reviewing Black Doves; Dark Matter; Dept. Q; Detective Hole; Dexter: Resurrection; Fauda; For All Mankind; Foundation; Hijack; Memory of a Killer; MobLand; Outlander; Paradise; Presumed Innocent; Severance; Silo; Slow Horses; Smoke; Star City; Star Trek: Strange New Worlds; Tehran;The: Day of the Jackal, Diplomat, Night Agent; Your Friends & Neighbors +books, films, music, podcasts, politics
George Santayana had irrational faith in reason - I have irrational faith in TV.
Chuck Todd interviews me about alternate histories
I missed Heroes last week - the memory guy got to me and made me forget to watch it. No, I just got caught up in too many other things, but that's ok, because Heroes is best watched between the cracks, in time stolen from other things, which makes you a kid reading comic books when you're supposed to be doing homework.
Or playing video games. Both of which - comic books and video games - are the heart and soul and brain of the Heroes saga. They figure especially vividly in Heroes Reborn, and especially so in episode 1.6, on old-fashioned 2015 television this past Thursday in what was one superb episode, easily the best of the season so far, and setting us up for much more.
The hour was chocked full of great little narratives and scenes - Tommy and Emily teleporting to Paris, and doing so much better than the Eiffel Tower (including a gem of a scene at the Bouquinistes by the Seine, where Emily shows Tommy an Isaac Mendez comic book), Malina saving Luke from drowning by telekinetically pulling him out of the water, and lots of good action with Noah and company in enemy Renautus headquarters - but the best was Katana Girl, and her successful mission to rescue her father, who, as we had to know all along, is Hiro Nakamura.
The quest had its humorous moments, with Ren's laptop running out of battery power at a crucial time, but at its core was deadly serious, with Miko needing to sacrifice her life to free Hiro. It turns out that she was maybe not really alive, a computer virus living in both virtual and real reality, but that doesn't matter, because she's such an appealing character. So I'm betting that notwithstanding what Miko/Katana was told, we'll see her again, alive and well and even better than before, in some seamless interface of the real and digital realms, as befits an ultimate video game.
Because, after all, with Hiro and his ability to change the past now unbound, anything is suddenly possible once again in this story. Hiro is of course wary of changing anything in the past - and with good reason - because that can undo the very basis of the present - but there's a lot in the present that can risk undoing, including not only what apparently happened to Claire but now Miko.
The deft mix of comic book, video game - far better than a LARP - and this reborn series continues.
Note: apropos video game magic, here's a debate I once had with an anti-videogame crusader ...
Some thoughts about the horrendous shootings in the Colorado movie theater showing The Dark Night 3 last night:
1. The single most effective way of preventing such tragedies in the future, or reducing their likelihood, is for President Obama and Congress to step up and restore the ban on assault (semi-automatic) weapons. No law-abiding citizen should have need for them. Their banning would not violate the Second Amendment - which, unlike the First Amendment, does not say "Congress shall make no law". Rather, the Second Amendment says government should not "infringe" upon the rights of people to bear arms. The banning of a weapon of mass killing would not infringe on the right of citizens to bear other kinds of guns. (Just a ban on sale of assault weapons to anyone under 30 years of age would help - it would have prevented the attack on Rep. Giffords last year, the murders at Virginia Tech, and what happened in Aurora.)
2. The notion that violence in the movies or in any medium triggers this kind of real-life violence is not supported by the facts: Millions and millions of people have watched violent movies and television, and played violent video games - and, thank goodness, mass killings have happened just handfuls of times. (See my debate with Jack Thompson a few years ago about violent video games for more.)
3. But motion picture theaters need to think of ways to make their premises more safe. Movies - especially horror movies - have for decades sought to give the viewer tingles of fear by showing people on the screen menaced and killed by monsters and psyschos in the darkness. With what happened in Aurora, Colorado making this a reality, the motion picture industry may need to rethink such movies, or at very least provide increased means of protection in theaters, such as metal detectors. Motion picture theaters have in effect been on the ropes since the rise of television in the 1950s. The ease today of also viewing movies on tablets and smart phones is only putting more pressure on theaters. Unlike schools, where attendance is required, movie-going is strictly optional. The public needs to feel that exercising this option is safe.
