to be had about that, although sadly, it rarely happens when it actually needs to. In the rush for people to punt out press statements and make sweeping generalisations, the real issues tend to get touched on only by accident.
As a result, the problem here is that you can predict how such arguments will pan out, be they about games or movies, well before they reach their conclusions. Those who watch movies and play games a lot defend their corner, segments of the press and certain politicians claim they're corrupting our youth, and nothing ever appears to be usefully resolved. Occasionally, a politician gets involved - Keith Vaz MP has form in the UK - but I'm always left feeling that no real important issues have been addressed.
But then, the mainstream media, and politicians, seem scared to talk about one of the rarely-voiced key issues in the debate: the state of modern parenting.
I'm a parent. I don't claim to be a good one, but to make my position clear, I have far more trouble with my children watching Home Alone 2, where Macaulay Culkin lobs a house brick from the top of a building without consequence, than a film where they can see what real life damage a bullet does to a human being. That said, I'm hardly sitting my youngest in front of Platoon. But I do think if you want youngsters to appreciate what damage violence can do, there's a case for showing them. It's a pity that there's not more material targeting children that deals with this responsibly. Frankenweenie showed that a PG-rated movie could talk about death and loss, and still be family friendly. Films such as that are golden for that reason, I'd argue.
The ratings system and I, somewhat inevitably, don't always agree. However, I do accept that there's such a system in place that gives me the information I need to make a reasonably informed decision about what my children watch and play. The guidelines are there, and they're there for a reason, whether you agree with them or not.
Going back to parenting, then. Here are some questions then, that I'd love the mainstream media to tackle. I read the occasional report about young teenagers playing something like Grand Theft Auto IV or Call Of Duty: Black Ops II. The blame, it's usually implied, should lie at the door of the developer or publisher concerned. But why? If you're a parent of a young child, and you let them play clearly-labelled adult games without exploring what it is they're sat in front of, surely that's where the problem lies? That, or with the shop that sold the game in the first place? Why doesn't that issue get dragged onto a daytime talk show, or newspaper front page?
Are we supposed to live in a world where games, films and television shows for grown ups are banned because people can't police and look after their children properly? I accept that children are resourceful, and I accept that when a parent says no, it doesn't always follow that the child complies. 16 year olds sneaking into 18 rated films will always happen (assuming 18 rated films aren't extinct anytime soon).
However, I'm talking about children younger than that. I've seen under 10s playing Call Of Duty. That's not Call Of Duty's fault. I've known of similarly-aged children watching adult-rated horror films, and duly being scared to bits. Again, you can hardly blame the film for that.
It seems to me that the wrong questions are being asked. Does anyone really want a world where anything vaguely offensive or challenging is restricted, at the whim of a media storm? We're already in an era of Die Hard and Terminator films for 12 year olds.
Instead, can there be some acceptance of the truth: that the world has bad parents in it. Can that issue be addressed, rather than looking for convenient scapegoats? That way, a non-knee jerk debate could actually take place about the influence of games and movies, and whether the current advisory and rating systems are working. Questions such as how to ensure age inappropriate material doesn't end up in the wrong hands could be properly investigated. The irony is that movie industries, media outlets, game developers and politicians might just actually all be on the same side.
Most importantly of all, surely it's time that the smokescreen protecting parents be dissipated. No parent is perfect, and it's a really tough job at times. The vast majority of parents are wonderful. Yet let's not pretend there's not a sizeable minority that aren't. And let's not pretend that those people aren't a bigger problem that the games and movies that are taking some of the heat off them.
Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.
Featured content
Sponsored results
Popular
Disqus - noscript
If you want a history lesson, as inevitably history does always repeat itself, go Google 'PMRC'. They were convinced that Twisted Sister were going to lead to the absolute corruption and decline of society. They got that wrong as anyone will trying to blame society's ills on music/film/video games. There is no substitute for responsible paranting without the hysteria.
I see this all the time. I am very much a mature gamer and a parent and I am astounded by the parents I see in the game shops. One woman in particular came in with her two boys (approx 7-9 years of age) and on the counter I see CoD, Killzone,etc with the age restriction clearly marked on each box. I don't see that the gaming industry need do any more than they already are. The case for banning violent games is no greater than the case for banning violent films. What is different is the money funding the various lobby groups that push policy on our governments. Instead of looking for someone to blame, maybe the governments could take enforcement more seriously and think about policing sales of mature content to minors - but wait! Then THEY would have to do something about it....hmmm.
