FEATURE: The Violent Video Game Controversy

Filed in archive Features on May 22, 2006

Last September, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (D-CA) signed a bill to prevent the sales of violent video games to minors, with penalties for violations reaching $1,000, despite the fact that many game retailers already request identification to purchase games rated "Mature" (M, 17+). The Entertainment Software Association established the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) in 1994, and the ESRB has been independently applying and enforcing their ratings on over one thousand video games per year. Game publishers have voluntarily accepted these ratings since the creation of the ESRB, but since the video game business became a multi-billion-dollar industry, politicians no longer seem satisfied by the current regulations. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Rick Santorum (R-PA) created a bipartisan alliance and proposed a $90 million appropriation to examine the effects games and other media have on children.

Of course, that may have seemed necessary after a teenager shot and killed two police officers and a dispatcher, followed by his telling authorities, "Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime" (Associated Press). However, occurrences like that have been scarce. Almost three hundred studies have been devoted to examining the link between violent media and aggression, with about thirty of those studies specifically focused on video games. Most studies found little to no connection, but that has yet to stop politicians and the media from treating video games as they would a major threat to our nation's population. The truth is, video games are being wildly misrepresented so they can be exploited for political and monetary gain.


After being blamed for such tragedies as the Columbine high school shooting and the East coast sniper attacks, video games became a default scapegoat on which to blame violent crimes. In efforts to gain moral voters, politicians have been pushing video games as "anti-family" and their anti-video-game bills as "family-friendly." In 2005, Senator and future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her introduction of legislation that will "help keep inappropriate video games out of the hands of children." She likely had the 2008 election in mind when she released the statement:

The disturbing material in Grand Theft Auto and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children and it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder. I am announcing these measures today because I believe that the ability of our children to access pornographic and outrageously violent material on video games rated for adults is spiraling out of control (Clinton).

Unfortunately for Ms. Clinton, her attempt to identify with voting parents is weak. Hillary Clinton is not raising anyone, and video games were hardly a controversial topic the last time she was the parent of a teenager (her only child is now twenty-six years old).
Her use of loaded language such as "outrageously violent" is unnecessary considering violence in video games is animated and oftentimes less extreme than what is commonly found in action films, and to claim a video game is "stealing the innocence of our children" is absurd and without merit. The $90 million she asked to be spent to investigate the content of video games is a waste: there is sufficient data in regards to violent media (including that from an American Medical Association study), but Clinton's intention is not to discover the true connection between aggression and violent media, it is to appear family-oriented and ultimately to gain votes.

Clinton's claims are similar to fellow anti-video-game politician Governor Rod Blagojevich's (D-IL). Like Clinton, Blagojevich relies on emotional appeal to persuade his target audience instead of providing valid evidence to explain his stance. His appeal to authority that "experts have found that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors" (Koffler) is flawed; he acts as if these unnamed experts should be received as the infallible authority on all such matters, and that his statement sufficiently summarizes the relationship between acting violent and playing video games. Blagojevich again demonstrates a common fallacy by telling a half-truth when he explains "ninety-eight percent of the games considered suitable by the industry for teenagers contain graphic violence" (Koffler), which is true, but as Daniel Koffler counters, "if you stretch the phrase far enough, even the mild-mannered Super Mario Bros. includes what could be described as 'graphic violence'" (Koffler).

Opportunistic politicians are not the only ones misrepresenting video games; the media shares a good portion of the blame as they exploit video games for monetary gain. Video games are continually cast in a bad light when there are new reports on inconclusive studies, thus keeping the theme of game-induced violence in newspaper and television headlines. The very first sentence of a 2005 CBS News report on video game violence displays the rampant irresponsibility of reporters when it comes to covering video games: "Welcome to the dark world of 'Grand Theft Auto San Andreas,' where killing cops earns you points, not prison" (CBS News). Actually, there are no points in Grand Theft Auto games, and killing a police officer will get a player sent to the virtual jail, not the high score list.

Granted, when Devin Thompson shot and killed two police officers and a dispatcher in 2003 it did not look good for the gaming industry. He related his life to a video game, and it seemed game haters would finally have a solid leg to stand on. Nonetheless, that was an isolated case where it was plain the offender had problems other than a passion for free roaming adventure games. Luckily for the game industry, anti-video-game crusader and attorney Jack Thompson (no relation) practically bailed video games out, overshadowing the controversy by making bizarre claims such as the hours Devin spent playing Grand Theft Auto III had trained him to "kill three men"-as if using a controller is anything like being trained to load, cock, aim, and fire a real weapon-and pushed for the game's manufacturer and the Gamestop store chain to be held legally responsible (Associated Press). What followed were investigations by news teams and politicians, profitable television appearances by Jack Thompson, and a consensus that video games caused violent crimes. By having a "video game expert" like Thompson on their shows, news stations gained viewers by telling them what they "must" know to protect their children from violent media, and both Thompson and the news shows gained profits from these appearances.

Sometimes reporters do not attack the games themselves, but attack the video game industry or its ratings system instead. The New York Times recently reported on a study done by Kimberly Thompson of the Harvard School of Public Health. The study was conducted with popular games like Grand Theft Auto Vice City and Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, and they found that "around 80 percent of M-rated games included sex, violence, profanity, gambling, or drug and alcohol use, none of which was described on the labels" (Reuters). This is clearly lazy journalism when anyone can walk into a local toy store and read, "blood and gore, violence, strong language, and strong sexual content" in black and white capital letters on the back of the Vice City game box.

Unlike violent movies or music with controversial lyrics, video games are rarely considered to be art by most people and lack the powerful supporters of the other forms of media. It is not that all the studies have been pointless or that all concerns over violence in video games are completely unreasonable, but to quote directly from the Department of Justice's report on homicide, "recently, the offending rates for 14-17 year-olds reached the lowest levels ever recorded" (United States Department of Justice). How can such a call to arms against video games be necessary when it seems children and teenagers are not only not more violent since the introduction of video games, but are in fact far less violent? This data not only proves the non-existence of a youth violence epidemic, but also proves the politicians and the media focus on video games for their own gains.

Politicians and the media do not need to warn parents and viewers about video games, they do not need to discover a single cause of mass youth violence-there is no mass youth violence. The entire issue is a façade; politicians focus on video games to gain voters, and the media focuses on video games to make a profit.

Works Cited

Associated Press, "Lawsuit blames shootings on video game." MSNBC.com. 15 Feb
2005. MSNBC. 29 Mar 2006 .

"Bureau of Justice Statistics Homepage." United States Department of Justice. 18 Mar
2005 .

Clinton, Hillary. United States. Senate. Senator Clinton Announces
Legislation to Keep Inappropriate Video Games Out of the Hands Of Children. New York: 2005.

Koffler, Daniel. "Grand Theft Scapegoat." Reason Oct 2005: 72-73.

"Politicians Target Video Game Violence." CBS News. CBS, 19 July 2005.

Reuters, "Violent Video Games Often Not Properly Labeled." New York Times 03 Apr
2006, late ed.

Smith, Mark. "Video Game Backlash?" Technology & Learning 01 Nov
2005 6.