Since 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has surveyed the marketing and advertising practices of major media sectors (movies, music and video games) in a report entitled Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children. (The reports can be found here). According to the agency, the purpose of these reports is to examine “the structure and operation of each industry’s self-regulatory program, parental familiarity and use of those systems, and whether the industries had marketed violent entertainment products in a manner inconsistent with their own parental advisories.” Toward that end, the agency hires a firm that conducts "secret shopper" surveys to see how well voluntary media rating systems (MPAA, ESRB, RIAA) are being enforced at the point of sale. The research firm recruits a bunch of 13- to 16-year-olds who make an attempt to purchase such media without a parent being present.
Although I've always had some questions about these undercover surveys, which I will get to in a moment, the bottom line is: Ratings enforcement has generally been improving over time, and in the case of the ESRB system for games, it has improved dramatically in a very short period of time. For example, the latest survey shows that whereas 90% of kids were able to purchase an "Explicit Lyrics" CD back in 2001, that's fallen to just over 50% in the latest survey. R-rated cinema admissions have dropped gradually, from almost 50% of kids getting in in 2001, to about 35% today. R-rated DVD sales for teens have falled from 81% in 2001 to 47% today. And the video game industry's outstanding education and awareness-building efforts have shown the most success, with M-rated video games only being sold to 20% of teens today, down from 85% back in 2000. That's an impressive turn-around in a very short amount of time.
As I have pointed out here manytimesbefore, education is a vital part of online child protection efforts. In fact, if there is one point I try to get across in my report on “Parental Controls and Online Child Safety,” it is that, regardless of how robust they might be today, technical parental control tools are no substitute for education, media literacy and online safety awareness training. To the extent lawmakers feel the need to "do something" about online safety issues, education-based efforts will bear much more fruit than regulatory initiatives.
Unfortunately, it is clear that not nearly enough media literacy or online safety instruction is being done within America’s educational process at any level. For the most part, media literacy is not routinely integrated into the curricula at elementary school, secondary school, high school, or college. This situation must be reversed. Luckily, my home state of Virginia is helping to pave the way. This weekend, the Washington Post ran a front-page story entitled, "Virginia Tries to Ensure Students' Safety in Cyberspace," that discussed the state's effort to "launch Internet safety lessons across all grade levels, responding to a state mandate that is the first of its kind in the nation." The text of the enabling legislation can be found here and, in September 2006, Virginia produced an outstanding report entitled “Guidelines and Resources for Internet Safety in Schools” that can serve as model legislation for other states.
The Post story summarizes the focus of the program:
Obama on Grand Theft Auto and personal responsibility
GamePolitics.com noted that presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama had some comments upon the release of Grand Theft Auto IV this week, and they weren't actually half bad. Indeed, instead of engaging in the typical game-bashing hysteria we've gotten used to, Obama instead focused on the need to find the right balance in terms of getting kids as interested in education as they are in games and other forms of entertainment. (This is something I was just discussing in the comments to another post I made yesterday).
Obama wondered, "How are we giving our kids a thirst for knowledge? And turning off the TV set, and getting them to be engaged and interested, like their future really does matter on how well they do in school." That's a good question, and I've provided some of my own thoughts on that here.
Importantly, I just want to remind everyone of the very sensible things Obama said when asked at a debate earlier this year about the role of government when it comes to media content. "[T]he primary responsibility is for parents," he said. "And I reject the notion of censorship as an approach to dealing with this problem." Better yet, he went on to stress the importance of making sure that parents have the tools to make these determinations for their families:
“[I]t is important for us to make sure that we are giving parents the tools that they need in order to monitor what their children are watching. And, obviously, the problem we have now is not just what’s coming over the airwaves, but what’s coming over the Internet. And so for us to develop technologies and tools and invest in those technologies and tools, to make sure that we are, in fact, giving parents power — empowering parents I think is important.”
He's got it exactly right. I just wish he'd stress personal responsibility and limited government solutions across the board!
What happens as gamers grow older and become a more dominant voice in society? UK game developer Richard Bartle has some thoughts on that issue in an acerbic, in-your-face editorial in the UK Guardian this week:
I'm talking to you, you self-righteous politicians and newspaper columnists, you relics who beat on computer games: you've already lost. Enjoy your carping while you can, because tomorrow you're gone. According to the UK Statistics Authority, the median age of the UK population is 39. Half the people who live here were born in 1969 or later. The BBC microcomputer was released in 1981, when those 1969ers were 12. It was ubiquitous in schools; it introduced a generation to computers. It introduced a generation to computer games. Half the UK population has grown up playing computer games. They aren't addicted, they aren't psychopathic killers, and they resent those boneheads – that's you – who imply that they are addicted and are psychopathic killers. Next year, that 1969 will be 1970; the year after, it'll be 1971.
Dwell on this, you smug, out-of-touch, proud-to-be-innumerate fossils: half the UK population thinks games are fun and cool, and you don't. Those born in 1990 get the vote this year. Three years from now, that 1969 will be 1972, then 1973. Scared yet? You should be: we have the numbers on our side. Do your worst – you can't touch us. We've already won. 15 years from now, the prime minister of the day will have grown up playing computer games, just as 15 years ago we had the first prime minister to have grown up watching television, and 30 years ago to have grown up listening to the radio. Times change: accept it; embrace it. Don't make yourself look even more 20th Century, even more public school, than you do already. You've lost! Understand? Your time has passed.
Bruce Owen, America's preeminent media economist--with apologies to Harold Vogel, who at least deserves an honorable mention--has written another splendid piece for Cato's Regulation magazine, this one entitled, "The Temptation of Media Regulation."
This latest essay deals primarily with the many fallacies surrounding so-called "a la carte" regulation of the video marketplace, and I encourage you to read it to see Owen's powerful refutation of the twisted logic behind that regulatory crusade. But I wanted to highlight a different point that Bruce makes right up front in his essay because it is something I am always stressing in my work too.
In some of my past work on free speech and media marketplace regulation, I have argued that there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to these issues. They are birds of feather who often work closely together to regulate speech and media. Whether it is broadcast 'indecency' controls; proposals to extend those controls to cable & satellite TV; campaign finance laws; efforts to limit or rollback ownership regulations; or even must carry and a la carte, the story is always the same: It's one big bipartisan regulatory love fest. [And the same goes for regulation of the Internet, social networking sites, and video games.]
Like Kutner & Olson's book, Dini's provides a refreshingly balanced and open-minded look at the impact of video games on our kids. One of the things I liked about it is how Dr. Dini tells us right up front that he has been a gamer his entire life and explains how that has helped him frame the issues he discusses in his book. "I have played games both online and off since I was about six years of age, and I have also been involved in child psychiatry, so I felt that I would be in a good position to discuss some inherent positives and negatives associated with playing games," he says. Dini goes into greater detail about his gaming habits later in the book and it makes it clear that he still enjoys games very much.
Some may find Dini's gaming background less relevant than his academic credentials, but I think it is important if for no other reason than it shows how we are seeing more and more life-long gamers attain positions of prominence in various professions and writing about these issues using a sensible frame of reference that begins with their own personal experiences. For far too long now, nearly every book and article I have read about video games and their impact on society at some point includes a line like, "I've never really played many games" or even "I don't much care for video games," but then--without missing a breath--the author or analyst goes on to tell us how imminently qualified they are to be discussing the impact of video games on kids or culture. Whenever I read or hear things like that, I'm reminded of the famous line from an old TV commercial: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." Seriously, why is it that we should continue to listen to those critics who denounce video games but who have never picked up a controller in their lives? It's really quite insulting. Would you take automotive advice from someone who's never tinkered with cars in their lives but instead based their opinions merely upon watching them pass by on the road? I think not.
Yesterday, I was a guest on the Kojo Nnamdi Show, which airs on WAMU 88.5 radio (Washington, DC's NPR affiliate), and had the chance to take part in an excellent discussion about the ins-and-outs of student online speech. Specifically, we discussed the sticky issues surrounding online privacy, anonymity, defamation, cyber-bullying, and so on.
The entire show can be heard on Kojo's site. The other guests were John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology, Parry Aftab, the Executive Director of WiredSafety.org, and Reg Weaver, the President of the National Education Association. We attempted to provide parents and educators with some helpful advice about how to deal with these issues when they pop up. We also got into the controversies raised by the anonymous comments left on sites like JuicyCampus.com and RateMyTeachers.com.
[Incidentally, this show was part of Kojo's excellent ongoing "Tech Tuesday" series. Each Tuesday he dedicates his show to "putting technology in context and assessing its relevance in your life." It's a great program. In encourage you to listen.]
Video games, pro wrestling, and the politics of hypocrisy
For those of you who aren't avid WWE wrestling watchers, the 3 leading presidential candidates all offered up videos for the professional wrestling crowd recently. McCain's freakish one is right below and Hillary and Obama's are down below the fold. They all cracked a bunch of jokes and used what were obviously scripted remarks that integrate in the requisite number of wresting analogies. And they all talked all sort of stupid smack, just like pro wrestlers do. [It reminded me of former candidate Mike Huckabee’s bizarre cultural politics].
There are a lot of disturbing things out there on the Internet. I don't think I need to provide an inventory. Occasionally, some of the more despicable sites (think pro-suicide sites or bomb-making sites) capture the attention of public policymakers and bans are proposed. It was only a matter of time, therefore, before "pro-ana" sites made the regulatory radar screen as they did this week when lawmakers in France proposed a measure, "aimed at fighting incitement to extreme thinness or anorexia."
The pro-ana movement, which refers to people and websites that justify or glorify anorexia or an excessively "thin look" or lifestyle, came to my attention last year when an academic was interviewing me for a new book he was writing about online responsibility. He was asking me what I thought about the idea of liability being imposed on website developers who glorify potentially harmful lifestyles or activities. In other words, an "aiding and abetting" standard for hateful or "harmful" online speech. I expected our discussion to focus on the truly sick or stupid stuff out there---like the bomb-recipe nutjobs or the suicide fans---but, instead, the academic mentioned pro-ana sites, like House of Thin (which no longer seems to be around) and others. The danger of these sites is that they offer young girls, which seems to be the primary audience, very unhealthy advice about how they can use various techniques (fasting, vomiting, laxatives, etc) to become super-thin. Needless to say, that can lead to extreme weight loss and serious health disorders for these girls.
Should sites be banned, or held liable in some fashion, for the harm they cause? We could nitpick about whether of not pro-ana sites cause serious harm to girls, but let's assume that they do cause some harm. Does that mean the site administrators should be held responsible for the actions of others who read those sites? The French law says "yes." It would, according to Reuters:
impose penalties of two years plus a fine of 30,000 euros ($47,450) for "incitement to excessive thinness by publicizing of any kind." The penalties would rise to three years in jail plus 45,000 euros fine in cases where a death was caused by anorexia. The bill was adopted by the lower house of parliament on Tuesday and must go before the Senate before it becomes law.
Don't judge a book by its cover (or its title, for that matter). I'm usually faithful to that maxim, but I must admit that when I first saw the title and cover of "Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do," I rolled my eyes and thought to myself, "here we go again." I figured that I was in for another tedious anti-gaming screed full of myths and hysteria about games and gamers. Boy, was I wrong. Massively wrong.
Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, cofounders and directors of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media, have written the most thoroughly balanced and refreshingly open-minded book about video games ever penned. They cut through the stereotypes and fear-mongering that have thus far pervaded the debate over the impact of video games and offer parents and policymakers common-sense advice about how to approach these issues in a more level-headed fashion. They argue that:
Today, an amalgam of politicians, health professionals, religious leaders and children's advocates are voicing concerns about video games that are identical to the concerns raised one, two and three generations ago with the introduction of other new media. Most of these people have the best of intentions. They really want to protect children from evil influences. As in the past, a few have different agendas and are using the issue manipulatively. Unfortunately, many of their claims are based on scanty evidence, inaccurate assumptions, and pseudoscience. Much of the current research on violent video games is both simplistic and agenda driven. (p. 55)
They note that these groups, "probably worry too much about the wrong things and too little about more subtle issues and complex effects that are much more likely to affect our children." They continue:
