Activision Hires Lobbyists in Response to Videogames Research Bill

[roseofbattle]

Activision Hires Lobbyists in Response to Videogames Research Bill

The lobbying firm will talk to lawmakers about Sen. Rockefeller's Violent Content Research Act of 2013.

Activision Blizzard has hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C. to look at Sen. Jay Rockefeller's sponsored bill. The bill, S.134 [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s134], "arranges for the National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of violent videogames and violent video programming on children." Introduced in January, the bill was sent to the House of Representatives and the Senate for consideration on July 30. The bill also states it will look at videogames and whether they in particular "have a unique impact on children."

According to the Washington Post, lobbying records filed in August state that Washington-based partner Arshi Siddiqui and Austin-based senior policy adviser Ryan Thompson are on the account. Aki Gump and Activision Blizzard did not comment.

If the bill passes, the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of Health and Human Services will work with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of "whether there is a connection between exposure to violent videogames and programming and harmful effects on children." This bill is one of many arguments over links between violent content and violent behavior. Researchers have already conducted many varying studies, sometimes reaching different conclusions. A 2001 study by Dr. Craig Anderson and Dr. B.J. Bushman concluded that playing video games increases aggressive behavior, but researchers Lawrence Kutner, and Cheryl K. Olson refuted those claims in 2008.

S.134 will likely not be the last bill addressing violent video games and their effects on players, and the debate will continue. While researchers as a whole are split on the issue, some have pointed out that the videogame industry has become a convenient scapegoat for problems in society.

Source: Washington Post [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/warcraft-video-game-maker-hires-lobbyists-to-make-its-case/2013/09/06/3ed44bac-165e-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html]

Permalink

 

[KeyMaster45]

Do all the research you want, we've got a Supreme Court ruling which says you can't impose dick on the gaming industry. So go ahead, waste that taxpayer money; I won't vote for you again.

 

[LTK_70]

What is it they hope to achieve by putting lobbyists on a bill that plans to conduct scientific research? Convince them not to do it? Why? Is Activision afraid they're not going to like what the research finds? If so, that really reflects badly on them.

The best case scenario is that this bill passes, the National Academy of Sciences conducts the research, and they conclude that playing violent video games does not have a negative influence on children. If they conclude the opposite, then yeah, let's keep the Call of Duties out of the hands of ten-year-olds, like the ESRB already does. Either way, lobbying to prevent scientific research from being done is not really a good thing.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

What is it they hope to achieve by putting lobbyists on a bill that plans to conduct scientific research? Convince them not to do it? Why? Is Activision afraid they're not going to like what the research finds? If so, that really reflects badly on them.

The best case scenario is that this bill passes, the National Academy of Sciences conducts the research, and they conclude that playing violent video games does not have a negative influence on children. If they conclude the opposite, then yeah, let's keep the Call of Duties out of the hands of ten-year-olds, like the ESRB already does. Either way, lobbying to prevent scientific research from being done is not really a good thing.

The problem/reason Activision would want to hire lobbyists is that Senator Jay Rockefeller introduced the bill (multiple times) & has a well-documented bias against videogames

If this research is being headed by someone who openly blames school shootings on GTA, I'm glad Activision is rallying some troops

 

[Tanakh]

The problem/reason Activision would want to hire lobbyists is that Senator Jay Rockefeller introduced the bill (multiple times) & has a well-documented bias against videogames

If this research is being headed by someone who openly blames school shootings on GTA, I'm glad Activision is rallying some troops

This, Activision is a multi million company invested in video games. If the Senate is going to start a investigation, it would be nuts not to hire a lobbyist to have their voice heard and their position represented.

Nowadays hiring a lobbyist when stuff you are into is legislated is just akin to hiring a lawyer when you have any legal business, not a sign of anything shady or malicious, just of knowing how stuff is done.

 

[Tumedus]

What is it they hope to achieve by putting lobbyists on a bill that plans to conduct scientific research? Convince them not to do it? Why? Is Activision afraid they're not going to like what the research finds? If so, that really reflects badly on them.

The best case scenario is that this bill passes, the National Academy of Sciences conducts the research, and they conclude that playing violent video games does not have a negative influence on children. If they conclude the opposite, then yeah, let's keep the Call of Duties out of the hands of ten-year-olds, like the ESRB already does. Either way, lobbying to prevent scientific research from being done is not really a good thing.

Don't confuse this bill as scientific research just because it used the term "study". The study could easily just be put together to gather all of the info that does support their view into one place to give it an air of authenticity when they reach a pre-determined conclusion.

