blog

A study conducted by a pair of researchers at the University of Michigan and published in the Journal of Adolescent Health has come to the brilliant conclusion that violent video games (and TV and movies) are almost as dangerous to society as smoking.

The study was based on 50 years of research on the impact of violence in the media by Dr. L. Rowell Huesmann a PhD and Professor of Psychology and Communications Studies, and his colleague Dr. Brad Bushman, .

In a statement accompanying the study, Dr. Huesmann said, "Exposure to violent electronic media has a larger effect than all but one other well known threat to public health. The only effect slightly larger than the effect of media violence on aggression is that of cigarette smoking on lung cancer."

Huesmann said children spend an average of three hours watching television each day and more than 60 percent of TV programs contain some violence, including 40 percent showing extreme violence.

The study contends that the average child watches three hours of television a day, and that over 60 percent of programming contains "some violence", with 40 percent showing "extreme violence". (I looked, but could not find the dellineation between "some" and "extreme"... they seem like arbitrary terms to me...)

The specific complaint against gaming came from this quote, "Children are also spending an increasingly large amount of time playing video games, most of which contain violence. Video game units are now present in 83 percent of homes with children."

Which of these looks like the biggest threat to society? 

They further go on to state, "The research clearly shows that exposure to virtual violence increases the risk that both children and adults will behave aggressively."

You just know that people like Jack Thompson and Joe Lieberman will jump all over this, and use it as an excuse to start a new round of ESRB and ECA bashing. And I have to admit, if the study's findings hold up after peer review, it doesn't look good. However, the critics will only talk about the parts of the study that seek to blame.

Unlike many other people that rail against the violence of media, Drs. Huesmann and Bushman offer the solution that we, as gamers, know to be the most effective. They claim that although not every child exposed to media violence will become aggressive, it does not diminish the need for greater control on the part of parents over what films, games, and TV shows children are exposed to.

Again, far be it from me to attempt to pick apart what appears to be a very complete study. But we do once again come back to the idea that it is the parents that ultimately must be responsible for the level of aggression in their children.

I do find myself wondering what exactly is meant by the idea that it is the function of "society" to keep children from being exposed to violene. Does this mean more government oversight of media companies? Does this mean a closet censorship movement, in which only the most P.C. and innocuous messages see the light of day?

The fact is that the world is a violent and dangerous place, and that any attempt to completely shield children from this reality is a lost cause. Certain people have aggressive tendencies, and it would seem that those people can be set off by violent media.

The big question becomes: why should the rest of us have to live with a scaled-down level of violence in media just because there is the chance that some people will exhibit poor behavior? I don't like being held responsible for the actions of others, and I hate the idea of someone telling me what I can and can't see. In a country of over 300 million people, and world with over six billion, is it realistic to think that by augmenitng our media coverage we can somehow wipe out violence? That idea, to me, is as egocentric as ideas come.

Share this article: