“Opinion: Doing It For The Kids - On UK TV's Latest Games Panic (Gamasutra)” plus 1 more

---

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Opinion: Doing It For The Kids - On UK TV's Latest Games Panic (Gamasutra) Posted: 23 Mar 2010 07:17 AM PDT

[Writing for Gamasutra, Lewis Denby examines all facets of the experience of playing video games. Are violent video games "corrupting" our kids? We've heard that debate before, but perhaps not as obnoxiously as this...] "Hearing the floor manager tell the octagenarian crowd to 'really let your feelings be known if he says something you don't agree with' seconds before filming was pretty disconcerting. I hope you noted the targeted 'he' in that sentence. I certainly did." Tim Ingham admits he didn't expect anything less, though. As you might be aware, the CVG game website editor recently appeared on UK television's The Alan Titchmarsh Show, as part of a feature on the dangers of violent gaming to children. Hmm. Where have we heard this before? Even if you didn't see the clip, you can guess where this is going. Titchmarsh, who made a name for himself in the clearly game-related profession of celebrity gardening, chaired a debate which asked the age-old question: are violent games corrupting the minds of our young? Thoughtfully, he turned to the expert first. "I was fully aware that I wasn't going to be the most adulated guest of our green-fingered host," Tim tells me. "It would have been foolhardy to think that the core audience were anything but retired Daily Express [a British tabloid, with a certain reputation for conservative hyperbole] devotees, and that's the mindset I arrived and departed with." It's a shame, though. In a section on gaming, one might expect the editor of a leading games website to be allowed to speak for more than a few seconds at a time, before being interrupted and shouted over by a hyped-up audience and the frankly reprehensible squeals of the lady sitting to his left. That lady was Julie Peasgood. She's a sexual relationships expert. She hates video games with a passion. Shaking her head at Tim's very reasonable remarks that violent video games should not be played by children, and as such carry age ratings (a fact which appeared to thoroughly confuse Alan Titchmarsh), Peasgood launched into a furious diatribe. "Video games are addictive; they promote hatred, racism, sexism; and they reward violence," she enunciated, to rapturous applause and cheers from the studio audience. Peasgood's rant wasn't over yet, though. "There is a proven link between behavioural violence and video game violence," she claimed. "In a recent American study, over 130,000 kids worldwide were monitored, okay? And regardless of age, sex or culture, the kids who had a regular diet of violent video games were found to be more aggressive, they were found to be less caring, they had low self esteem issues, and they suffered from depression." Peasgood failed to cite which particular study that was. I've yet to track it down, nor have I even heard such evidence discussed in general before. Tim's rebuttal - that the Government commissioned Byron Review, published last year, found no link between violent video games and behavioural violence in children - was met with laughs from Peasgood and pantomime jeers from the audience. Heard It All Before This isn't the first time that ITV, the channel on which The Alan Titchmarsh Show occupies a regular late-afternoon slot, has demonstrated a notable bias against the medium. Last year, the station broadcast a documentary about video game addiction. In the half hour programme, a single games industry representative was allowed just a few seconds of air time in which to counter various extreme claims: that games have been proven to be addictive; that this addiction leads to depression and, in one case, suicide; that this can somehow be linked with the terrible murder of a Counter-Strike player in 2002. It's difficult to know how best to oppose their bizarre anti-games agenda, though. Unlike the BBC, ITV is funded by advertising rather than by the public, and without an enforced remit for balance and objectivity the station is basically free to broadcast what it wants, within its internally defined set of regulations and within common decency. Julie Peasgood's questionable reporting of an unnamed study, and her claims that games promote sexism and racism, may have been construed as libellous had she not been so markedly vague about the whole matter. Many have called for mass complaints, but it seems unlikely that these would do much good. There is, effectively, nothing to validly complain about. And there's always a risk that a cocophany of outsiders, fresh from their marathon sessions playing bloodthirsty shooters, all shouting at ITV at once could paint the medium an even worse colour than it's already adorned with. I contacted ITV for comment, and was put in touch with Channel Television, the broadcast licensee responsible for The Alan Titchmarsh Show. As yet, they have not responded to my messages. Not Defeated Despite the ferociously unpleasant seven minutes that comprised the debate's slot, Tim Ingham isn't too disheartened - other than to be dumbfounded by Julie Peasgood's claims that games were in some way responsible for promoting racial hatred. "It was beyond any anti-game rhetoric I'd witnessed before," Tim recalls. "My face said it all, I suppose." Does he feel he missed an opportunity to confront Peasgood on this matter? "Off-camera, certainly." Still, perhaps it's for the best that he didn't. "I was all too aware of the exigencies of - let's be honest - right-leaning daytime TV," he says. "I knew my argument would have been weakened by any hint of skirmish. I needed to remain patient and relaxed throughout - affable, even - to avoid falling from 'put upon' into 'pariah'. "My objectives for the day were not rocked. I wanted to show a human face to an industry all too often painted as malevolent and Machiavellian by a frightened middle-market press. Despite the catcalling and boos of a mindless few, I believe I did just that. And if I snapped a couple of mothers into removing Modern Warfare 2 from their 13-year-olds' bedroom while I was at it, it was completely worth the rough ride." Ultimately, Peasgood and co., evidently burdened by some sort of deep-set problem with the games industry, will always find a way of voicing their misinformed and misinforming views. They have the air time, and a willingly riled-up audience, and popular opinion on their side. From gaming's perspective, well, we have our champions too. There's The Guardian newspaper and its accompanying Observer Magazine, who are increasingly placing video game coverage among that of the more established cultural media. And there's people like Tim Ingham, who are prepared to cross the border into enemy territory, and fight our corner - with words, not guns. Surprisingly, there's even somebody like Kelvin MacKenzie, the final member of the debate. His stance remained generally against video game violence - somewhat rich, considering he is infamous for some disastrously poor-taste war-reporting during his time as editor of The Sun newspaper. But, next to the horror of Peasgood's remarks, he in fact provided a breath of fresh air. "I'm not a gamer," he admitted, before noting that the average age of video game players is substantially higher than the debate's topic suggested. "Kelvin MacKenzie was vocally appreciative of some of the points I made during filming," Tim tells me, "not something apparently obvious from the released footage." So there's hope. There's hope that, one day, gaming's acceptance in mainstream society will fall neatly alongside the other forms of art and entertainment which already enjoy general approval. Until then, it's a good idea to stand up for our rapidly sophisticating hobby and its ever-growing industry - but, equally, it's a good idea to stay calm and reasonable in the process. Besides, it seems one side of this debate can safely claim the moral high ground. "I am categorically against violence for entertainment," said Julie Peasgood during the debate. "It is just wrong." CVG have since revealed that, back in 2000, one Julie Peasgood starred in a violent video game. [Lewis Denby is editor of Resolution Magazine and general freelance busybody for anyone that'll have him. If you tell him video games make you violent, he'll kill you to death in the face.]

Robin Roberts is a Whiz at remembering other Kids (Philadelphia Daily News) Posted: 23 Mar 2010 05:03 PM PDT HALL OF FAMER Robin Roberts remembered the Whiz Kids during an interview in Tampa last year: * Catcher Andy Seminick batted .288 with 24 homers and 68 RBI in 130 games. "Oh, he was tough. Andy had been an infielder in the lower minor leagues. I don't know when they made him a catcher. But when I came up [in 1948], Don Padgett, Al Lakeman and Andy were the three catchers. And, of the three, Lakeman was the better receiver. He had caught his whole life. Padgett had played the outfield. He had a good bat. And Andy was borderline, you know? If you had asked about the catchers at the time, Lakeman was the best receiver and Padgett was a lefthanded hitter. He could swing the bat. And Andy was just kind of in the middle. "In fact, at the end of that year when [manager Eddie Sawyer] came in, he had had [Stan] Lopata at Toronto [in the minors]. And he brought Andy up. I never heard him say it, but I think he was kind of leaning toward Lopata being the catcher. "He and Seminick, I think, alternated at the start of '49. And all of a sudden, the first of June or something, Andy just started believing in himself. And he was a tough, good receiver. Threw adequately. Tough as nails when they slid home. And all of a sudden he won over Sawyer, and from then on he was kind of the head man and Stan was kind of his backup. "Like I say, he was tough. Once, the Giants had thrown at him and knocked him down. And as he got up, he got a handful of dirt in his hand. Wes Westrum was their catcher and - poof! - Andy threw that handful of dirt right in his face. "So now he gets on first and he goes into second hard. Bill Rigney was the Giants' second baseman and he fell on top of Andy. And the story goes that's the only time they ever saw a guy on top lose. "He got on second, I think it was the same game. Guy singles to left and he comes running around third. Hank Thompson is the third baseman. He's just standing there, looking. He's got no play. Wham! [Seminick] hits him with his forearm. We don't know this. So Andy comes home, scores, and we look up and Thompson is laying on the ground. We said, 'What happened?' He said, 'I gave him an elbow.' " * First baseman Eddie Waitkus played in 154 games, and batted .284. He hit just two homers that season and only 24 in 4,254 career at-bats. He was coming back from a bizarre incident the previous season when he was shot by a deranged fan in the Chicago hotel where the Phillies were staying. "Quiet. He was a smooth first baseman. He led off all that year. A lot of people think Ashburn did, but Ashburn hit second. That's something Eddie did." * Second baseman Mike Goliat played in 145 of his career 249 games that season, and batted .234. "Mike was a character, but [Sawyer] lost interest in him for some reason. I remember one thing that was kind of interesting. Eddie was a deep guy, he really was. We were playing a spring-training game in Lakeland. One out and the bases loaded. We're in the field and a guy hits a ground ball to Mike. Perfect doubleplay ball. And Mike picks it up and throws to first. He forgets how many outs there are. So a run scores. I think from then on Eddie wasn't [too happy with him]. Eddie always mentioned that Mike was about 4 years older than he said he was, too. But it was obvious that Eddie didn't take too kindly to that throw to first when a doubleplay was in order. Even in spring training. If you didn't know how many outs there were, to Eddie there was something wrong with that. "I see a lot of times now where they won't know. But then I had never seen a guy do that." * Shortstop Granny Hamner tied for the league lead with 157 games (including three ties) that season, and batted .270. "Late in the game he could hit with anybody. He had that knack. He'd go 0-for-2, 0-for-3, then it would be in the eighth inning with a man on second and he'd drive that son of a gun in. He only weighed about 140, 145 pounds. There were a lot of smaller guys then. They didn't lift weights and all that stuff." * Third baseman Willie "Puddin' Head" Jones also played in all 157 games. In the second of his 10 straight years as a regular, he batted .267 with 88 RBI. "He brought that nickname with him. There was a song at the time called 'Wooden Head Puddin' Head Jones.' I always assumed someone gave it to him as a kid. He was from Spartanburg, S.C. The Phillies signed a lot of the guys from that area. 'Pud' was a real talent. Quick, good hands. Just a fair arm but in 1950 he had 19 home runs at the All-Star Game, then he only had six after that. But good hands. He reminded you of Brooks Robinson. Pud's arm was a little better than Robbie's, but not much. But they got rid of the ball quick, you know, and were accurate. In '50 he had a big year, he really did. Probably the biggest year he ever had." * Leftfielder Dick Sisler hit only 13 homers during the regular season, but that included a three-run shot in his last at-bat that won the pennant. "His dad being such a good ballplayer, Dick couldn't run much and didn't throw very well. He hit the ball pretty well. And he was a wonderful guy on a ball team. I mean, he really had a good time. For him to have that home run be so important . . . Because he had always been [Hall of Famer] George Sisler's son who didn't do much before. "He hit that ball to left-center. He had four hits that day, I think. He hit a line drive. In Ebbets Field it was a short fence. It was 345 to left-center and it went right over that into the stands. It started out just a nice line drive but it carried enough to get in there. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for kids games To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610