CSI Takes On Grand Theft Auto 595
Tycoon Guy was one of many to write "Looks like another 20 million viewers will be fed the 'video games promote violence' story tonight. Today's CSI: Miami episode will feature a group of kids who are inspired to go on a city-wide crime spree by a game that looks suspiciously like Grand Theft Auto. From the description: 'Delko witnesses a bank robbery and the CSIs soon discover that the culprits are playing out the action from the videogame 'Urban Hellraisers' on the streets of Miami. As they score points for each crime committed, the CSIs must discover what consists of getting to the next level in the game in order to stop the culprits before they strike again.'"
Eh... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyhow, I wouldn't be in such a hurry to throw up your arms over this show. Knowing CSI, I doubt that they're going to devote much airtime into exploring the social and moral issues surrounding the debate. The focus of the show isn't the same as Law & Order, which is a bit more far reaching.
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
We have to accept that the media has nothing to report on. They HAVE to report on games that may entice teenagers to murder, and the fiction media has to make it fact.
It isn't like Sharon quit the Likud or gold hit a 18 year high or GM is cutting 30,000 union jobs that it should have cut 20 years ago or even that Intel and Micron are colluding on flash memory. I know there's no real news out there for fiction-media to mimic.
The lady watches a lot of Law & Order (SVU primarily) and whenever I'm on the couch watching the show, all I can think of is "criminals are stupid" and "these cops are walkin all over people's rights." Then I realize it isn't reality -- but I do believe that a majority of viewers THINK this is real life. It isn't anywhere near what happens in the situations presented.
Wasn't it the Miami ADA who complains about how they have problems with getting guilty verdicts because juries expect DNA and other CSI-style evidence? Is this CSI pandering to the local legal authorities in pushing what may be a big issue for them?
I, for one, welcome our new "this is reality and you better accept it" overlords. The positive thing about shows like this is that it only helps in destroying the media regimes that exist today.
BTW, the advertisement to the right of this article is a GTA:LS for the PSP ad. Funny.
Hollywood Vendetta (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
However unlike the aforementioned Video Games have been noted in studies for reducing the subject's likelihood of displaying violent behavior, because the game serves as a release mechanism.
All this is is scapegoatism led by asshats like Jack Thompson.
This would never happen because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Pot calling the kettle black (Score:2, Insightful)
CSI:Miami, a TV-show with violent content, is going to go up against violent content in the video game industry? What do you kow? The vultures are beginning to eat each other! Of course violent games and TV don't make people into killers! Now excuse me as I go strap on my StormTrooper armor, grab my handy blaster, and lay waste to some people at the supermarket...
Will they continue to be Politically Correct? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:They have all the right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pot calling the kettle black (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, not - they just want viewers. In the grand scheme of "follow the buck", they aren't trying to make the world a better place or to make some profound social commentary: They're just doing whatever gets the viewers so they can please their advertisers. You know - Just like GTA is just trying to sell games, and they aren't actually trying to get you to kill cops and hookers.
Provoking you to watch (Score:3, Insightful)
Prevent A Double-Standard (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised this even made Slashdot. What next... a detailed analysis of how the last Numb3rs episode was incorrect? How TV shows glamorize things that aren't glamorous? It's TV... it's about ratings, not trying to change how people think.
Re:Hollywood Vendetta (Score:3, Insightful)
Please.
Hollywood isn't stupid. That's why these licenses exist. It's another source of revenue right now due to licensing agreements, especially for the blockbuster films that make so much money for Hollywood anyways. In fact, I can't remember the last "blockbuster movie" that DIDN'T have a movie tie-in. What, you think EA unilaterally makes the game without the movie studios' permission? Your only "proof" of this is that Hollywood failed at the gaming music business. I'm not sure what you mean since:
a) Music and its associated licenses are the RIAA's domain, not the MPAA.
b) Game music is a small industry. And by small I mean infinitesimal.
c) Hollywood composers who compose for games are not owned by any Hollywood studio. This isn't 40's Hollywood. They're approached individually. That's why composers can also work for competing studios on different films.
You mentioned they "see games and 'pirates as their enemy." That statement makes two very different claims. Pirates are an enemy to any industry, even gaming. They take material and illegitimately reproduce it. It's not like the gaming industry hasn't used questionable tactics before (like StarForce). So, sure, Hollywood is probably attacking P2P in very illegitimate and unjustified ways. No one is going to argue that the MPAA is not idiotic, but making the claim that Hollywood is out to "get" the gaming industry is inaccurate, and more importantly, irrational.
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people actually believe the "News" that is on TV.
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, most of these people haven't read the Bible sufficiently closely to notice that it's chock full of sex and violence, much of it downright gratuitous.
-JMP
Re: Reconstructing images from low-res samples (Score:5, Insightful)
As a gun owner (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, there are some causes for concern... (Score:5, Insightful)
While this is off-topic, I'm surprised you were modded up with that flame of a comment. I'm no fan of jury duty, along with everyone else, but it is that duty that gives some people a fair trial. In a time of lessening freedom I'm surprised that anyone would talk like that!
If you're talking about the hardships [lazylightning.org] that certain counties place on their jurors, then we're discussing something else entirely.
Re:Well, there are some causes for concern... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will they continue to be Politically Correct? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I can't speak for anyone else, but . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Still, I don't run around acting it out, because I was raised to understand the difference between reality and non-reality.
This is just like parents saying that Rock 'n Roll was going to turn us all into monsters; or certain books that were banned because of their inflammatory nature.
Parents in this country (or any other country (but this country especially)) need to grab their kids by the ears and let them know what's what, instead of blaming things like sex and/or violence in video-games and movies. It's almost like as though parents think they can just put parenting of their children on auto-pilot and rely on technology (various censoring and tracking gadgets) and the government (the FCC and whatever 1st Amendment-subversive bills "values"-driven politicans are trying to push through Congress these days).
It's almost as if parents today are affraid of getting their hands dirty or having to confront their kids in fear of "not being cool". You are a parent. You're job is NOT to be cool. Instead, you should be worrying about making sure that you raise a well-adjusted kid that doesn't think violence in video games is a green light to go postal on the world. It seemed to have worked for me.
Also, if you start censoring video games, you also have to censor movies and television. Why stop there? Books can be just as much of a hideaway from reality as anything else. For some people it's music that sets them off. For others it may be sports. Who here hasn't watched a Football game or a boxing match and thought to themselves, "Man, I wish I could flatten someone like that" and then thought of the specific person they wish they could flatten?
I'm just saying. The video games and the violence contained therein are not the problem. Instead, it's the fact that people in this country are no longer willing to take responsibilities for their actions, and more specifically their failures.
That starts with the top (politicians) right on down to the everyman, and it shouldn't take a video game to tell us that.
Re:Well, there are some causes for concern... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... (Score:1, Insightful)
Over here in England, there's relatively little gun crime. Due to the 1997 ban on handguns, guns any more lethal than hunting rifles or shotguns (which need licenses to possess) are very expensive (if you can find someone to vend one to you) and will get you detained at her Majesty's pleasure for a good long time if they catch you with one. Ball Bearing guns are treated in a manner similar to switchblades - they aren't allowed out in public, and threatening somebody with them is likely to get you in serious trouble.
Less than 10% of the police force is armed, and these particular officers are only deployed in emergencies like bank heists, terrorist alerts and the like. As a result, firearms aren't leaked into society through the police force (check the firearm saturation here [guncite.com]. Homicide levels in the USA were 5 times what they were in the UK (admittedly, the survey was carried out about a decade ago and the number has been falling, and both countries use slightly different methods for deciding what's a homicide and what isn't, but 5 times?).
In my opinion, all this stuff about video games causing murderous feelings to arise is down to a few [wikipedia.org] isolated [cbsnews.com] incidents [salon.com], where it's the gun that causes the deaths, but games are cited as the reason. It's not as if this type of media hasn't been blasted in our faces since the first action movie. The argument that 'games make you the killer' is nonsense - they're people on the screen, and all the gamer is doing is moving control sticks.
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no research evidence that violent movies or violent video games are cathartic. I'm not saying that violent games cause violent behaviors, but there sure isn't any evidence that they decrease violent behavior (which is exactly what you were suggesting, even if you didn't mean to). There is a lot of evidence that children who view agressive or violent behavior (live or in TV shows) are in turn more likely to be more aggressive or violent (e.g., the famous and classic Bobo doll experiment by Albert Bandura). Sure, some of these findings are still controversial but Bandura's experiment has been replicated enough to show that there is a pretty good correlation between viewing violence and acting violent. If you're wondering about causation (maybe more violent [or aggressive] children choose to watch more violent things, which is true), the kids in Bandura's experiment were randomly assigned to either watch adults violently attack a big plastic doll (those ones that are kind-of like punching bags with sand in their base) or not. Kids didn't have a choice to view the violent behavior or not and the ones who did committed more acts of violence towards the doll than kids who didn't see the adults be violent did.
Bandura's experiment was more about kids imitating adults than violence, per se, but kids are impressionable and will copy what adults do. There are many reasons why some kids are violent and some go on big killing sprees; I believe a lot of problems stem from parental problems (not that you can specifically blame the parents) but violent video games and movies are definitely a factor. But that really isn't the issue; the issue is how much of an influence do violent shows and games have? A little, but it is significant. Some people may find violent TV shows and games to be cathartic, but there is good research evidence that violent shows and games will increase acts of aggressiveness in many more people than it will decrease aggressive behavior in.
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, was crime nonexistant before faster-than-foot communications?
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, you could argue some viewers won't distinguish CSI from reality, but then you'd have to admit the possibility of the same for GTA.
What I want to know is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember back in the 80's the movie industry had to basically kill off the "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie series because people were screaming "Freddie makes killers because he makes killing people too much fun!". I've yet to see anyone even remotely emulate Freddy in any way, or Jason, Mike Myers, ETC for that matter.
If it's true that people are emulating games to kill, where's all these killers at? If there were more copycat crimes out there and the game is basically brainwashing children to kill, with the install base GTA has we would be hearing about them all day and night in the news like a epidemic, yet it seems the only one that ever brings them up is Jack Thompson, and he's been bringing up the same few for years now.
The way most of these games are made, any crime on the street could be attributed to them. All you have to do is shoot one guy in the street, put on your "GTA made me do it" Shirt and watch Rockstar take the heat rather than frying the guy responsible for the murder because he's "just an innocent victim of the rockstar killing frenzy known as GTA" even though he may have never touched the game once in his life.
Seriously, What ever happened to Blaming the person responsible for the crime rather than what influenced him? Why must we analyze anything that they were exposed to in order to find out why they did it instead of just saying He did it, end of story.
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, everyone is convinced that recycling is the best thing we can do (even though many recycling methods waste more energy than they save. Recycling rarely saves energy, it saves simply landfill space. Though metals are easily recyclable, which is why they PAY you for it... when they start paying you to collect paper, plastics and glass, I'll jump on the recycling bandwagon...)
And worse, everyone is starting to blindly believe that second hand smoke causes a significant increase in cancer. (Which it hasn't been proven to do; the one source we had that gave such a strong opinion was thrown out by a federal court because they used evidentiary selection, and the other source that hasn't been thrown out presents a weak argument: showing 0 (zero) correlation between childhood exposure and lung cancer, and a statistically insignificant increase for adults. From 10 in a million, to 12.5 in a million... Let's all run out, stamp out those cigarettes and save those 744 people a year!!! You know, I'm certain more people die from poking themselves in the eye than this... And last I remember, my statistic on this was actually HIGHER than it actually really is... damn that fuzzy memory)
The media often presents oneside of the argument, and gets people so believing it (mostly because the media fall into the same feedback loop, and believe it themselves) that it causes a serious danger. We essentially waste approximately $8 billion a year on recycling, countless useless hours dictating to people that they can't smoke in public, because we don't like it, and now, we're spending small fortunes to propagandize the nation into believing that violent video games train our children to kill...
Awesome... thanks...
It has to be in digital. (Score:3, Insightful)
And certainly not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Shit, that ain't the half of it. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you'd think we'd be watching a tale about this guy's hubris, and his fall from grace, and how he learns the importance of due process. You'd be wrong.
The episode centered around our other leads buttering this guy up, telling him how much the force needed him, and how he couldn't let himself succumb to his guilt, because there were bad guys out there that needed catchin'.
I shit thee not. This is the kind of story they tell, which is why I refused to watch another damned episode. I don't care how cleft the leads' chins are, or how clever the zoom effects.
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if we grant the assumption for the moment that it was exposure to television that caused the crime wave, would you care to comment on what aspect of television was responsible? Was it cable news that caused a crime wave? Was it exposure to Barney? Was it the introduction of televangelists? Was it violent entertainment? Was it horror movies? Was it McDonald's commercials?
Or did it have nothing to do with the television itself? Was it the influx of foreign cable company employees?
Was it the major cultural shift that drove Bhutan to permit television in the first place? Was televion the only new thing to happen in Bhutan?
Also, how can we reconcile the article's statement "...a culture, barely changed in centuries..." with "there were no public hospitals or schools until the 1950s, and no paper currency, roads or electricity until several years after that. Bhutan had no diplomatic relations with any other country until 1961, and the first invited western visitors came only in 1974"?
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Example:
Ice cream sales and shark attacks both increase during summer. I.e. Ice cream causes shark attacks.
In summary, correlation is easy, causation is hard.
The larger issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just once it would be nice if their technological approach failed (the database was wrong, the drivers licence pointed them in the wrong direction, etc.) but no, they're perfect.
The American worldview at present is a curious mixture of faith in higher powers and faith in technology. Americans tend to believe that our sophisticated technology will always prevail. We like bright, easily-discerned lines and are very uncomfortable with nuanced ethical decisions. It's obvious in our entertainment (lest the video game industry smirk and point fingers at Hollywood, movies aren't alone in this), our generally idea-free political process, and our bewilderment when our technological marvels don't automagically win wars for us.
CSI's treatment of video games is just one more episode in an ongoing list that goes back to the dawn of Hollywood. Fictional entertainment may purport to be realistic, but it seldom is. Let's flip this one on its head and look at video game realism. Just walking around in body armor in blazing heat, with a helmet on your head, a weapon in hand, and assorted other crap festooned to your person is a pain in the ass. Games can't give us anything remotely approximating what that feels like. When you go into combat in the streets of Bagdhad, if you get shot in the face, you're either dead or fucked up for life. "Realistic" first-person shooters go to great lengths to be as realistic as possible in all aspects but the most important one of all. Ah, but how entertained would we be if our on-screen personas died every time we entered combat? Well, therein lies the rub. Just as first-person shooters distort reality by pretending that with enough guns and enough automagically-supplied bullets and miracle life-saving rejuvenators you can win epic battles against long odds, so television distorts reality by providing seemingly realistic settings that actually present the reality ass-backwards.
Bottom line: No matter how slick the presentation, it's all still entertainment, and it is usually almost completely divorced from reality.
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is in direct contradiction of one of my beliefs, and even some beliefs that are taught to even the youngest members of our society: personal responsiblity. The TV didn't make these people do anything, they did it of their own volition. The lesson we teach our children is to think on their own: "If little Johnny jumped off the bridge, would you jump off too?" We reinforce this mantra time after time in various ways: your decisions are your own; don't blindly follow what you see others doing.
And yet, I find we continually want to blame some outside source for the stupid things we do. This is simply a new form of the fundamental attribution error, except it is on a much larger scale.
What this really all leads to is two camps. There are those who believe that we can prevent crime by isolating people from the evils of the world (as seen in this article; I like to call it the "Garden of Eden syndrome"). Once the idea has been put in someone's mind, it then requires an internal filtering process to occur: is the behavior I saw others engage in in appropriate for me? But if the idea never reaches you, then you don't have to filter anything yourself....you can simply rely on someone "greater" to decide what you should see.
I don't hold to that. I believe this comes down to freedom and choice. I should be free to see and read all kinds of ideas. With that freedom comes the responsibility to filter appropriately and determine how to act. If others wish to blame their poor behavior on those around them, the TV shows they watched or the games they played, they are free to do that. But, in the end, their behavior was the result of their choices, and it is better to stand up and take responsibility for your own actions than to push that responsiblity off on someone who doesn't even know you exist (the maker of the game, the creator of the TV show, etc.)
That is my philsophical take on your post. From a logical perspective, you (and the article) are making the fundamental logical mistake of post hoc ergo propter hoc: just because the crime occurred after TV was made available does not mean the crime was caused by the TV's appearance. I think the post above mine treats this topic better than I can, though I thought I would point it out as an aside to my main point.
Sorry, no space. (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoops, makin' way too much sense here. I'd better give it a rest.
Re: Reconstructing images from low-res samples (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, there is more evidence than Bhutan. Like this nice review [psychologicalscience.org] of hundreds of controlled experiments and long-term outcome studies.
As a sidenote (not direct response to parent poster), I find it kind of amusing that people (a) gripe about there not being any controlled experiments, when in fact there are plenty, and then (b) ask for the ultimate uncontrolled nonexperimental test by saying "well why don't we see hundreds of GTA killers in the streets?" when they're presented with the controlled studies that they insisted, in the first place, were the only acceptible evidence.
Oh, and just because research supports a causal relationship between consuming violent media and behaving aggressively, that does not mean that ergo we must limit access to violent media, especially with adults. After all, we don't limit most forms of speech (short of direct incitement). It's just that you need to frame your defense in terms of the First Amendment, not by ignoring available evidence.
apples and oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly, the types of influence in the case of violent video games and inaccurate television programming are completely different. It is easy to misinform a person. To do so, you simply lie. Given a lack of evidence to the contrary, many all too trusting people will believe you. That is not the same as turning someone into a killer.
The comparison is outrageous. It is shocking that it has been deemed by the mods to warrant a +5.
Re:Well, there are some causes for concern... (Score:3, Insightful)
csi's official homepage [cbs.com] has "online reference" they use to bolster this claim.
and csi's claims to be using real techniques and real science are impeding [cbsnews.com] real cases [decaturdaily.com].
true -- people are stupid, but CSI has an ethnical responsibility to make it clear their program is entirely fiction. the producers deliberately chose to mislead their audience into believing their program is scientifically and technically accurate in the name of profit. do you want a jury loaded with CSI propaganda judging your case?
Re:Eh... so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I already said in my post, when companies start paying you for it, that I'll agree with it. THEY ALREADY DO THAT FOR COKE AND PEPSI CANS. What does not make sense, is paper recycling, and plastic recycling.
Paper recycling: We cut down trees planted, and grown specifically for paper. Saying that you're saving trees by using less paper, is like saying you're saving potatoes by eating less french fries.
Plastic recycling: We waste more time and energy making stuff out of recycled plastic, than we do just making new plastic. And we're not running out of landfill space (as you already seem to agree.) So, if it's not doing us any good, because we're wasting energy to reduce our plastic waste, which we don't need to reduce anyways, then what good is it?
Smoking in public is obnoxious.
So is singing happy birthday in restaraunts, so it talking during a movie, so is having one's cell phone ring during a movie. This doesn't mean it should be illegal.
If it is causing any kind of lung damage (not even cancer) in non-smokers, then it should not be allowed in public.
Cancer is the best thing cigarettes having for them for causing disease in non-smokers, and it's a fraud.
Even if I never get cancer from a smoker, I also don't want to be breathing in even a cut down version of the stuff that is rotting their lungs out to clog mine as well.
Look, you are exposed to much more in your life that is dangerous and potentially harmfull. Wait, let me guess, you're one of those hypochondriacs that puts the little toilet tissues on the seat before you sit down, right? And you use anti-bacterial soap on everything. There's such a thing as statistically insignificant risk, and that's what second hand smoke is to you.
You said it before; you think smoking in public is obnoxious. That's fine, you don't have to qualify that and say that it's hurting you, because there has never been a study that has proven any link to second hand smoke and ANY disease.
"Secondhand tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer."
I already told you that the only reasonably valid study out there found no statistically significant risk of cancer from secondhand tobacco smoke. Hell, *WE* contain over 4,000 chemical compounds... so does beef, so does chicken, so do FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.
Sacchrin was shown to cause cancer in lab mice, but yet Sweet-and-Low still sells it in their sweetening packets. But it has never been shown to cause a significant risk of cancer in humans. So, it's not dangerous.
I find it hard to believe you think people should be able to spew that stuff into the air for all to breath...
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that you're not being exposed to worse without tobacco smoke.
I'm not saying smoking is good, or anything like that, but there is no evidence that it does any harm to the people around the smoker.
I thought this was the land of the free, where you need evidence to condemn someone... oh wait, no you just need a flashy media campaign to drive your point. and hey! guess what, all those ex-smokers don't want to see people smoking, because it reminds them of smoking and makes it harder on them (a good reason), and people who have never smoked hate tabacco smoke, so over all, it's really easy to win people over, by just telling them that there are cancerous agents in it, and OOOoooOOO! The boogieman's gonna get you!
How hard is it really to convince people that already don't like something that it's bad for them? You don't even need real evidence, this whole second hand smoke thing PROVES that. Because the only evidence out there is that there is no significant risk from secondhand smoke.
Do I want smokers all around me? N
Re:I can't speak for anyone else, but . . . (Score:1, Insightful)
I have full faith that video games can inspire actual crimes, especially by children/teenagers, who are more easily influenced by them. No doubt whatsoever.
Granted, I don't think that the game will actually -cause- the crime, merely influence what shape it takes. Kids may actually be inspired to shoot into traffic [salon.com] (sorry, too lazy to look for a better link) by Grand Theft Auto...but these same kids, minus the video game to mold their crime, would probably have just tortured the neighbors cat, or burned somebody's house down, or dropped bricks off of overpasses, or whatever. And they may still have managed to kill somebody.
Face it, there are thousands of little sociopaths running around this country (by which I mean the US). Odds are most of them play video games. So when one of these little idiots gets busted doing something stupid, of course they'll try to blame it on whatever game they played that day. Never mind the millions of other kids who play videogames, even GTA-style games, and never do anything so stupid or reckless, of course...much the same way millions of kids over the years have played D&D and not killed themselves, or listened to death metal and not killed themselves, or done all three and not gone on a school shooting rampage. It's gotta be GTA's fault, or Doom's fault, or Ozzy's fault, or whatever.
Videogames (as well as every other cultural scare that parents have concocted) are the scapegoat our society uses to try to hide the fact that it cranks out some truly -bad- people, as well as some that are just truly stupid. Nobody wants to believe that their kid is just a sociopath, or an idiot.