4. The Batman franchise - in particular, The Dark Knight trilogy - will likely forever be associated with the tragedy of Aurora. The Batman story, at its core, is about the darkness in the human soul (which Batman is able to overcome, or channel into doing good). The spilling over of this darkness from fiction into our reality - where it of course already exists - is a signal moment in the history of movies, and even story-telling in general. What impact this will have on Batman's place in our popular culture is hard to say - it will likely make the masked crusader both more and less intriguing - but we can be sure that Batman will never be seen the same.
Good news for video game enthusiasts and First Amendment advocates: the US Supreme Court today wisely struck down a California ban on sale of video games to minors. The 7-2 majority found that the ratings system was more than enough to guide parents.
The fact that the decision was 7-2 is itself highly noteworthy. Conservative justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. It was joined by three other conservatives and by progressives Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan (conservative Thomas and progressive Breyer dissented). This is a hopeful development indeed for people who take the First Amendment seriously, and its prohibition of government restriction of communication and media - a new coalition for freedom of expression. It also shows that I was wrong when I expressed concern about Sotomayor's First Amendment views after her nomination.
A debate I had with anti-videogame crusader Jack Thompson a few years ago follows.
There was almost as much Avatar as Bones in episode 5.9, but that was ok, in fact pretty enjoyable, because we got to see a good story with Sweets, Jack, and Colin on the line in front of the Avatar theater, or, to be more precise, a good story with Sweets and a girl straight out the summer of love on the movie line.
First, what was Avatar - to open on December 18 in movie theaters, for real - doing so prominently on Bones? Well, Avatar is a Fox movie, and Bones is on Fox, so this was product placement par excellence. I have no problem with that - it worked well in the story. And it was good seeing Sweets - and then Colin - with the neo-hippie, and Jack give all of that some of his best knowing smirks, as well as some good older brother advice about women and life to Sweets.
Meanwhile, Booth and Bones had a pretty good case involving video gamers, in particular a murder that takes place over what I think (but I'm no expert) is a fictitious video game, Punky Pong. I have been involved in some learned debates, though, over whether playing video games engenders violence - I say they do not, see my CNBC debate with crusader against video games Jack Thompson, below (it's received more than 90,000 views on YouTube) - so I was happy to see that the violence in Bones was not the result of video games, but an over-protective father.
Booth and Bones get a little good time together at the end of the story, with Booth arguing the emotional, and Bones the logical, the ying and yang of their relationship which never grows old. They play a game of Punky Pong. In a sense their as yet incomplete relationship is as fictitious as the video game - or will remain as fictitious, until it's realized - but characters on television series are themselves avatars, subject to a logic all its own.
I'm actually on the left, and Jack Thompson on the right, in the above
Well, the gang's back at the hospital on House 6.2 tonight, but House is not, and that means neither will the gang before too long.
House has his license back, but quits his job at the hospital, on the logic that he can't just go back to his old way of life and stay clean and sane. We've seen this before in earlier seasons - House presumably cured, and what he think he has to do to stay cured - but not quite like this.
Foreman wants House's job, and Cuddy reluctantly agrees to give it try for one case - one strike for Foreman and he's out. The case he and the team get is a tough one, involving a video-game designer who's suffering from some sort of weird illness. (Hey, maybe Jack Thompson is right that video games have dangerous effects ... nah, only kidding, see my debate with Thompson on CNBC a few years ago.)
The case at first stumps Foreman and everyone - just as it would likely have done if House were there. But the pressure and working without House is having an additional impact on the team. Taub quits - nothing against Foreman, but he signed up to work with House. And Foreman and 13's romantic relationship is suffering.
In the end, Foreman does come up with the right solution, just as House would have done. So does 13 - but, actually, as she explains, she saw the solution online, in responses to the patient putting his case on the Internet (another victory for New New Media).
I guessed that House provided it, as indeed he did. He can't keep away from diagnosis - embracing rather than leaving it may be the only he can stay cured. His leg had started hurting again ... will coming back to the hospital keep him off drugs, when that was where he got so deeply into vicodin in the first place?
