ESRB and the TG16

[nodtveidt]

[guyjin]

yum. 

[2X4]

Back on topic, Splatterhouse was the first game to get a parental advisory disclaimer.  Not the same as ESRB, but part of the same legistlative movement.  As for the monkey see monkey do argument, of course people who have a propensity for violence love violent video games, that does not mean there is a causal link.  Cannibals probably prefer a steak to steamed veggies and rice, but that doesn't mean beef causes cannibalism.   

[akamichi]

Back on topic, Splatterhouse was the first game to get a parental advisory disclaimer.  Not the same as ESRB, but part of the same legistlative movement.  As for the monkey see monkey do argument, of course people who have a propensity for violence love violent video games, that does not mean there is a causal link.  Cannibals probably prefer a steak to steamed veggies and rice, but that doesn't mean beef causes cannibalism.   

Exactly.  Politicians don't seem to understand (or want to understand) this.  To put it in a more general way:  Correlation does not imply causation.

[esteban]

It IS true that violent media can bring out the violence potential in a person already "wired" for that kind of behavior. But a person not predisposed to violent behavior is not going to be affected no matter how much you expose him or her to. We've known this for centuries...amazing how much society likes to forget when it's convenient for them to believe something else.

To put it into modern terms...you have to already have a violent nature within you to be affected by a violent video game. End of story. No ratings are ever going to change that basic truth.

Actually, I think there is a fine point to add to this.

First, though, let's remove ourselves from the video game discussion (since I don't think violent media causes violence, but I do believe that violent media can contribute to an unsavory environment... in the same way that racist, sexist, etc. media negatively influences our culture...)

Anyway, I submit that ALL of us are very capable of doing heinous things... and it doesn't necessarily take a lot for us to commit those acts (for starters, consider Milgram's research on authority, State-sanctioned violence, etc).

So, I agree with you, some folks probably do have a penchant for violence (often as a means of solving problems?)... but we shouldn't sit back smugly and consider ourselves too far removed this brutality. I know this is a fine point, and it is only meant to expand on what you have already argued.

If it helps folks understand where I am coming from: I don't think we, as humans, are inherently good or evil (because it's a lazy / inaccurate way to explain social phenomena).

[nodtveidt]

There are other specific examples that do prove links between certain media and certain behaviors. For eample, look at the explosive growth of self-inflicted anorexia. What caused it? An image of beauty as portrayed by the media. Never underestimate the power of the media, especially when one is a willing subject of its influence.

[Necromancer]

If media had no influence on people, companies wouldn't spend millions on advertisements.  I'm not a marketing genius, and I don't understand how advertising works.  I've never seen a Pepsi ad and thought "I've been drinking Coke for 20 years, but maybe I'm wrong".  But they must be working, since they keep making more ads.

[Black Tiger]

If media had no influence on people, companies wouldn't spend millions on advertisements.  I'm not a marketing genius, and I don't understand how advertising works.  I've never seen a Pepsi ad and thought "I've been drinking Coke for 20 years, but maybe I'm wrong".  But they must be working, since they keep making more ads.

Marketing in theory is just information. Its a way of informing potential customers when a company wants to get a message out.

Marketing has become it's own industry and the main victim of it's 'brainwashing' is it's own customers.

If marketing was anywhere near as effective as it markets itself to be, everything would be successful, not just the small percentage that is. And without marketing, would there be any smaller a percentage of successful businesses out there?

[2X4]

I shouldn't further this, but it is interesting.  Advertising (my forte) is a means of reaching people who have a specific need or want with a message about a product that will fill that need or want.  So again the propensity (or whatever you want to call it) already exists, the ad is simply trying to make a connection.

Nod, we both agree that there is a link between media and behavior, I actually took a couple of courses about this very specific subject.  I maintain that the link is not necessarily causal, as akamichi and I have said.  With anorexia, it is another case of a psychological disorder, which I don't know a lot about.  But I do know that anorexics develop this problem as a way to have control over something.  That is why it is common among people who experience rapid and extreme success, like young celebrities.  I think the explosion we are seeing is actually an explosion of media exposure of a condition that has been common for a long time.  This happens a lot when a celebrity has any kind of problem.  The problem becomes more interesting when it happens to somebody famous, and media responds to the interest with more coverage.

[esteban]

I shouldn't further this, but it is interesting.  Advertising (my forte) is a means of reaching people who have a specific need or want with a message about a product that will fill that need or want.  So again the propensity (or whatever you want to call it) already exists, the ad is simply trying to make a connection.

Well, I think you're being too generous with this definition . I tend to go with a more critical approach: Marketing is often designed to *create* a need. Do we, as humans, really have a need for 99.99% of the stuff in ads? Hell no. If staple foods and neccessities of life (shelter! detergent! toilet paper!) comprised most of the items being marketed, then I'd agree with you.

But sugary snacks, luxury vehicles, beer, get-quick-rich schemes, lose-weight-effortlessly schemes, etc. dominate the landscape. I actually like to watch infomercials, since they are often entertaining (Chef Tony! Ricardo Montalban and his passion for the Grillerie! ).

And companies have spent a lot of money and research on how to effectively (mercilessly) target young children (i.e. see research on the "nagging effect", the McLibel case in the UK and McDonald's tactics towards kids, commercials pumped into classrooms -- young captive audiences -- under the guise of  "free" educational programming, corporate sponsorship of school sports, etc. etc. etc.)

But I'm not actually trying to make a fork in the discussion; I have a young daughter and I am trying to figure out the best way to handle this crap. I also feel guilty for having worked in a marketing department that created tons of banner ads that continue to clutter up the internet (it was near-predatory lending at its finest ).

I've mentinoed this before, but a famous marketer whose career ended in the 50's (or 60's... sadly I forget his name) said that he foresaw a future world with "ad-free zones"... sanctuaries that could provide a brief escape from the onslaught of ads. It's an idea that I find fascinating and disturbing. Unfortunately, I think he was too optimistic: We should be so lucky!

[GUTS]

Does anyone remember those old science shows they used to show in public schools back in the late 80s and early 90s (usually on the actual film reels)?  I don't remember any of them ever having "corporate sponsorship" or anything like that.  Were they all funded by the government?  I always wondered who paid for them.  It also always bothered me that PBS was supposed to be commercial free but you'd always have little commercials before the show, and then the stupid pledge drives, I always wished they would just do full on commercials.

[esteban]

Does anyone remember those old science shows they used to show in public schools back in the late 80s and early 90s (usually on the actual film reels)?  I don't remember any of them ever having "corporate sponsorship" or anything like that.  Were they all funded by the government?  I always wondered who paid for them.  It also always bothered me that PBS was supposed to be commercial free but you'd always have little commercials before the show, and then the stupid pledge drives, I always wished they would just do full on commercials.

Yeah, PBS has corporate sponsers and used to only mention them briefly and show a logo. Over the last 20 years, though, they've turned into full-on commercials. It's still better than having commercials (since you only get 1 short 15-30 second commercial every half-hour on PBS), but I think they should go back to the old method.


--------
The old films, hmmmmmm, they were probably made by third parties, who were commissioned by the government (federal / state / local i.e. Dept. of Education, Dept of Health, etc.). Sometimes, I suppose, the Department itself could have made the films, but this would require them to have all the equipment / facilities to do this. Over the years, with budget cuts and changing technologies, I doubt many departments had "film making" as a permament part of the department. This is speculation, though, because I don't know the actual details here. It actually is easier to make films now (technology), so it is more feasible to have in-house production.... but even this is a hassle

Now, in addition to films that were directly commissioned by government, I'm sure there were (are) films made by independent companies that were / are directly marketed at school districts. As long as these films follow some basic guidelines (to satisfy school boards), then these films might not have to be "officially" endorsed by a government agency.

[GUTS]

Yeah I've noticed that too on PBS, I remember the days when they just mentioned the name of the Corporate sponsor instead of full commercials.  I wish they would just accept some more corporate sponsors so that they could do away with the pledge drives, I wouldn't mind a few minutes of commercials at the beginning of a program if it meant no pledge drives.

[esteban]

Yeah I've noticed that too on PBS, I remember the days when they just mentioned the name of the Corporate sponsor instead of full commercials.  I wish they would just accept some more corporate sponsors so that they could do away with the pledge drives, I wouldn't mind a few minutes of commercials at the beginning of a program if it meant no pledge drives.

But if there were no pledge drives, there wouldn't be any epic 2-hour televised Yanni concerts on TV!!! Or ABBA concerts!!! Or  dancing competitions.... oh wait, they always have dancing competitions .

Anyway, check out the re-runs of the Lawrence Welk show if they play it on your local PBS. AWESOME! I'm only partially joking, since I actually, for some perverse reason, enjoy the damn show.

[GUTS]

I loved that Yanni concert, and the Abba one was f*cking awesome too.