I remember a case a few years back where a teenage boy was murdered by his friend in some woods. The media whipped up a storm blaming Manhunt for the crime. It was then later found that the game actually belonged to the victim, not the perpetrator. The parents of the victim are still crusading against violent video games and not once have people asked them what they were thinking allowing their son to play a game he was not supposed to.
I agree with this, my wife is a primary school teacher (teaching 6 year olds) and a number of them talk about playing COD and how far they’ve got. I don’t get it, would you say ‘hey son, want to watch Full Metal Jacket with me?’
Great Article. This ties back with the article on should 15 be 15A. We are at a point where so much is available through on demand and the internet that the responsibility has to be on the parents shoulders. When distribution was as controlled as it was in the past with only cinemas showing a film and then in the 80s home video. tight legal restrictions made sense but now its a case that content is so wide that restrictions are useless yet parents still seem to depend on them (or ignore them in terms of video games). we have parents giving their kids their PIN for on demand films just for peace.
The media however find that blaming producers of various works makes it easier to shift papers.
Some parents don't take the rating on a video game seriously enough - they seem to think that the word "game" means it's for children and they ignore the age restriction. I've voiced concerns to my sister about the fact she and her husband have been allowing my nephew to play the likes of GTA since he was about ten (he's now 16). Their response was 'Oh it's okay, he's sensible, he knows it's only a game.' They assume that he is mature enough to cope with whatever violence and gore may be in a game without necessarily knowing much about it themselves. They are more concerned that he should have that game or a DVD because it's cool and all of his friends apparently own it. Parents are allowing themselves to be pressured and pestered into allowing their children access to age-inappropriate games and films when they should be strong enough to say no and mean it.
Good article.
I couldn't agree more on the subject of parents being the main culprits here. Like other commenters I've seen Mums in Game buying wholly inappropriate material for their kids. I suspect, these parents believe we're still in the era of 'sprite' animations and dodgy sampled sound - so how could games be bad?
I'm of the opinion that media does influence our behaviour, but not in the extent the Daily Mail would have the public believe. Violent games can increase aggression but so can football, or air hockey, or traffic jams, or very thin bin bags. It's a question of extent.
If violent media had the power to turn us all into monsters, the opposite must be true. It follows that by watching positive media, such as the last few series of 'How Clean is Your House?', I would (against my will) become a better person. My house is still a tip. I rest my case.
Great article - As some of the other readers have said it's the ratings that aren't taken seriously - but bad parenting is also hugely to blame. Some 18 cert games are freely available to kids at pocket money prices at car boot sales. I saw a kiddy, aged about 9 or 10 buying Painkiller the other day. His mum just gave him the money and didn't even look at what he was buying. The bloke selling it (who I presume has played it and know it has bloody violence in it) didn't really care either. Still saying that my 10 year old nephew is addicted to kiddy friendly Mario and had a phase of jumping on other kids heads.
First "16 year olds sneaking into 18 rated films will always happen"? Isn't that a crazy thing anyway. A 16 year old couldn't handle and 18 film? That's crazy.
Anyway, you're absolutely right about the fact that if a kid gets his hands on a video game or film that is aged for someone much older, it is not the fault of the content creator - anyone who argues otherwise I would very much like to listen to, as it would be quite impressive if they could make me believe their side.
This piece brings me back to a point that will have the rest of the users on the comments attacking me, but I have to put my side in.
I do indeed let my boys watch films and play games that are aged well above theirs. I'm not unaware of what they are doing, quite the opposite I know everything they are getting up to and I hope this continues for as long as possible, but I'm sure it will change as they get older.
As I type this, I see a comment below that says violent games increase aggression. Where has this been proven?
I've asked people to explain to me why Drag Me To Hell is inappropriate for an 8 and 9 year old. This sounds like an absolutely bonkers thing to ask to some people, I'm well aware of that. I sound like I'm off my head. I've tried to explain what my kids are like, what sort of films we all enjoy, but I'm merely attacked and told I'm a bad parent and I'm boastful. Still no reason is given why it's bad to let them watch Drag Me To Hell.
I don't know how many people are looking at (peer reviewed) studies into media violence, but the connection is not there. I can see that in my own life, given I watch violent films as a kid - I'm in the minority there I believe, when it comes to film goers as apparently, going from Den Of Geek users, hardly any of us watch things that were for ages 18 when we were "too young".
However, I don't need to know it from my own experience, I know it from looking at the studies of the experts. I can also see from looking at the majority of the crimes that have been attributed to media violence, that the people committing these crimes were of age anyway, or very nearly.
Does Attenbrough have a point about knife violence? I don't know. Glasgow has always been a terrible place for knife violence and I'm not sure whether the films people watch here now, were equal to those in the sixties and seventies?
When lovers of games and films yell about bad parenting, they are patting Ann Diamond on the back. Where is the evidence?
I'm with your main point however. This content gets into the kids hands and the parents are responsible, not the content creators. There's no disputing that at all. When I watched Alien on tv at the age of seven, it was my parents allowing it, not the fault of 20th Century fox or whatever channel was screening it. When my boys watched it, it was because I bought the blu ray and said "Let's watch Alien boys".
In case anyones wondering, I don't strap them down and force them to watch. They are free to leave at anytime of course. They don't. They love the film. But they reserve that right.
Some parents are bad. They are the parents who don't have a clue what their kids are doing or care. They are the parents that don't teach their kids to respect life, to respect other human beings irrespective of race, religion or sexual orientation.They are the parents, that when another mother or father comes to their door and tells them that their kid has been bullying reply "Not my f-ing son!" They are the ones whose kids roam the streets, break things, steal things, fight with other kids, bully, attack, mock etc.
And there isn't any film or game responsible for that.
Beautifully said.
First "16 year olds sneaking into 18 rated films will always happen"?
Isn't that a crazy thing anyway. A 16 year old couldn't handle and 18
film? That's crazy.
Anyway, you're absolutely right about the fact that if a kid gets his hands on a video game or film that is aged for someone much older, it is not the fault of the content
creator - anyone who argues otherwise I would very much like to listen
to, as it would be quite impressive if they could make me believe their
side.
This piece brings me back to a point that will have the rest of the users on the comments attacking me, but I have to put my side in.
I do indeed let my boys watch films and play games that are aged well above theirs. I'm not unaware of what they are doing, quite the opposite I know everything they are getting up to and I hope this continues for as long as possible, but I'm sure it
will change as they get older.
As I type this, I see a comment below that says violent games increase aggression. Where has this been proven?
I've asked people to explain to me why Drag Me To Hell is inappropriate for
an 8 and 9 year old. This sounds like an absolutely bonkers thing to ask
to some people, I'm well aware of that. I sound like I'm off my head.
I've tried to explain what my kids are like, what sort of films we all
enjoy, but I'm merely attacked and told I'm a bad parent and I'm
boastful. Still no reason is given why it's bad to let them watch Drag
Me To Hell.
I don't know how many people are looking at (peer reviewed) studies into media violence, but the connection is not there. I can see that in my own life, given I watch violent films as a kid - I'm in the minority there I believe, when it comes to film goers
as apparently, going from Den Of Geek users, hardly any of us watch
things that were for ages 18 when we were "too young".
However, I don't need to know it from my own experience, I know it from looking
at the studies of the experts. I can also see from looking at the
majority of the crimes that have been attributed to media violence, that
the people committing these crimes were of age anyway, or very nearly.
Does
Attenbrough have a point about knife violence? I don't know. Glasgow
has always been a terrible place for knife violence and I'm not sure
whether the films people watch here now, were equal to those in the
sixties and seventies?
When lovers of games and films yell about bad parenting, they are patting Ann Diamond on the back. Where is the evidence?
I'm with your main point however. This content gets into the kids hands and
the parents are responsible, not the content creators. There's no
disputing that at all. When I watched Alien on tv at the age of seven,
it was my parents allowing it, not the fault of 20th Century fox or
whatever channel was screening it. When my boys watched it, it was
because I bought the blu ray and said "Let's watch Alien boys".
Incase anyone's wondering, I don't strap them down and force them to
watch. They are free to leave at anytime of course. They don't. They
love the film. But they reserve that right.
Some parents are bad.
