Gamers' push for equality and common sense angers (lying) fundamentalists

posted by Chris Prior, 2 Mar 2010
Yesterday, the Australian Christian Lobby (a firm supporter of the internet filter, and a whole swag of other things to do with limiting individual liberties) fired a shot over the bow of those fighting for common sense classification, with a sizable helping of lies. In a press release, the ACL compared the games industry to big tobacco attempting to cover up the risk of lung cancer. Speaking to The Age newspaper, the ACL complained that the discussion paper was biased. Both the press release and the article dredge up tired old arguments about media and interactivity, while attempting to rewrite history.

Contrary to the blatant lie from the ACL that the discussion paper did not address issues of content in R18+ video games, the core of the debate is content. The content allowable under and R18+ classification was extensively discussed in the discussion paper. Coincidentally, the lies about the content of the paper were told after submissions closed, and the paper was removed from the government website, making it harder for people to check for themselves.

The discussion paper may well have been biased, but not in the way the ACL would like people to think. The "anti-r18+" arguments within the paper were based on selective research at best, ignoring the realities of the modern world, and in some cases were little more than unfounded emotional arguments. Despite this, they were given the same credence as the more factually based pro-R18+ arguments; a layman could not be expected to differentiate.

Despite this bias, despite the ACL's own efforts to promote responses in line with its agenda, by all accounts the response has been overwhelmingly in favour of an R18+ classification for video games. Is it coincidental that these complaints about 'bias' seemed only to arise after results started coming in?

The comparison to big tobacco is tenuous. A more appropriate comparison would be to the proponents of every new form of media in recorded history - television, pop music, jazz, film and the printing press have all been decried as the harbingers of society's downfall. As with video games, there was no evidence of these claims beyond biased research and fallacious arguments. Last time we checked, mass produced books hadn't destroyed civilisation.

The argument about the impact of violent media has no founding in reality. Despite claims of extensive, reliable research and implied scientific consensus, neither exists. Much of the research claiming to find that consumption of violent media caused violence and aggression has been extensively criticised for ignoring results that do not fit with the prejudice, and even taking research that suggests one thing, and claiming it proves the opposite. The single researcher cited by the ACL, Craig Anderson, has been called out specifically by his peers (notably Prof Christopher J Ferguson) for making extensive use of a test that has no scientific grounding to 'prove' the harmfulness of violent media. His habit of ignoring bias in others' work that fits his prejudice has also been criticised.

Similarly, claims of increased impact from interactivity in games are spurious at best. There is no evidence proving this, while a study by Britain's classification body found that children are more affected by TV news than violent video games because they can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. The constant need for input (pressing buttons) also reinforces the artificial nature of video games.

Regardless, the current classification guidelines require that interactivity be taken into account during the classification process. This process - and thus the accounting for interactivity - is undertaken by professionals, people with experience in the field. In an interview with Gamespot AU, Jim Wallace of the ACL said that the Classification Board was "quite an appropriate body to do the job." It is not undertaken by gamers, or by a lobby group seeking to impose its morals on others.

The ACL called for an open, public discussion of the issue. That seems to be the only thing we agree on. The facts need to be aired, old prejudices need to be challenged with reality, and it needs to happen where the world can see - where people can hear the respective arguments and judge them on their merits. Consider this an open invitation to the ACL - or any other opponent of common sense classification - to discuss the facts surrounding this issue with me, in public, and allow the people of Australia to make up their minds.

Further information about the impact of video games can be found in "Grand Theft Childhood", a book based on research funded by the US government, and conducted by the founders of Harvard Medical School's Center for Mental Health and Media

We game, we vote.

My name is Chris Prior, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.