Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[Barothmuk]

It seems quite a leap from a glorified consultant to state directed rewrites and government approval of scripts. Given the blog Bartho linked, X-Men First Class and Man of Steel are the two biggest capes films to get US government support and those don't paint the US military in the best light, FC more so. If this is the US government's strategy to shove in propaganda, it isn't particularly good.

Are you contending the existence of State backed rewrites or merely the quality of their intervention?

 

If the former, offhand I recall the Avengers sought and was denied subsidies for not being propagandistic enough (significant details obviously underwraps but the issue was with the presentation of SHIELD). Another would obviously be that Seth Rogen film that NK had a hissy-fit over.

 

For the scripts to be approved (as in just a stamp rather than some process) ? Not really that much of a leap and that is ok, really, you want to use their people and their gear well they can say yes or no based on what your work is.

Which is ofc subject to their own ideological bias. Edited June 1, 2015 by Barothmuk

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Afraid i've still not got those papers on hand, checked my study and nothing, you'll have to take my word on this or not as you wish.

 

It's not like I doubt your word on the issue (I'm absolutely willing to believe you've read a study reaching the conclusion you mentioned), more like "there's a significant body of research out there directly in opposition of your claim".

[Nonek]

 

Afraid i've still not got those papers on hand, checked my study and nothing, you'll have to take my word on this or not as you wish.

Nope, sorry your word isn't good enough

 

Very well, I am sure to toss and turn with worry tonight that such an individual as yourself does not believe me, ha.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Afraid i've still not got those papers on hand, checked my study and nothing, you'll have to take my word on this or not as you wish.

Nope, sorry your word isn't good enough

 

Very well, I am sure to toss and turn with worry tonight that such an individual as yourself does not believe me, ha.

 

Its  nothing personal Nonek, I operate in the world of facts. If you say something be prepared to back it up...I don't see whats wrong with this view and I'm not going to apologize when its enforced ?

[Nonek]

 

Afraid i've still not got those papers on hand, checked my study and nothing, you'll have to take my word on this or not as you wish.

 

It's not like I doubt your word on the issue (I'm absolutely willing to believe you've read a study reaching the conclusion you mentioned), more like "there's a significant body of research out there directly in opposition of your claim".

 

 

I may well have mixed up certain studies i've read on infantile sensory revulsion with the revulsion expressed towards the unheimliche, i'm not sure as I have more than thirty years of studies mixed up in the old brain pan, I shall endeavour to find the two and compare.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Nonek

[Amentep]

The reports on the "Military Entertainment Complex" is still a bit paranoid (IMO) but the US military has been partnering with Hollywood on projects it feels presents the military well since the 1940s and 50s (like, for example, the cooperation on the Otto Priminger directed, John Way, Kirk Douglas starring IN HARM'S WAY (1965)). 

 

Babies & Reality - not an area I've kept up with. I recall reading that babies at 9 months can determine information about real things from photos - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140429205733.htm

 

And at 18 months can tell when people are faking emotions - http://www.bps.org.uk/news/babies-are-able-spot-fake-emotions

 

Some studies indicate the ability to determine fake from real appears to be located in a specific brain point: http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/05/reality-check-why-some-brains-cant-tell-real-from-imagined/

 

A new study suggests that people’s ability to distinguish between what really happened and what was imagined may be determined by the presence of a fold at the front of the brain that develops late in pregnancy, and is missing entirely in 27% of people.

 

However this doesn't indicate how early a baby can be shown to distinguish fantasy/reality or whether they show disgust at fantasy.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Amentep

[kgambit]

 

 

 

 

i'm afraid to say I no longer have them on hand, but you're free to look for them.

 

 

I have, but consistently found that even 5-years-old children have trouble differentiating fantasy from reality, making the claim that even babies know the difference between reality and falsehood, and are furthermore made uncomfortable by the unreal, sound extremely dubious to me.

 

 

[citations needed]

 

 

 

Our results suggest the following tentative sketch of the possible course of development of the fantasy/reality distinction: The very young child may initially be somewhat unsure about attributing human-like properties to various entities. With experience, children acquire increasing knowledge about everything in their world — both about real entities and their properties, and about such socially supported myths as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Thus, there is the simultaneous development of beliefs considered correct (e .g. dinosaurs are real) and of beliefs considered incorrect but age-appropriate (e .g. Santa is real). But at the same time, as children believe in the reality of fantasy figures, or are unable to say with certainty that they are pretend, they treat them very differently from real entities in terms of the properties and abilities they are willing to grant. In this way, children seem to place fantastical entities in a separate category—neither unquestionably real nor pretend, but somewhere in between. This category could then form a natural bridge to the adult category of fantastical entities. Thus, rather than having misplaced the boundary between real and fantastical entities, young children are still in the process of actively constructing it.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Source: Sharon, T. and Woolley, J. D. (2004), Do monsters dream? Young children's understanding of the fantasy/reality distinction. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22: 293–310.

doi: 10.1348/026151004323044627

 

Happy now?

 

 

 A link to the actual paper would have been better:

 

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/psychology/_files/PDF/FacultyPDFs/WoolleyPDFs/fantasypaper.pdf

 

But thanks.  That's an interesting paper.   

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2015 by kgambit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

It seems quite a leap from a glorified consultant to state directed rewrites and government approval of scripts. Given the blog Bartho linked, X-Men First Class and Man of Steel are the two biggest capes films to get US government support and those don't paint the US military in the best light, FC more so. If this is the US government's strategy to shove in propaganda, it isn't particularly good.

Are you contending the existence of State backed rewrites or merely the quality of their intervention?If the former, offhand I recall the Avengers sought and was denied subsidies for not being propagandistic enough (significant details obviously underwraps but the issue was with the presentation of SHIELD). Another would obviously be that Seth Rogen film that NK had a hissy-fit over.

Both.

 

If subsidies were denied for Avengers for a "wrong" portrayal as SHIELD, then why did XMFC not get similar treatment with its depiction of the US government as a sinister yet ineffective entity and the military as drones just following orders that were ready to kill the heroes of the film after being saved by them?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

(snip)

 

However this doesn't indicate how early a baby can be shown to distinguish fantasy/reality or whether they show disgust at fantasy.

 

Exactly my point.

 

Moreover, the idea of children being disgusted by fantasy feels intuitively wrong to me; if that was the case, how could bedtime stories become a thing?

Edited June 1, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

Parents' revenge for their kids keeping them up as babies?

[Nonek]

 

 

(snip)

 

However this doesn't indicate how early a baby can be shown to distinguish fantasy/reality or whether they show disgust at fantasy.

 

Exactly my point.

 

Moreover, the idea of children being disgusted by fantasy feels intuitively wrong to me; if that was the case, how could bedtime stories become a thing?

 

 

I never said fantasy, I said the unreal and by that I mean the uncanny or the false, fantasy is a different thing and one I patently agree with introducing to development.

[Meshugger]

 

http://www.defense.gov/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=516

 

Pretty easy search, even if you get a litany of blog articles on the matter. Not really subsidy but still a degree of influence.

Yeah.

 

If you don't mind something more blog-articley here's a serviceable rundown of the U.S military's attempts to boost enlistment via Superhero films (it takes a pretty neutral position).

 

 

While worrying, it doesn't sound like the original claim that the military is running Hollywood. I'll keep an eye on it in the future though.

 

Top Gun is awesome however. Anyone who claims otherwise can be excused on the grounds of having a bad childhood.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I never said fantasy, I said the unreal and by that I mean the uncanny or the false, fantasy is a different thing and one I patently agree with introducing to development.

 

 

Ah, sorry for the mixup.

[Hurlshort]

In terms of gaming and the military, don't forget that the Army was actively developing a first person shooter for years.  They are definitely working in a consulting capacity for games like CoD.  But as Malcador stated, I'm not sure how insidious that really is, in fact it is probably more about creating a profitable venture than any ideology.

[Malcador]

They still are, and the series has gone on pretty long, hm. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army

 

Newest installment is going into release this year after 2 years of open beta, heh.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Malcador

[Nonek]

I think i've found the paper that I was confusing with the unheimliche studies, it's actually a work by Mr Rozin on disgust, and has very little to do with visual stimuli (other than the obvious.) Can't fathom why I mixed up the two.

 

I'd still state that with all of the studies done disproving video games affecting players, such as Mr Ferguson's, and that like most media they are instead interpreted by what the individual brings to them, that Tropes vs Women is pointless. There is no danger or problem in tropes, other than what the viewer brings with them.

[Meshugger]

Huh,

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I'd still state that with all of the studies done disproving video games affecting players, such as Mr Ferguson's, and that like most media they are instead interpreted by what the individual brings to them, that Tropes vs Women is pointless. There is no danger or problem in tropes, other than what the viewer brings with them.

 

I don't know about any studies disproving Sarkeesian's claims (namely, that sexist portrayal in media - including, but not limited to, video games - affects unconscious attitudes, not behaviors).

 

I know about many studies regarding the effects video games have on players' mood, or behavior, but not this particular thing.

[Nonek]

Well Mr Ferguson's study chiefly deals with violence, and shows a marked decrease in violence while use of video games has increased. For sexism I suppose the recent study by Breuer, Kowert, Festl and Quandt is most appropriate, finding no link between sexism and gaming. Alltogether this paints a picture that reasonable adults are not affected by video games, and instead maintain and reinforce the attitudes that they bring to anything else.

 

As for McIntosh's claims that sexism is caused by games it's purely based on cherry picked content, newly invented tropes, and a biased outlook. It's piffle, poorly made piffle.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Nonek

[Blarghagh]

I don't know about any studies disproving Sarkeesian's claims (namely, that sexist portrayal in media - including, but not limited to, video games - affects unconscious attitudes, not behaviors).

 

So the claim is that they affect unconscious attitudes but not behaviors. Surely that would be a moot point, if said unconscious attitudes do not affect behaviors?

[Amentep]

 

 

 

(snip)

 

However this doesn't indicate how early a baby can be shown to distinguish fantasy/reality or whether they show disgust at fantasy.

 

Exactly my point.

 

Moreover, the idea of children being disgusted by fantasy feels intuitively wrong to me; if that was the case, how could bedtime stories become a thing?

 

 

I never said fantasy, I said the unreal and by that I mean the uncanny or the false, fantasy is a different thing and one I patently agree with introducing to development.

 

 

I seem to recall a study that had to do with dressing the caregiver up in sort of a cartoonish getup or with dolls or something that had to do with kids and real/unreal but for the life of me I can't find it.

[Meshugger]

Well Mr Ferguson's study chiefly deals with violence, and shows a marked decrease in violence while use of video games has increased. For sexism I suppose the recent study by Breuer, Kowert, Festl and Quandt is most appropriate, finding no link between sexism and gaming. Alltogether this paints a picture that reasonable adults are not affected by video games, and instead maintain and reinforce the attitudes that they bring to anything else.

 

As for McIntosh's claims that sexism is caused by games it's purely based on cherry picked content, newly invented tropes, and a biased outlook. It's piffle, poorly made piffle.

 

Since Mr. McIntosh describes himself as a "Transformative Media Maker" and "Hacktivist" (=creator of propaganda content), it's his job to try to change behaviour and attitudes in different media, including games.

 

It's the whole damn premise.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

For sexism I suppose the recent study by Breuer, Kowert, Festl and Quandt is most appropriate, finding no link between sexism and gaming. 

 

 

 

In all fairness though, said study doesn't exactly offer us a very nuanced measurement of sexism (limitation of the format, obviously, but we shouldn't ignore it).

 

It's absolutely correct in positing that personal experience, peers and family would have a stronger effect on sexist attitude than video game content, but I don't think that was ever called into question.

 

 

 

So the claim is that they affect unconscious attitudes but not behaviors. Surely that would be a moot point, if said unconscious attitudes do not affect behaviors?

 

 

 

The question we should ask isn't "are unconscious attitudes affecting behaviors?" (they sure are), it's "are unconscious attitudes affecting behaviors in a significant manner?" (which would, one assumes, be heavily dependent on context and kinda hard to measure in any case).

 

Basically, I think Sarkeesian is absolutely right, sexism in video games does have an effect on consumers; however, I don't believe it's a significant effect. If you swung your magic wand and removed all sexism from video games, the impact would still be negligible, partially because there's still a lot of media reinforcing the attitudes she finds objectionable, and partially because there's a limit on how much unconscious bias affects our actions.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, that sounds a lot more logical to me which is why I was confused by the phrasing earlier.

[Nonek]

In fairness I'd rather believe this fact based study conducted by recognised PhD's than McIntosh and his sock puppets extremely poorly made and frequently factually inaccurate videos.