They are the parents who don't have a clue what their kids are doing or
care. They are the parents that don't teach their kids to respect life,
to respect other human beings irrespective of race, religion or sexual
orientation.They are the parents, that when another mother or father
comes to their door and tells them that their kid has been bullying
reply "Not my f-ing son!" They are the ones whose kids roam the streets,
break things, steal things, fight with other kids, bully, attack, mock
etc.
And there isn't any film or game responsible for that.
What I couldn't really figure out from that daily mail article was Anne Diamond playing these games with her children? On occasion she quoted comments from her children, at the start of the article they were listed as aged 12-20.
Out of the 4 kids the adults (those over 18) were not the main purpose of influence and those who were younger shouldn't have been playing the games.
why are her children mature enough to handle the content? Is it because they have had good parenting and can separate fantasy from reality?
I had to get someone at the Didsbury Cineworld to remove 2 grown ups with their 5-7 year old children from the 15 rated Hansel & Gretel at the weekend, they were removed before the credits rolled. I would like to think that they just went into the wrong movie, but I'm not that naive
I consider myself a responsible parent when it comes to what content I let my kids be exposed to, but should we even call putting a child in front of GTA or The Evil Dead irresponsible? Most people think young children watching violent content is a bad thing...but is it? I doubt there's ever been a study where young children have been constantly exposed to violent material. We have no idea of the impact, but the vast majority of us assume it will be bad for them and probably for more than just giving them nightmares. Armed with our virtual lines in the sand (the age at which we personal consider content "adult") we call anyone who doesn't match our standard a bad parent, yet we have no evidence to suggest what they're doing is bad.
I don't want to give parents a free pass here, because I'm personally convinced children should only be exposed to some kinds of content based on their maturity, but I have no evidence on which to base those opinions. I'm also probably more strict than many parents, but we all have different opinions on it. Some parents would be disgusted at their child hearing the F word, but others are more concerned about a blade being stabbed through a body. Some think fantasy violence should be on a par with real violence, others disagree. I'd be interested to see a certificate system that did away with numbers, and merely described the adult content. Sure it would mean some parents took kids to see horror movies, but maybe it'd encourage more of us to look behind the rating and make an informed choice based on the maturity of our own children.
In terms of video games, losing at Fifa makes me feel more violent urges than murdering hundreds of enemies in COD. Karate Kid made me want to kick people in the head more than The Expendables does (except for the people who cocked it up).
I think you make a valid point which can be boiled down to one sentence really: good parents knows their child better then anybody else and knows what they can and can't handle.
There are no blanket rules that will stop violence. I was allowed to watch pretty much anything I wanted when I was a kid. My Dad showed me Alien and Aliens when I was about 9. I have never hit anybody in my life. I am not a violent person. I kind of wish he hadn't shown it to me then but only because I think I would've appreciated it more if I'd watched it when older but that's a different argument.
Now, of course, if a person has mental illness, or is predisposed to violence then obviously film and video games could well influence the form that that violence eventually manifests itself. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of these shootings or massacres were perpetrated by somebody who played these games but I would argue that even without the games it would have manifested itself in one form or another. But if things were banned because they influence death and destruction then nobody would be driving cars... Or smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. These things cause much more death then video games ever will. Also there could be a case to make to the argument that allowing children to play violent games allows them to explore violence and death in a safe environment making them less likely to commit atrocities in the real world...
PEGI (and other) ratings being a badge of honour. Too true... I remember when the kit with the original GTA CD was the popular one because of the 18 certification. They need to do some serious TV advertising to raise awareness of video game ratings, due to there still not being a single rating system for video games, some parents get confused or just play ignorant towards them.
That just blows my mind. I wonder how those same parents would react if a permission slip came home asking if their kids could participate in an AirSoft or Paintball simulated war at a locally managed and supervised combat centre - I'd bet there'd be outrage...yet these kids do that every day but without any sense or context of their activities.
I remember going to buy some games and the shopkeeper being exasperated by a parent that was clearly buying an 18 rated game for her (about) 12 year old son. His descriptions for what it included became more and more graphic and she just nodded. In the end he slung it across the counter and said 'No point me carrying on really.'
My experience is the same as yours and I agree with everything you've said there.
My problem is that I cannot find anyone calling people bad parents, for allowing to view something such as Aliens, willing to provide evidence, or even a valid reason why it is bad.
Like you, there are some things I wish I had waited for, but only based on the fact that I would have gotten every little joke and nuance, that went over my head as a kid; I enjoyed the films none the less.
Like you, I've never been violent, in fact I've been in about three fights as a kid and that was merely a scuffle and was me fighting to protect myself. Silly stuff. So I cannot relate to the reaction of the majority of gamers and film goers, at least I assume it's the majority.
It's nice not to be savaged, and scolded by a 20 year old about how I'm a lazy, poor excuse for a human being and a bad parent, just for giving this side of the argument.
Basing our decisions as parents on a child's maturity level, I believe, is a very logical way to approach things.
Actually asking your kids how they feel and what they feel they can handle, coupled with your own knowledge, your own awareness of who your child is, is the compass I use.
As you say, there is no evidence for the people calling people like myself (who lets his sons of 8 and 9 view something like Drag Me To Hell) a bad parent. It's based on personal feelings, it's based on Ann Diamond's way of judging things: "this kind of violence can only be bad for you"
I was gonna make a joke about Twisted Sisters, but then I saw that everyone else commenting was all serious, so I posted this instead.
The rating system itself, is a problem and very inconsistent. On the one hand, kids always want to do things they are not allowed to. I know that I first tried a cigarette chiefly because I wasn't allowed to. I actually think that newspapers and tabloids are far more damaging to society then any film or videogame. Tabloids in particular. I think it is a very bad sign when a tabloid can guarantee an increase in sales by putting a picture of a murdered child or some tragedy on the front cover and then, in a style aimed at enraging the public, will "cover" the case for weeks on end detailing how the crime was committed, who did it, why they did it and then they do articles going into the heads of the killer! How long was Fred and Rose West and all the gory details of their crimes In our papers and in our consciousness for? Months and months of it. And then, came magazines about serial killers, then documentaries about these crimes. Now, for all this kind of "news" why do we need to hear about it? what good does it actually do? Politics and wars our countries are involved in we should know about so we can hold our leaders to account but why do we need to know about horrific real life crimes? It becomes like a real life soap opera accept the victims are real, the pain and anguish are real. Now, if somebody is missing or if the police Re wanting help from the public then a brief account may be required but people mostly read these types of stories for entertainment! I find this sick. These shootings at schools in America, I bet the perpetrators were familier with the Columbine or similar attacks. This is what they are copying... Not videogames. I think, in many ways, playing videogames and watching films is the safest and more decent way of exploring the dark aspect of the human mind... Then absorbing yourself in the minds of real psychotics and the details of real crime. Reality is so much nastier then fiction... Simply because... Well... It is real!!!
I talked about parental responsibility in my dissertation on violent movies nearly 13 years ago. Shame things don't move on...
My point is this... We all know that there are nasty people out there who do unspeakable things. Why do we insist upon going into it he minute details of these acts? And the tabloids actively try to engage our emotions... Like fiction does. If these things need to report it then keep it brief, unemotional and to the point. That way we are all informed but don't get drawn into things that is none of our business and to which there is nothing we can do...
I cannot agree more.
I always felt uncomfortable about the stories that get top billing, but it wasn't until I started to read things like The Guardian and see Charlie Brooker's Newswipe that I really began to understand how disgusting the state of journalism is and how sick we've become as a society. We're like dumb animals to a degree. The government gets up to some destructive, liberty eliminating behaviour on one side and we let the media distract us, let them get us looking at the other side at either some horrible car smash of a story or a big set of breasts and call that news.
Yup, I couldn't have put it better myself and I salute you watching Charlie Brooker's new swipe. It is really worrying the collective state of our mentality. I watch the news for politics and world affairs that could influence my vote. If I want drama or emotional stories I will turn to fiction (in whatever media I fancy). I was with my mother and aunt the other day. The news was on and they were transfixed by a 999 call involving parents whose house was on fire and their kids were trapped (and ended up dying). I tried to ask them why they were interested... Why they felt they needed to hear this tragic call. No reasonable answer was forthcoming.
I went to see "Zero Dark Thirty". I had no problems with the torture scenes. What I had a problem with was using a genuine recording (at least, a reviewer of the film on Radio 4 said it was real... if anybody knows differently please let me know) of a woman trapped in one of the Twin Towers. This was a poor woman's last words. And it has been put on the beginning of a bit of fiction (not even a documentary) purely the entertain and as a cheap trick to emotionally engage with the viewer. What worries me is most people won't even see why this is a problem but will instead turn to the two actors, acting out a torture scene where nobody is really hurt and who are getting paid handsomely, as a source of outrage. This cannot be right.
Speaking of 911. Whereas I honestly can't see how that could not have been reported... If it hadn't then Al Qaida would have completely failed in their act of terrorism as it was the news that was the conduit for the "terror". Like I said, I can't see how that couldn't be reported but it is important to remember how the media that dictates and shapes ones thoughts and actions. Far more then a film or videogame. And there is no age restriction either. And now, with the Internet, all these news stories pop up when you log off your email accounts or when you boot up your browser meaning people of all ages are reading tabloid like, negative news articles with headlines specifically there to hook the reader emotionally so they read the full article.
Dangerous and generally overlooked as a problem. Instead art forms like film and, yes, video games are attacked... By the media. Hmmm,.
Perhaps they just read the title and thought it was a child-friendly adaptation of the well-known fairy tale ....
I don't have the statistics to back this up, but just from memory, it does seem that most violent crimes that occur always have the perpetrator having some underlying mental issues that seemed to be the issue (although, obviously, you'd have to be crazy to commit violence, but you know what I mean). Maybe people should, instead of looking for scapegoats, try and identify and help troubled people before they go on a rage.
Governments like to blame everybody but the parents because it is the parents who keep them in a job.
This article raises some very interesting points. There is a definite correlation between young children watching violence and being violent themselves. However, as mentioned in the article, the most important thing is the child seeing the consequences. Albert Bandura performed an experiment back in the 1960s which seemed to prove that children will imitate violence if they see either a positive consequence or no consequence at all. However, if there is a negative consequence then they are less likely to imitate it.
I do agree with the article that parents are mostly to blame. Of course children will still get access to overage games, however nowadays a lot of parents don't even know what their children are playing.
A close relative of mine had this situation arise recently. He has an xbox in the living room whilst his son (who was 7 at the time) has an xbox in his bedroom. He played Call Of Duty whilst in the living room with his son watching. Shortly after, he let his son play COD on his own. He was then shocked to be called into school to find out his son had told another boy to "Fuck Off" and that he was going to "Kill him with a knife". He did then see the error of his ways and banned his son from playing COD but let him play Arkham City instead!! And before anyone second guesses, he's 46 and has already got one daughter who's 21.....surely he should know better??
In all honesty though parents do need to take a hard look at themselves rather than complain about the content of these games. Games, DVDs and even CDs have either age certificates or Parental Advisory notices on them for a reason. I agree with some people who say that some 18 year olds are more immature than some 13 year olds but ultimately this is in the minority. In my opinion if your child wants GTA then they're going to have to wait until they're old enough. That is very much Pot, Kettle, Black as I regularly duped my parents into buying me overage games for my N64 years ago, but games are so much more realistic today.
Finally (and if you're still reading congratulations and thank you for sticking with me), with the next generation of consoles on the way, could manufacturers not do more by creating better parental controls to effectively inhibit machines from playing certain games unless a code is entered (like Sky Movies). I know this would still rely on parents taking the initiative but it would stop kids borrowing overage games at school and playing them at home. Thoughts??
And may I ask what Anne Diamond's credentials are when it comes to discussing the psychology of children?
She is a TV presenter. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whilst I would never brand you a bad parent as I agree with the other comments that only you know your child best. There has been a proven correlation between children watching violent acts and acting out violence. I will concede that the study was done back in the 1960s before video games but the overall results do transfer.
Having said that though, from the age of 6, I played 007 Goldeneye on the N64 along with Quake and Conkers Bad Fur Day (that one was a little later when I was about 9). And I haven't turned into a raging psychopath (well not yet). Personally, I don't think there is much of a problem as long as you know what they're playing/watching, which means that you can talk to them about it so they understand that it's a game/film. Being honest though, I don't have any kids but do have quite a few young relatives who play overage games and take them a little too seriously.
Wow. What a dick. It's not her fault the shopkeeper's a prude with an immature sheltered kid.
Really interesting posts. To be clear, the article isn't calling someone a bad parent for letting them watch an underage film. It was to raise the point that bad parenting is never seen as an argument when it matters in such debates. It's summed up in your last paragraph - "some parents are bad" - but that never seems to be part of the argument when issues of violence, films and games are at their most intense.
One key point running right through these comments is that parents know their children better than anyone. And that the parents who care, use ratings as a guideline, but crucially make decisions appropriate to their child, are absolutely golden in my personal view. - Simon
"My problem is that I cannot find anyone calling people bad parents, for
allowing to view something such as Aliens, willing to provide evidence,
or even a valid reason why it is bad."
I've seen a six year old left to entertain themselves playing Call Of Duty: Black Ops II, with no obvious regard for the content of the game. Said game was just being used as a surrogate babysitter. Honestly? It scared the life out of me. I have all sorts of problems with the rating system, but in that instance, someone was playing something when they were underage by two thirds. I don't think that's an isolated example either.
It's a different matter, of course, if a parent who knows their child has been through the game or movie in question first, and made a call based on knowing their child best.
I've let my eldest child watch some things that, by the letter of the certificate, he's too young before. But I've known he'd cope with them, and more than that, that he'd get a lot out of them. - Simon
My cousin put on 18 rated films when she used to babysit me - so I saw Predator, Total Recall and Terminator when I was about 7. While I enjoyed the thrill of seeing something restricted, certain scenes did give me nightmares and to this day I'm careful about what films I see - anything with gratuitous and gory death is a complete turn off for me, so I've never watched any of the mainstream horror films (Scream, Friday 13th, Final Destination et al). I'm strangely fine with sci-fi stuff like Aliens, but anything more down to Earth and I simply don't like it, though I respect the fact that there are people who do, and that's fine.
There is a case for responsible parenting, but sadly many parents in the UK are simply not fit for purpose. Perhaps if parents were legally responsible and more publically prosecuted for the behaviour of their little darlings, they may take the whole thing more seriously. For my part, I'll show my kids films like Stand By Me to teach them about life and death when they're old enough, but if I ever catch them watching stuff like Death Race before they should, they'll be in a lot of trouble.
I think there comes an age when children realise it is only a game and assuming the parents raise the children correctly, they can play in moderation. However if a child is to young the line between reality and fantasy is weak and that's when you get problems. To NOT allow any children to play ANY games is equally wrong as they will be ostracised from their piers - in the end its a judgement call backed up by parental education and moderation.
It's not about letting children play video games, it's allowing them to play video games that are not meant for them. If you allow children to play 18 certificate games, why not let them watch hard core porn, as well?
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous comparison. A parent letting a 16 year old play Grand Theft Auto is justifiable (although not acceptable in my opinion), a parent letting a 16 year old watch "hardcore" porn is most certainly not.
You pose an interesting question. I personally blame parents for purchasing things for their kids that they shouldn't. My husband worked in the video game industry. Many of those video games are geared towards adult males 18-34-- not 12 year old boys. I don't know how these young kids are getting these games unless the parents buy it.
But both of them are rated 18. Why let them watch and play something as violent and gratuitous as GTA, but not let them watch the natural act of sex?
The ratings are there for a reason and parents should wise up and stop blaming other people for their mistakes.
I used to work at a video store, and it was store policy to always ask for a parent before lending mature films out. One parent got so annoyed that they had to come in with their children (which is another issue entirely that I had to watch over these young kids in the store all the time) that they requested a note to added to their account so that the kids could borrow anything they wanted. I do think parents have the best understanding of how mature their children are, but they should at least know what films their kids are watching.
I would have said "no there really isn't" and proceeded to pick out at least two or three more games that made the first one look mild by comparison
there is an on line game that is being played by an underage child. The game is called Counter Strike through the site called Stream . I am wondering how he got an account some games have to be at least 14. the game Fallen Sword you have to be 14.
What can be done to make sure they can't get these games on line. parents are responsible for what their kids are allowed to play. Sometimes that when back is turned, they will play these games. or friends will tell them about a game and they will lie about age. Could there be more things the site could do too make sure these kids are the age they say?
I see some behavior problems, how do I bring this up to the parent? Is there a hot line to help parents with situations?