Well, it will be good viewing for us to see if it does. But we won't be seeing 13 on the team in the next episode and maybe more, either. Foreman, not happy with the toll his being boss was having on their relationship, fired her.
That makes at least two ways Foreman was like House tonight, and that's good viewing, too.
I'm an Obama supporter, but, as I indicated here last night, that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. One thing I disagreed with in his excellent speech last night after the Wisconsin primary was his swipe at television and video games, as activities we need to get our children away from - I said I thought television actually made a positive contribution to our lives, by giving more of us more useful information, and video games certainly don't do anyone any harm.
One of my best students, Mike Plugh, wondered how I could say this, given the claims of critics such as Robert Putnam that watching television engenders civic apathy and lack of participation, and Neil Postman that watching television makes us rude, illiterate, uncivilized.
There is no convincing statistical evidence that television has caused any of this - there was plenty of public apathy in Victorian times, it just wasn't surveyed - but there is a far better way of refuting Obama's point:
Just look at the enormous success of Obama's campaign so far. One of its spearheads are high school and college students, and recent grads, who are for the first time in recent history being drawn into the active political process by Obama's revolutionizing message.
In other words, at a time when television viewing - if you add in cable and YouTube - is burgeoning, as is the playing of video games, we find people in their teens and twenties more politically involved than ever before.
That's by far the most persuasive refutation of Obama's concerns about TV and video games. Did they create a generation of under-achievers? Just look at the results in the primaries thus far...
=============================== For more of my refutation of Postman's claims about television (he was my doctoral dissertation mentor at New York University), and other critiques, see my The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution. And here's a clip of my oft-cited "debate" with Jack Thompson about violence and video games.
Jake Lackner contacted me a few months ago - he and a few of his colleague students in high school (Denver School of the Arts) were making a video about violence and videogames, and would I like to be interviewed. I said, sure.
Katie Aldworth conducted the interview by phone - as professional as any network or NPR or cable interview I've ever given, and with a lot less attitude than you sometimes get. She and Jake directed this video, "Consoles and Carnage: Violence in Videogames," which she, Jake, and Maxine Gallegos wrote, filmed, and edited.
I don't agree with everything everyone says in the video - of course not, because it tries to present a diversity of views. But I think the lack of cause between violent video games and violence in real life is clearly explained - not just by me, but even more persuasively by kids who play video games themselves.
I think Jake and Katie and Maxine could teach the "professional" media a thing or two about being fair and balanced. We're lucky to have people like this growing up in our country.
See for yourself...
And here, for contrast, is my "debate" with Jack Thompson on CBNC in 2006...
A recent article in U.K's Guardian reminded me of something I already knew, and which has crucial relevance to the current Presidential campaign:
Hillary Clinton is no friend of video gaming. In fact, along with Sens. Joe Lieberman, Tim Johnson and Evan Bayh, she proudly introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act in November, 2005. As the Wikipedia entry explains, this law if enacted would have exacted "fines of $1000 dollars or 100 hours of community service for a first time offense of selling a 'Mature' or 'Adult-Only' rated video game to a minor, and $5000 or 500 hours for each subsequent offense."
Fortunately, it was not - Hillary, Lieberman, et al's colleagues in Congress had more sense than they - likely aware that similar acts in various states had already been struck down as unconstitutional.
Hillary, unfortunately, comes by her disregard for the First Amendment through her husband. Bill Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act into law in 1996. That affront to the freedom of communication carried as much as $2000 and a two-year-in-prison penalty. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court struck that one down.
Bill Clinton claimed he figured that act was unconstitutional, too, and the Supreme Court would declare it to be. So ... he signs it into law? How about this, instead: the straightforward Presidential action of not signing it, in the first place?
Bill Clinton and his circumlocutions fortunately can no longer threaten the First Amendment.
But Hillary's now running for President, leading many of the Democratic polls, and unless she explicitly says otherwise, a wise assumption would be that her election as President would bring to our nation steep fines, forced community service, and even jail time for forms of communication clearly protected under the First Amendment.
We all want to protect our children. Trampling on the Constitution is not the way to do it. We can do better than run scared from Jack Thompson, and the flawed studies he cites. (See my "debate" with Thompson on CNBC last year.)
We have candidates who understand this. Republican candidate Ron Paul has the best record of respecting the Constitution. Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich is a close second.
I hope the rest of the candidates will follow their leads, and not Hillary's.
I first got a clue about the history of misinformed people blaming the media for everything from violence to sex in real life at an auction about 50 miles north of New York City, a few decades ago. I bid a buck for a box of old magazines, sight unseen.
At the bottom, I found an August 1910 issue of Good Housekeeping, which contained an article entitled, "Motion Pictures: A Primary School for Criminals", by some professor - a William McKeever - in the Midwest. McKeever wrote,
What is going to be done with the motion picture shows ... grinding out their reels of excitement and enchantment before the eyes of the motley throng of men and women, boys and girls? ... These moving pictures are even more degrading than the dime novel, because they represent real flesh-and-blood forms, and impart their lessons directly through the senses.
McKeever is justly lost to history - I don't know any one who cites him, other than me, as a choice example of pseudo-scholarly detachment from reality. He had no evidence for his claims, just his own Puritanical imagination. Times haven't changed much, have they...
In the 1950s, television and comic books both took a beating from the world of academe. Watching tv was said to make us stupid, reading comics was said to engender violence. Except, once again, there was no real evidence. Just wrong, learned opinions.
In fact, evidence contradicted all the negative claims about television, and there were plenty. Jerry Mander, in his Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (1979), claimed watching it not only made you illiterate, but could give you cancer!
On the more plausible victim of television - literary - Mander apparently missed Gene Maeroff's "Reading Achievement of Children in Indiana Found as Good as in '44" in the April 15, 1978 New York Times. Because, sure enough, that study showed that precisely during the early reign of television, there had been no decline in literacy at all.
Facts, pesky facts. These always seem to get in the way of the William McKeevers, Jerry Manders, and Jack Thompsons of the world. To them, it seems so obvious that movies, tv, and now videogames are to blame, that evidence is an afterthought. You take it where you can get it. If you find an organization like the American Psychological Association which says there is causation between playing violent videogames and having violent attitudes - even though it's correlation not causation - well, hey, that's good enough, you can use it to go on a rampage that falsely claims that playing videogames causes not attitudes but real life violence, including killing.
New, cutting edge media always seem to attract this kind of attention. I have no doubt that when humans first started speaking, some non-speaking close cousins of our ancestors were not too happy about that. Had they been able to think, they might have even realized that new modes of communication propel our evolution as a species, and that speaking signaled the end of their non-speaking days. They might have done all they could to make speaking illegal or whatever passed for that back then.
Following comments entered on original PaulLevinson.net post of 23 April 2007. Feel free to comment further right here.
Comments
I see you have included a short list of people who like to specialize in the nonfalsifiable hypothesis. Much of what they say is not just wrong it is actually meaningless. I'll admit I don't expect much change when it comes to confusing opinions for facts. I suspect some of it is childhood conditioning, but that is just a guess. grins Posted by: George at April 24, 2007 09:28 PM
Great article, it's always nice to hear the voice of sanity rise above the clamor of the self-serving alarmists. Posted by: Alex at April 30, 2007 12:43 PM
Thanks, George and Alex. The claims would be laughable, if they didn't do so much damage - encouraging censorship, and distracting us from the real causes of these problems. Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 30, 2007 04:22 PM
I believe that novels where also scoffed at by poets when they first came around. It is a fascinating cycle, that I think every person in the academic realm needs to learn about. That way, when there getting the itch to criticize a new medium they can let it go, rather then acting as a cog in the wheel. A few days ago Salman Rushdie was on the Colbert Report to bemoan the dwindling number of book reviewers in the newspapers. He was claiming that the public at large would lose a necessary service that brought the best books to light. The internet has more then stepped up to replace this function, and I couldn't believe the genuine concern that Rushdie had. Posted by: tobydog at May 13, 2007 06:08 AM
Good points, Tobydog. Rusdie is an example of someone who has so internalized the media of his day - in his case, the printed novel - that he can't recognize an equivalent development if it's not on paper... I talk about this syndrome, as well as the more general point that new media are almost always distrusted, underestimated, misunderstood, thoughout The Soft Edge: A Natural History and the Future of the Information Revolution Posted by: Paul Levinson at May 13, 2007 10:55 AM
Jack Thompson continues to insert himself in the news with his claims that playing violent videogames engenders violence in the real world. I went up against Thompson last June on CNBC's Squawkbox about this issue, and was repeatedly interrupted not only by Thompson but the clueless host Becky Quick.
There is a lot misinformation floating around about the connection between violent videogames and violence in real life, and scientific studies that allegedly demonstrate this. In what follows, I'll just briefly highlight the two main kinds of studies, and why they fail to demonstrate a connection, despite what Thompson and many other people say.
1. Experiment: Two groups of kids, randomly selected so both groups are equivalent. One group plays violent videogames, the other group plays nonviolent videogames. The group that plays violent videogames is deemed to have become more violent, as indicated by a variety of factors measured in the experiment. For example, both groups are given violence profile exams, which ask, among other questions, what you would do if someone bumped into you. The group that played the violent games is more likely to say they would haul off and punch the person, etc.
Does that show that playing violent video games increases your propensity for violence in the real world?
No, it does not. It shows only that playing violent videogames makes you score higher on various laboratory measures of potential for violence. Whether these subjects then go on to actually commit or get involved in violent acts in the real world is outside the scope of such kinds of experiments - as, indeed, it must be, since once the subject leaves the lab or premises of the experiment, he or she is open to all kinds of other influences.
2. Survey: The number of real-life violent episodes, defined by whatever criteria (hitting, pulling hair, etc) are tallied for individuals in a survey, in which the playing of videogames is also tallied. Conclusion: there is a statistically significant correlation between playing violent videogames, and getting involved in violent episodes in the real world.
Does that show that playing violent video games increases your propensity for violence in the real world?
No, it does not. Correlation is not the same as causation. Correlation means A and B happen at the same time. Causation means A causes B to happen. How could A and B be correlated, and not also exist in a cause-and-effect relationship? Well, maybe B causes A (in this case, kids who are already more violent enjoy violent video games because it ratifies their behavior - in contrast to nonviolent kids, who enjoy videogames for other reasons). Or maybe a third factor, C (for example, problems in family life), causes both A and B to happen.
The above is not meant to be an exhaustive assessment of every single study ever conducted about violent videogames. But next time you see or hear a study authoritatively cited, ask whether it has avoided the above fallacies and pitfalls.
Listen to 10-minute podcast on this issue: Ask Lev
Following comments were made in response to original PaulLevinson.net post of 20 April 2007. Please feel free to your current comments here.
Comments
I agree with you on this one. My memory of "middle school" (jr high school back then) was that violent encounters were not infrequent. Sort of how status was determined on the primate tree when it came to males. Needless to say video games didn't exist in the very early 50's and the hero shot the gun out of the hand of the villain in the movies. One can come to suspect that these tendencies are "hard wired" into our reptile brain.....hmmmmm Posted by: George at April 20, 2007 04:10 PM
I'm sure glad there are people like you, Paul, who understand science. Keep it up! Posted by: Rat Fink at April 20, 2007 11:42 PM
Thanks, George and Rat Fink. One good thing about Jack Thompson is that he brings most rational people into complete agreement - on the absurdity of his claims. Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 21, 2007 02:50 AM
Thanks for being the voice of reason. After watching your squawkbox showdown, I could not believe how rude both Thompson and the host were. Keep up the good work! Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2007 08:59 PM Hi You are The Best!!! G'night Posted by: Terabanitoss at May 7, 2007 04:18 AM
I first heard the name Jack Thompson just last June. I was driving from New York to Camp Hill, PA, for a signing of The Plot to Save Socrates at a Barnes and Noble, when my cell phone rang. It was CNBC.
I didn't have Bluetooth then, and my cheap handless gadget wasn't working, so I pulled over to the side of the road to talk.
CNBC: Would you be interested in being on CNBC's Squawkbox the next morning to talk about videogames?
Me: Sure. [I'm always interested in being on television.]
CNBC: And you think there's no connection between violence in videogames and violence in the real world? [I talk about the lack of connection between violence in every medium and violence in the real world in most of my books - such as my 1997 The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution.]
Me: Right. No causal connection at all - studies that say they show that violent videogames cause violence in the real world are confusing correlation and causation [I know, a mouthful from the side of the road in Pennsylvania, but it's gotta be said].
CNBC: Excellent. So we'll have a car for you right outside your door at 5:30am tomorrow. Jack Thompson will also be on the show.
###
At that time, I was far more unhappy about the 5:30am than I was about Jack Thompson.
But a sleek car's whisking me over the George Washington Bridge to CNBC's studios in Ft. Lee, New Jersey early the next morning.
I'm kept waiting longer than usual - though, truthfully, there is no "usual" for this - and I'm finally ushered into the studio, miked, and smiled at by the host of Squawkbox, Becky Quick.
I won't rehash the actual interview for you - you can see it here for yourself. Suffice to say I was repeatedly interrupted by Thompson, whose style is to talk a blue streak, then break in a few seconds after the other guest starts talking, continue to do that, and then complain that you were hogging the conversation when he gets his chance to talk again.
I've run into people like that before. What was in some ways even more irritating was Becky Quick's moderation style - which consisted of letting Thompson talk first, not doing anything to stop Thompson when he was interrupting, and then giving him the last word.
But here's what bothers me most, and what I understand least: why does Thompson with his nonsense keep getting so much air time? True, the American Psychological Association doesn't help, by sometimes speaking loosely of correlation as causation - confusing A (playing violent videogames) happening at the same time as B (violent episodes in real life) with A causing B, when B could have caused A, etc. And yet, Thompson all too often appears unopposed on television, or in a conversation in which he is given the upper hand by the host.
After Thompson appeared on Chris Matthews' Hardball last week - where Matthews did ask him some tough questions - MSNBC published an editorial that called Thompson out. Joystick is talking about the "Jacklash" - the media are finally waking up about Thompson.
But a lot of this could have been avoided, if the media had not been so worried about offending Thompson in the first place. Next time, either don't have him on your air at all, or try the tried-and-true procedure of giving equal time to opposing opinions.
================================================= Above reposted from PaulLevinson.net - originally posted there 23 April 2007. Comments from original posting follow. Feel free to post more comments here, anytime you like.
After watching the injustice you received in that interview I was shocked not only at the rudeness of Thompson but also the ignorance of the American public to believe most of his nonsense. In a basic statistics course in high school it was pounded into our curriculum that "correlation does not imply causation". I hope the your medium for providing controversial and thought provoking ideas can overpower terrible television personalities like Thompson. Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2007 04:44 PM
im going to go to books a million and buy all of your books now.... on general principle Posted by: Burn at April 23, 2007 08:27 PM
i spoke on Fox News a while back about the Ward Churchill debate on the University of Colorado campus. Same deal: FNC had an agenda they wanted to push, so they lead off with the representative from the campus republicans, and allowed him to interrupt me, and then misinterpreted my answers. Fair and balanced, right? Posted by: Will at April 23, 2007 08:36 PM
Outstanding Blog and Amazing Success with flessing out Jacks obsession, major kudos Mr. Levinson. ( I like how they played games during Jacks turn lol) Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2007 08:44 PM
I applaud you sir, if not simply for being the bigger man in that debate. You had every right to get frustrated with Thompson. What I don't understand is how he can be so offended when you call studies that "show clear causation" ignorant, yet he can go on tangents calling the IGDA leaders idiots and jackasses. You definitely deserved more time than you were given in that debate, but frankly our media doesn't want to submit enough time to give a fair in clear debate about something that isn't presidentially connected. Posted by: Jinno at April 23, 2007 10:01 PM
I've had email correspondence with Thompson before, and he is just the same. He won't answer your questions, and, in print, he uses horrible punctuation and capitalization. Anyhow, he and I exchanged email a couple of years ago during the "Hot Coffee" over exaggeration, and even though I tried to be as cordial as I could when emailing him, he didn't even try to return the favor. I guess when he's not on television he doesn't even try, which he hardly does when he is on TV. Hopefully soon someone at these media places will read up on him a little bit before thinking it's a good idea to put him on the air. But I digress. Great job taking him on. I just wish the TV stations could spend more than five minutes of their precious time to cover this subject. It's not really enough time to get anything accomplished. Posted by: Garret at April 23, 2007 10:35 PM
Thompson again showed a total lack of understanding of the difference between correlation and causation when he aparently emailed the FBI accusing him of a "website" of targeting him, when in fact it was a comment in the comment section on the website, from someone unafiliated with the website. Thompson's 15 minutes of FUD should have been up 14 minutes ago. Posted by: Graham Fair at April 23, 2007 11:25 PM
Mr. Levinson, I applaud you for how you handled yourself during the show. While Thompson tried to interrupt you, you stayed steadfast and got some of your points across. I've seen Thompson on other TV shows and he does the same thing every time. His mannerisms and words seem to be more violent than most people who play video games and this is because he HATES video games and all people who like to play them. Posted by: Mike To at April 24, 2007 01:23 AM
You are a hero Mr. Levinson, finally someone who can see trough the never ending BS which is spouted from the mouth of Mr. Thompson. It's nice to know that we have intelligent people who actually look at fact, and not live in their own little world. Sir, I applaud you! Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 02:50 AM
On the interview Mr. Thompson says that a minor could walk into a store and buy a violent video game. He says that there are restrictions put in place for movies (a minor cannot get into an R rated film) and other media, but a minor could walk into a store and buy that same R rated movie on DVD with absolutely no difficulty. The same goes for music with explicit content. If this mature content is, indeed, damaging today's youth, then why are video games getting all the blame? The explicit content in music seems to be much more pervasive in popular culture than that in video games. I personally love video games. They're great. Most games that have violence in them do not promote killing for the pleasure of killing. Rather, teamwork (especially in multiplayer games) and strategy are stressed. I have talked to other gamers and they agree with me, but I won't assume this as fact; it is simply my subjective experiences. I need not describe the difference in virtual killing and killing in real life. Shooting a man made of pixels is much easier and completely detached from emotion than hurting in real life. Me, I feel bad when I accidentally step on my dog's tail. I know that my subjective experiences cannot be made into generalizations for the larger populations. It seems more likely, however, that a school shooting would be caused by other factors, including mental illness/personal problems plaguing the shooter or even a complete breakdown in the system. I heard (but I'm not certain of its accuracy) that the English Dept. at VTech had noticed that the shooter Cho was possibly disturbed and some actions were taken to help him. Is it not possible that he was not taken as seriously as he should have been? When he bought the gun, did the seller notice that his address was on the VTech campus? Could the reason this tragedy happened was because multiple systems failed? On a lighter note, I plan to pick up your latest book some time next week. This whole thing has me intrigued. Posted by: Brandon at April 24, 2007 02:54 AM
"[I'm always interested in being on television.]" This cracked me up. =) Posted by: doctornine at April 24, 2007 02:55 AM
Wow, I just saw the interview. I want to be a smart-ass and say, "Exactly which part of the brain causes copycat behavior, Mr. Thompson?" but not even knowing which apparently amazing breakthrough was made in medicine first makes it hard to know for sure if he's wrong or right. That's the problem with Jack Thompson, every outright lie is coupled to some half-truth he can fall back on. Too many people seem willing to passively collude with this man's crusade, as you pointed out. I can't figure out why they do it, either. He's very obviously a "snake-oil salesman" personality (with all respect to the snake-oil sellers of the world), so why do people suffer his presence, knowing nothing he says is reliable? They know that his words are as much - if not more so - sculpted for effect as they are factual content. I wonder if maybe it's because the majority of folks actually want what he's selling (laws to restrict M-rated games from children); they're just not willing to admit it, out loud. Or maybe they just know he's good TV. Posted by: Snipehunter at April 24, 2007 03:14 AM Why did they have Thompson on the show and then give him all the time? Because, contrary to what CNBC tells you, they are in the business of making money(read: entertainment), NOT delivering the truth. Expecting them to be fair and balanced is unreasonable, seeing as they are part of a huge FOR-PROFIT corporation. Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 08:43 AM