You hire a lobbyist to make sure that other politicians are being made aware of all the facts that support your viewpoint and aren't being ignored in favor of someone else's agenda.

 

[kael013]

[quote/]The bill also states it will look at videogames and whether they in particular "have a unique impact on children."[/quote]

Oh dear G... Just point out the bloody ESRB rating system to them, show 'em that FTC study that says videogames are the most strictly self-regulated media, then tell them to stuff it. This has gone on for far too long.

Besides, this means shite. The Supreme Court has said you can't regulate videogames, so even if this passes and those agencies conduct their tests they [i/]can't do anything with the results[/i]. The whole thing is a waste of time and money.

 

[Slash2x]

In other news politicians are still wasting money on studies that will be inconclusive at best, because another study will have the opposite results a day after the first one drops... I swear there is a researcher right now asking for a government funded study to see if water is wet, and they will get funded too.

 

[Falterfire]

What is it they hope to achieve by putting lobbyists on a bill that plans to conduct scientific research? Convince them not to do it? Why? Is Activision afraid they're not going to like what the research finds? If so, that really reflects badly on them.

Because, as the saying goes, there are three kinda of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. It's not terribly difficult to design a study that creates misleading effects about how 'violent' games make kids. For example, you could get a fourth grader to play GTA and make a note every time he kills somebody and compare it to people he kills playing Bejeweled. Blatantly terrible study design, but you can still get your conclusion "VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES DRIVE CHILDREN TO MURDER" to paste in newspapers.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

On one hand, I hate these video game bullshit politicians put up to avoid actually doing anything.

On the other hand, I really hate these lobbying practices that also tend to lead to nothing getting done.

Decisions, decisions.

 

[Khanht Cope]

Whichever way it goes, it comes back to the ratings. There's innumerable stuff kids aren't ready to deal with. So if there is a problem it would be more sensible to turn attention to the issue of so many parents thinking they and their kids are smarter and more mature than game ratings and game content.

 

[Nghtgnt]

I thought the Entertainment Software Association [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Association] was already the lobbying arm of the videogame industry. That's got to be a kick to the junk for them that Activision felt the need to hire its own lobbyist.

...If they conclude the opposite, then yeah, let's keep the Call of Duties out of the hands of ten-year-olds, like the ESRB already does...

That would require
1. parents to do some actual parenting
2. people and the government to allow parents to do some parenting

 

[Tien Shen]

While I have issues with certain lobby groups, this one I can approve of. For too long now have video games being the go to whipping boy for both sides of the gun control debate. The gun rights advocates like to blame video games to divert blame away from firearms and gun control advocates like to turn to blaming games when their gun control bills fail. The industry needs this and it was only a matter of time before someone said 'enough!'.

 

[Realitycrash]

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if violent video-games have a psychological impact on children.
Just like, you know, violent cartoons, or movies, or comic-books.
The problem is: Why should we single out video-games? If we crack down on the games, why not crack down on movies, or comics, or pornography? Or television in general?
And so what if they have? Aren't parents responsible for educating their children, and keeping them away from what could be harmful? If the argument goes that keeping them away from video-games is impossible, for they will play at friends, etc, so we ought to ban them, then we ought also to ban violent movies and comics, because it sure as hell is impossible to keep them away from that as well.
And then we will have a state where no-one will be able to enjoy television, or comics, or movies, because a child might gain access to it.
Unless they claim that video-games are extra harmful because they are interactive, something I find ludicrous, but good luck proving that. It still does not answer why we should not ought to ban movies - They might be less harmful than video-games (or so the argument goes), but clearly still harmful.

 

[Risingblade]

This is exactly why I don't vote.

The government of the United States is broken and rotten to the core, and has been for the better part of 70 years.

CAPTCHA: spangled banner

If only, Captcha, if only.

Doesn't that make you part of the problem?

 

[Tanakh]

Doesn't that make you part of the problem?

Not quite, because voting is not part of the solution. At worst it makes him neutral.

That said I do vote, are somewhat politically active and are not gringo.

 

[The Apple BOOM]

This is exactly why I don't vote.

The government of the United States is broken and rotten to the core, and has been for the better part of 70 years.

CAPTCHA: spangled banner

If only, Captcha, if only.

Doesn't that make you part of the problem?

It really does. The deadliest thing to happen to a benevolent government is apathy in its citizens. It's also sweet nectar for malevolent ones.

 

[prpshrt]

They can't do shit. Activision needs to chill the fuck out. Although it would be nice to see BattleCall or Field of Duty go down the crapper so they can make different games ._.