The Digital Devil Made Me Do It

(Originally written December 4, 2003)

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

- H. L. Mencken

Most of what you can find on the Net about how to make a bomb is available somewhere in a library and, candidly, if your child is down in the basement making bombs, the Internet is probably not the biggest contributor to that problem.

- Larry Irving, Asst. Secretary, NTIA

Last night I was flipping channels on the TV and I saw the news headline "Video game inspired warehouse robbery?" I didn't bother to unmute the TV or stop changing channels because (a) I already know what they would have said and (2) it just pisses me off. I know that this isn't new - many media and subgenres of media have been blamed for many things over the years. The Beatles were blamed for Charles Manson. AC/DC was blamed for Richard Ramirez, Catcher in the Rye was considered subversive, etc. And in my generation, Quake is blamed for Columbine and Flight Simulator is blamed for the World Trade Center strike.

The thing that kills me about the whole phenomenon is that the news outlets display such a blatant bias about the angle of the stories. Violent criminals are morally adrift to begin with. Anything could inspire them to do anything, but only the magic combination of "video game inspires violent crime" becomes a headline item on the newswires. If the crime is "inspired" by something else, that motivation doesn't make it into the headline. When a group of white men pummel a lone Arab on the street you don't see the headline "War on Terror inspires hate crime." And why don't we ever see the headline "News report on violent crime inspires man to commit violent crime?" I'd love to see the interview with the defendant:

"I knew I wanted to lash out at the world but I wasn't sure how. Then I saw an MSNBC report on arson, and I knew that arson was my ticket to manifest aggression."

I wonder if that quote would make it past the newsroom editor?

Time passes...

Just a couple days later, I found this tidbit on CNN:

Issuing its eighth annual MediaWise Video Game Report Card, the [National Institute on Media and the Family] listed games parents should avoid for their children, led by "Manhunt."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/fun.games/12/09/warning.videogames.reut/index.html

Taken independently, that sentence is just ridiculous on its face. Then consider that the sentence is part of a "news item" from a major reporter and we're approaching ludicrous speed. Why is it ludicrous? Because, why would a parent buy a game for their child called "Manhunt" and not be concerned about the content? Never mind that the box for Manhunt has an ESRB "M" stamped on it, the NAME ALONE should be the tipoff! Allow me to create a parallel example:

Issuing its eighth annual MediaWise Video Game Report Card, the institute listed games parents should avoid for their children, led by "Orgy."

See what I mean? If I substitute sex for violence does it become more apparent? Do we need "institutes" issuing "report cards" advising parents not to do obviously dumb shit? Is this the world we live in? God help us all.

I have nothing against having watchdog groups monitor the video game industry per se. If one of these groups were to find, for example, that companies are using thirteen-year-old kids in focus groups testing M rated games, that would be great work. Go team. But instead they're wasting their time cranking out self-important obvious crap, and overlooking the notion that if parents don't read the box title and don't read the ESRB label, they're not going to read the institute's report either.

I want to found an institute that issues the annual "Report Card for Physical Safety" advising parents not to "shoot selves in the head" and not to "leap bodily into open flames."

Favorite Simpsons episodes

One of the local TV stations just finished running a Top 50 countdown of the best Simpsons episodes ever. They had Homer's Religion at #2 and the Dental Plan at #1. Those are great episodes, but I wouldn't have put them at 1 and 2. They made some other very questionable choices, like putting the Spring Break episode way back in the 40s.

My top episodes would look like this:

8. The Swimming Pool ("See, your epidermis means your hair, so technically, it's true.")

7. The Lemon Tree ("Run faster boy! He's got a taste for meat now!")

6. Homer Goes on Disability ("Stupid bird! I never should have left you in charge!")

5. Dental Plan ("See here Mr. Burns, I don't go in for these backdoor shenanigans.")

4. Lisa's Beach Vacation ("SWEET MERCIFUL CRAP! My CAR!")

3. Homer's Religion ("If I'm wrong, I'll recant on my deathbed.")

2. Bart's Soul ("Milhouse give him his soul back! I've got work tomorrow!")

1. Bart's Spring Break ("No, Principal Skinner, Bart's never been to Thailand.")


#1 and #2 is a really close call, because the Spring Break episode probably has more laughs, but Bart's Soul is the only Simpsons episode that is also beautiful.

They should do a show where a family has to live like it's 1895

When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth.

- Steve Jobs

As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it.

- Dick Cavett

I hate reality tv. If you're watching reality tv and you wonder "how can these people be so dumb/selfish/cruel?", keep in mind that you're not seeing a random cross-section of society. The show's producers have kicked over every damp rock and rotten barrel they could find to locate people who will (a) do anything for money and (2) form a volatile mix of conflicting personalities. And that's just the beginning. TV audiences are finally starting to twig on to the fact that reality tv isn't real.

You may find it depressing to see the dregs of our society being rewarded for being horrible people. You may find it depressing to think about the heartless tv producers who seek these people out, throw them together, and stir them up, like a bloodless form of dog fighting. But the part that depresses me is that we, the collective we, we who watch television, keep watching the dogs night after night. TV producers don't make reality shows because they like them, they make reality shows because they have piles and piles of statistical reports telling them that's where the money is. The average American tv viewer, as measured by the Nielsen system, craves this stuff. We don't turn away in disgust. We don't say "I refuse to reward these people for being cruel to each other. I refuse to reward the producers for creating this crap." Instead we eat it up and ask for more. Why, WHY is there a Flavor of Love 2? Because people watched the first one. We live in a culture where enough people watched Flavor of Love to warrant the creation of a sequel. That's depressing.

If the television medium were a Hollywood starlet, reality shows would be her fake boobs. They kinda sorta look real, everybody knows they're really not real, but everyone keeps looking at them anyway.