Very Nice. I (as well as many other gamers I know) have had enough of Mr.Thompson getting all this attention. Constantly, getting owned at all his attempts. Blaming Microsoft for the V-tech shooting, Taking on Take2 and failing, calling for an FBI investigation on Kotaku. When will he learn? Posted by: Nori at April 24, 2007 04:23 PM
Hey, many thanks for the comments, everyone - keep 'em coming! Just two brief responses - Will - I think I remember your appearance on Fox. Actually, though Fox is no angel when it comes to this, I've done better on O'Reilly, John Gibson, and Cavuto in getting my points across than on CNBC. In fact, I get to say more on Fox than on MSNBC's Scarborough Country - check out the video clips on my Paul in the Media link in the right-hand column above. What's distressing is that no tv show, with the exception of the PBS News Hour, lets you get more than a few words in. But the Squawkbox Thompson bit was a new low, at least for me. Snipehunter: Thanks for picking up on the "part of the brain" gibberish that Thompson said at the end. Had I been given a chance to respond, I would have said that of all the things Thompson said, that was the most absurd of all - what part of the brain would that be, Jack? Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 24, 2007 04:30 PM
Wow. What an asshole. Does his facial expression change at any point during the entire interview? Posted by: Soren at April 24, 2007 06:02 PM
So she said she was going to ask both of you back, and that was almost a year ago! Good follow-up by Beck and her producers. Paul, in light of the mental midget's recent rantings, have you thought about making a call to CNBC to initiate another "discussion"? Posted by: BunnySlope at April 24, 2007 07:23 PM
People like Jack are infuriating, but what bothers me more are the people who are confused by his lies and misquotes and then try to act on this misinformation. For example my mother who pulled me aside to let me know about the dangers of letting my kids play videogames. She has never played a video game, knows nothing about the games, but wanted to make sure I (a gamer of 20+ years) was aware of the perils i am apparently putting my children under if I allow them to be "changed forever" by these games and their images... UGH Posted by: SomeLlama at April 24, 2007 07:24 PM
Bunny - you're right, I should call CNBC and hold them to Becky Quick's word at the end of the show. Problem is it usually doesn't work that way - tv producers are very resistant to being pitched by previous guests. On the other hand, it certainly wouldn't hurt for me to try. I'll keep everyone posted. Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 24, 2007 07:31 PM
the "moderator" was bias... the whole thing was bias. take them down! I admire you for being the bigger person there. Mr. Jack Thompson is ignorant and lacks the understanding of his own statistics. Good luck to you Posted by: Roar3D at April 25, 2007 04:24 AM
good job, we need more people to take on the Jack Thompsons of the world. however going back on CNBC to take on Thompson again is not really a great way to get your point across. the impact CNBC wants to have on an audience is one that makes them want to watch more. (money) your position on that show seemed to be to provide a que for Thompson to rant on, he was the Squawkbox. no matter what my opinion of the issue is i'd have to say that Thompson was more fired up and calling for drastic action, you're at a disadvantage here as there's no drastic action for you to call for. now if you were to return and get really fired up and start accuse Thompson of blind prejudice, lies and trying to take away from peoples freedoms. then the news network could possibly do one of two things...give you more air time or throw you out of the station. (i'd be betting on the first one as i think it would make for better TV in their eyes) otherwise your at a disadvantange no matter what the evidence suggests.[/rant] anywho good job. Posted by: avid_gamer at April 25, 2007 05:40 AM
Someone touched on this briefly before, but I thought I'd try to clarify. When a movie theater prevents a minor, it is because they choose to. The movie ratings are completely voluntary (if I'm correct. And so, the movie system that Jack Thompson talks about is the same system that stores (can) use when you talk about selling violent games (or movies for that matter) Anyways, I'm glad to see people calling out anyone who uses studies and statistics to further their cause instead of as a starting point. Good job Posted by: not the Will from before at April 26, 2007 11:54 PM
Wow, never really heard of this guy before. I'm going to go play Halo to piss him off :D I applaud you trying to get your points across anyways, though. Posted by: Blastedt at April 30, 2007 05:35 PM
I missed Heroes last week - the memory guy got to me and made me forget to watch it. No, I just got caught up in too many other things, but that's ok, because Heroes is best watched between the cracks, in time stolen from other things, which makes you a kid reading comic books when you're supposed to be doing homework.
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit