[Infowarrior] - FUD Alert: Video Games = Huge Public Safety Threat

[Richard Forno]

(here we go again.......rf)

New Report Claims Violent Video Games A Huge Public Safety Threat... But
Fails To Actually Provide Evidence

http://techdirt.com/articles/20071128/182630.shtml

Some psychologists are getting a bunch of press today for putting out a
report claiming that violent video games and TV are the greatest threat to
public safety, short of cigarettes. Of course, we've been seeing claims
about the threats of violent video games for years, but every time you dig
into the research, you find that what the research actually found isn't at
all what's being claimed. Most of the research claiming that violent video
games leads to more violence has been dismantled as it usually shows that
while people are playing a violent video game, they're likely to be more
aggressive and emotional -- but that makes sense. You are aggressive and
emotional because you're tied up in the game and you're channeling that
aggression and emotion towards the game. What none of the studies seem to
show is that this aggression and emotion then carry over into violent acts
after the game is done. Some studies suggest people become desensitized to
seeing more violence -- but again, that doesn't mean they go out and commit
violent acts. In fact, as we've noted repeatedly, as violent video games
have become increasingly popular, we've actually seen violent acts dropping.
That, alone, isn't enough to say there's no impact, but it certainly raises
questions about anyone claiming that violent video games are a threat to
society.

So is this new research that has finally found a link? Unfortunately, not at
all. This is simply a psychologist who has published some of the dismantled
research above claiming that he's "reviewed" all of the research on the
topic (apparently, much of which is his own research) and declared that the
sum of all that research means violent video media are the number two threat
to public safety. That's pretty hard to take seriously. Basically, he's
cherry picking research, much of which has already been shown not to say
what he thinks it says, and then jumping to a conclusion that doesn't appear
to be supported by the research. But, of course, it generates plenty of
headlines.