National Institute on Media and the Family Receives Failing Grades
Group Once Again Resorts To Deceptive Tactics; Dr. David Walsh Asked To Step Down As President Of Group
by David PolusEven after I asked Dr. David Walsh, and his so-called National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF), to stop resorting to sensationalism and deception, Dr. Walsh continues this "fine" tradition of his. While the group did make strides in correcting some of the nonsense in last year's report card (like not giving the video game industry an F grade for obesity, as well as giving us details about the studies that are out there and their flaws), these are not excuses for some of the nonsense they give us in this year's report card.
First off, they claim the ESRB rating system is broken and beyond repair. They state the AO rating has only been used on 18 out of 10,000 games because there is an "obvious conflict of interest". The same could be said about the movie industry, after all, how many movies are rated NC-17? What Dr. Walsh doesn't realize is that video game developers (as well as movie makers) may resubmit their product after it originally received a rating the developers try to avoid. For example, a video game may have had an AO rating originally, but after certain scenes are removed/altered, a resubmission could now give the game an M rating. The 18 out of 10,000 does NOT reflect every ratings assignment throughout a game's history, only the final rating on the final version. For instance, the movie "Robocop" originally received an X rating 11 times back in the 80's, due to its extreme violence, before finally receiving an R rating after certain portions were removed. This final, edited, R-rated Robocop version is used in statistics, not the original X rated director's cut version. Would Dr. Walsh claim the MPAA rating system is "broken and beyond repair" because of that?
Another problem with Dr. Walsh's statement about the rating system being "broken and beyond repair" is the fact that developers may avoid submitting their games to the ESRB. The ratings process is completely voluntary and major retail stores refuse to carry any game rated AO. If you create a pornographic game knowing it will receive an AO rating from the ESRB, knowing that major retail stores will refuse to stock the game, would you even bother submitting it for a review? Probably not. Walk into an adult video store and you'll notice that none of the pornographic movies on the shelves have ever been submitted to the MPAA for a rating. Why would pornographers submit their movies to the MPAA knowing that their films will receive an NC-17 rating and major retail stores won't even bother carrying them, costing those producers time and money in the process (submitting your product to be rated isn't free, remember)? A pornographer would likely skip the ratings process and just distribute their products to adult video stores. That doesn't mean the MPAA should give more R rated movies an NC-17 rating to make up for it. That doesn't mean the ESRB should give more M rated games an AO rating to make up for it either. Nowhere does Dr. Walsh tell us how many adult games aren't rated and sold in adult establishments. No where does he tell us how many M rated games on the market were originally rated AO before certain scenes were removed. How then can he make such a sweeping conclusion that the rating system is "broken and beyond repair"?
The NIMF also gives an example of how the rating system is allegedly "broken and beyond repair" when citing the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas "Hot Coffee" scene. While it was wrong of Rockstar to include hidden explicit content in the game, the game was rated M for Mature anyway. If the game were rated E for Everyone and contained explicit content, that would be one thing. But the game had an M for Mature rating anyway, so there's no real argument here. I'm just curious as to why Dr. Walsh has never claimed the MPAA rating system is "broken and beyond repair" since an animated, G-rated, Disney movie called "The Rescuers" had an image of a naked woman that was deliberately put in there.
The criticism of the NIMF isn't just coming from the gaming community. Even the National PTA released a statement bashing the NIMF for their "erroneous statements about National PTA's position on the Entertainment Software Rating Board's (ESRB) rating system." The group also stated that "it does not agree with the report's characterization of ESRB and its rating system." How ironic that Dr. Walsh not long ago wrote a letter to a fanatical lawyer stating "I and members of my board have a growing concern that your use of our name, without our permission, has had a negative influence as we try to educate the public on this important issue" only to see Dr. Walsh use the National PTA's name, without their permission, to make it sound as if they agree with what the NIMF claims.
Also, the NIMF states in the report card that it "will be careful to engage in these activities in order to maintain its position that it does not support legislation involving censorship", yet when lawmakers use the NIMF as a credible group to justify the regulation of video games, the group has never come out and told the lawmakers that they don't support video game regulations. The recently defeated Illinois bill was found to be unconstitutional and found to be nothing more than a censorship bill, yet the NIMF never came out and distanced themselves from the lawmakers even though the lawmakers (as well as Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich) used statistics and studies conducted by the NIMF to justify the regulation of video games. Why didn't Dr. Walsh write a letter to the legislators, urging them not to use the NIMF's name in their bills (the way Dr. Walsh did to the same fanatical lawyer I mention above) if the NIMF truly were against censorship?
Based on the above, it is obvious Dr. Walsh and the NIMF are not credible. Parents should look elsewhere if they wish to rely on a group to help them make wise media decisions. The NIMF, in its current state, just doesn't cut it. The only thing "broken and beyond repair" is the credibility of the NIMF.
Credibility of the National Institute on Media and the Family..................
FThe deceptive and sensationalistic tactics used by the NIMF continues in this report card as well. If you recall, this is the same group that gave the video game industry an F grade in 2002 for violence against women in Grand Theft Auto. They decried the game as "misogynistic" only to claim this year that the game is a "cop-killing" game instead (isn't it ironic that the group changed its mind after Dr. Walsh appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes show where they discussed whether the Grand Theft Auto games inspired a teen to kill 3 police officers?). Why didn't the group tell us the game featured violence against police back in 2002 when they gave the entire video game industry an F grade for violence against women in GTA? Why didn't they tell us this in 2003? ...2004? The portrayal of GTA as a misogynistic game didn't succeed (for one thing, the game also features violence against MEN!). As any deceptive group would do, the NIMF quickly dropped their previous statements and then portrayed the game as something completely different. This time, GTA is portrayed as a cop-killing game, and the group posted a video of the player shooting police officers in the game. The group also asked people to sign a petition that would "tell Take-Two killing cops isn't entertainment". Strange, because this is exactly what they did to the game in 2002, but for violence against women. What this shows us is the group is out to deceive and they do it by focusing in on violence against a particular group, knowing that this method may generate more public concern and make more headlines. GTA is violent towards men and women, police officers and regular citizens, motorists and pedestrians, anyone and everyone. Claiming the game is a violent game (general) may not make it attractive for news media outlets to pick up. But claiming the game is a "misogynistic" or "cop-killing" game makes it more attractive for headlines. It wasn't after I wrote the group a lengthy letter, questioning why the game is being portrayed as a cop-killing game when in 2002, it was portrayed as a misogynistic game, that they removed the video and petition from their website. Very small progress from the group, but progress nonetheless.
Unfortunately, rather than continue to head in the right direction, the group went back to its deceptive ways in this year's report card. This time, the video game industry is portrayed as an industry that encourages cannibalism. The game that was used to show "cannibalism" in video games was "Stubbs the Zombie in Rebel Without a Pulse". Yes, you read right, "Stubbs the Zombie" is a game that, the group claims, features "cannibalism". I know what you're thinking: a zombie game is being used to show video games now include "cannibalism"? Hey, when a group is desperate to make headlines, resorting to this type of deception should be expected. I, as a levelheaded, intelligent, open-minded, well-educated individual can conclude that the depiction of zombies eating human brains isn't cannibalism. Zombies, being fictitious creatures, in movies and literature are known for eating the brains of humans. Yet surprisingly, no one ever says the zombies that eat human brains in movies and literature counts as cannibalism. Even Shakespeare's play, Titus Andronicus, featured actual cannibalism (human on human), yet no complaints there. A zombie that eats human brains in a video game is considered "cannibalism", but humans eating humans in Shakespeare is considered a masterpiece. Go figure. I just loved how the developers of the zombie game responded to this cannibalism nonsense: "Stubbs is a zombie. Thus the title 'Stubbs the Zombie.' Zombies eat brains. That's what they do. Stubbs cannot just saunter into the cafeteria and order a plate of Freedom Fries. He has to fight for his meals. In fact, actual cannibals only make it harder for Stubbs to eat, which is why this 'cannibalism' story is insulting as well as injurious. It's no surprise that the all-human media cartel resorts to distortions and name-calling; their anti-zombie bias has been evident for decades, and Stubbs is just the newest target."
Scores of news media outlets quickly posted headlines claiming the video game industry is now depicting cannibalism, further proving that the NIMF resorts to deception and sensationalism to generate interest and make headlines. While you should feel bad for parents that actual rely on the NIMF, the person you really have to feel sorry for is Senator Joseph Lieberman. The senator has echoed a lot of the nonsense that the NIMF spews, such as claiming GTA is a misogynistic game, when he went around the country, trying to run for President not long ago. This time, the senator uses the cannibalism nonsense to claim "[i]t's just the worst kind of message to kids". Yes, we see so many kids out there running to their parents, saying "Mom, Dad. When I grow up, I want to be a zombie who eats human brains, just like my video game hero, Stubbs!" Let's face it. The dumb have gotten dumber, and Senator Lieberman is the epitome of foolish video game critics. A person like me, who has played video games for almost 20 years, can see things more clearly than someone like Lieberman, who, judging by some of his comments, probably hasn't played video games for 20 seconds. What's more amazing is the fact that Lieberman and Senator Hillary Clinton are proposing a bill that would regulate violent video games. Yes, 2 huge supporters of the war in Iraq support regulating violent video games. Real violence in the real world is good and acceptable, while fictional violence in video games is unacceptable and ought to be regulated because children may view the violence in video games as a way to solve real life conflicts. Here's the most hilarious part about all this. The unconstitutional bill that Lieberman and Clinton are proposing would use the ESRB rating system to regulate the games, even though their buddy, Dr. Walsh, has stated the rating system is "broken and beyond repair". How could the rating system be used to regulate games if the NIMF is claiming the system is broken and beyond repair? This is the sad state of affairs that the video game critics are involved in, as the critics now contradict each other. If this is the type of "education" that the NIMF is giving the public, then the public ought to seriously consider finding another "school".
The National Institute on Media and the Family's Education of the Public.............
FAccording to an ESRB statement, the ESRB had previously contacted the NIMF to ask about last year's report card. They wanted the NIMF to address some of the things they brought up in that report card as well as to answer questions they had. The statement says the NIMF never bothered to respond to the ESRB's request. Even though I don't know if this is true, I would believe the statement, since I have contacted the NIMF on numerous occasions, by e-mails and by phone calls, and not once have I received a response on why my original letter to the group went unanswered. What is the NIMF hiding behind? If what they claim is correct and accurate, they should have no problems responding to the concerns of the public, because after all, it is the very public that they seek to inform.
Before last year's report card was released, Dr. Walsh sent letters/surveys to game publishers and retailers asking their input on the violent video game issue. When only a few responded, Dr. Walsh claimed, "[t]he video game industry's silence is deafening. Their refusal to answer the survey's questions sends a loud message to parents that the retailers and producers believe violent video games are not harmful to children. If this is not the case, why won't the CEOs answer basic questions about the video games they sell and produce? What do they fear?"
Here's a better question: What do Dr. Walsh and the NIMF fear? They have yet to respond to my letter, and it seems likely that they refused to respond to the ESRB. If the video game industry's silence is deafening, then the NIMF's silence is ear piercing. If you claim that you are a group that seeks to inform and educate the public, then failing to respond to the questions and concerns of the public is not the correct way to handle the situation.
National Institute On Media and the Family's Response to the Public's Questions and Concerns....................
FThe accuracy of the report card grades and statistics given to us by the NIMF should be of concern as well. The statistics that really grab your attention are the ones that say 7 out of 10 children report playing M rated video games and 6 out of 10 children list at least one M rated game as their favorite. The problem here is that we are not made aware of which M rated games the children are playing. Are the games Grand Theft Auto like (and would justify the concern) or do the games feature violence that is part of the story, like war games such as "Brothers in Arms"? We aren't told the context of the M rated games the children are allegedly playing. This is strange, as we live in a society where we don't restrict children's access to all R rated movies. Just last year, Steven Spielberg's masterpiece "Saving Private Ryan" was shown on Veteran's Day uncut, uncensored, unedited on national television, yet no complaints from the NIMF. No complaints from lawmakers. In fact, some of the same people that blast media violence were actually defending the movie. If we conducted the same survey on the same children and asked them if they've seen an R rated movie, how many (per 10) would say they have? Perhaps 10 out of 10, especially since we allow an R rated movie to air on national television. If 10 out of 10 or even 7 out of 10 children claim to have seen an R rated movie, do we automatically assume the movies they watched were slasher films or Quentin Tarantino blood fests, as opposed to good movies like "Saving Private Ryan", "Schindler's List", and "The Passion of the Christ"? Would it be wrong for a child to state "Saving Private Ryan", "Schindler's List", or "The Passion of the Christ" as a favorite movie of theirs? While 7 out of 10 children playing M rated games and 6 out of 10 list at least one M rated games as their favorite may be of concern, we are unable to know which games, in particular the context of the games, they are playing if we look at general statistics like the ones the NIMF supplies us with. There can be a world of difference between one M rated game and another, just as there is a world of difference between one R rated movie and another, which is why "Saving Private Ryan" was allowed to air on national television uncut, while any other R rated movie would have been slapped with fines from the FCC.
The most ridiculous statistics on the report card are on data comparing video games of the late 1990's with the video games of 2004. Here, the NIMF claims the rating system is deeply flawed because the M rated games of today are a lot more violent and explicit than they were back in the late 90's (let me remind you that only six games were used to come up with these statistics for each year. Six!). The report card claims the games have changed while the rating system has remained the same. This would only be true if we assume that the games in the late 90's, that were rated M, were at the most extreme end of the rating. Not all M rated games are equal. The NIMF doesn't take into consideration that a lot of the movies of today are far more violent and explicit than the movies of the past. "The Passion of the Christ" is one of the most violent movies ever made. "Saving Private Ryan" features not only realistic violence, but is filled with profanity (the f-word alone was uttered over 20 times throughout the film). The NIMF claims "[k]ids are six times more likely to see nude or partially nude figures in M-rated video games today than they were in the late 1990s. Yet the ratings haven't changed." The movie "Schindler's List" featured realistic violence as well as full frontal nudity. The movie was rated R. Would the NIMF claim it should've been rated NC-17 because it features violence and nudity? That seems to be what they are saying when it comes to video games, yet they don't want that applied to movies. Believe it or not, Dr. Walsh has repeatedly asked that a universal rating system be implemented, yet the obvious conflict found here, where nudity and violence in video games should receive the harshest rating, while nudity and violence in movies can receive one less than the harshest rating, is proof that a universal rating system can't and won't happen. It is clear that the only flaws are not found in the ESRB's rating system, but found in the NIMF's interpretation and presentation of statistics.
Proper Use and Presentation of Statistics...........................
FBased on the above, it is obvious that the NIMF continues to head in the wrong path under the direction of Dr. David Walsh. The amount of deception and sensationalism being displayed by the group is to the point where the group has lost all credibility of a parental advocacy group. For these reasons, I feel Dr. Walsh should step down as president of the National Institute on Media and the Family. Someone else should replace him; someone who doesn't resort to deception and sensationalism; someone who isn't just interested in making headlines; someone who isn't interested in using scare tactics just to bring attention to the group; someone who doesn't obsessively show video clips of the violent games, but shows video clips of the non-violent, family-friendly games so that parents can better understand which games would be appropriate for their children and why. How strange that the NIMF feels that a list of the most violent games to avoid isn't enough. They have to show short video clips of the violent games, as well. Why not show video clips of the non-violent games to show why these games are great for kids and that parents can feel confident in purchasing them for their children and families, instead of just slapping together a list of kid-friendly games? Also, how strange that the group NOW places the game "Dance Dance Revolution" on their top 10 list of games they recommend for children after I criticized them for not placing the game on their list, yet they gave the video game industry an F grade for causing obesity in children in last year's report card. Nice try, Dr. Walsh. Too little too late. The NIMF, however, can still potentially be a credible group but only after Dr. Walsh steps down as president and someone more capable of being president of a parental advocacy group is leading the charge.
Report Card SummaryCredibility of the National Institute on Media and the Family............
FThe National Institute on Media and the Family's Education of the Public...............
FNational Institute On Media and the Family's Response to the Public's Questions and Concerns..............
FProper Use and Presentation of Statistics...............
FOverall Grade..............F--------------------------
cc: The Honorable Senator Joseph Lieberman
The Honorable Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
The Honorable Senator Sam Brownback
Entertainment Software Association
Entertainment Software Rating Board
Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Children Now
National PTA
Blois Olson, New School Communications
Brad Robideau, New School Communications
Nat Bennett, New School Communications
The Media Coalition Inc.
International Game Developers Association
GamePolitics
various media sources
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
gamer81's journal