Just the older generation who, pardon my bluntness, are dying out. I don't know anybody under 40 who believes a word on that channel. And whose gonna be in charge in about 10 years? Not the dead ones.Kayden said:
EA Responds to Fox News Bulletstorm Allegations
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Lets just say, for my family, during the 2008 election, we mostly watched it on the colbert/stewart special. For shits and giggles, when we were totaly sure who was going to win, we turned to Fox. Everyone there was glaring out into space with a disgruntled look on their face. We all cracked up imediatly.
the idea that violent games make people rapists and killers is not new and its also completely unfounded. All evidence points to the opposite that violent games actually decrease violence in young people but facts have no place on fox news. And they will continue to make these claims no matter what you do.So dont bother responding to them it wont make a difference
Christ, calm down. Psychotic much? Fox must mean a lot to you.Atomysk said:
Right, Fox News is totally innocent. I can see the editing office chatter now...
"Hey Jerry, should we include a little disclaimer saying that rape crime has gone down?"
"Nah Steve. Let's leave it as the only comment regarding the situation and not include anything refuting it at all. After all, we know for a fact that it's a blatant lie but it looks so right where it is."
I think the main reason everyone is annoyed about it is that if it was someone's opinion, then it wouldn't matter as much (although they should really make an effort to find the several thousand psychologists they could probably pull off the street who'd argue a sliiightly different viewpoint than the one they knew full well dislikes videogames). But this DOES - because she's just said something that's blatantly a lie and factually untrue and Fox has thought "Fuck it. Let's include it and broadcast it to millions." Can you really NOT accuse Fox of unprofessional journalism for including a 'professional' opinion most are likely to trust at verbatim when it is, in fact, completely unfounded and untrue and a quick google search by one of the biggest news companies in the world would refute it? I can.
They reported it as fact. They did not pull the quote for being completely wrong that therefore means that they reported it to be an increasing. You can find an expert to say anything you want it still doesn't change that you are reporting it.(if anything it makes what your reporting seem more credible despite it being wrong)Atomysk said:
The best part about all of this, is that we can clearly see Fox has finally run out of steam completely, and is now looking for fights they obviously can't win just for attention.
/owned for Fox.
/owned for Fox.
As others have pointed out, Fox News granted her their imprimatur by putting her on the air. That means they stand by her statement, unless they contrast her opinion with that of another expert or provide facts refuting her statement. In other words, by airing her statements Fox implies that her opinions have a basis worth considering. (If they didn't think that her views had merit, why did Fox air them in the first place?)Atomysk said:
Actually "fair and balanced" coverage would include a real examination of the statistics, discussion of her qualifications in the field of behaviour modification or sexual behaviour, and a reality-check or two. It'd have been nice if they'd also discussed the existing measures taken to ensure that children aren't exposed to age-inappropriate content (ESRB ratings) and how they are working better than movie ratings do.
-- Steve
So if I say "Jimmy told me that Scott took my brownie!" What fact am I reporting? Even if I KNOW Jimmy actually took my brownie, am I reporting a FACT that Scott took it? No I'm reporting what Jimmy said. Also in case you aren't completely stupid, you can't actually refute her statement, because there is no context for it. She did not say that rape was on the rise nationally, or for any particular state, she never gave actual parameters for where this increase in rape and for how long a time this increase was. This was not a back and forth interview, the reporter was not argueing anyone's point for or against what they said.direkiller said:
Like I told someone else, I'm glad it was reported what she said, I'm glad that they named the source of who said it, and I'm glad the ****'s books got Amazonbombed. However, these writers are doing worse what they are accusing Fox News of doing they are purposefully, and blatantly lying about what was said and by whom.
That's not journalism, that's gossip. Real news goes beyond simply puking back whatever rumours or wild claims are made without comment.Atomysk said:
Real journalism, the kind that requires an education and work, involves not just parroting back whatever's been heard. It involves talking with sources (note plural) and comparing their sources to see where the stories are consistant and where they conflict. It involves researching your sources to see if they're credible, and checking the facts in their stories to make certain there aren't mistakes or outright lies.
The fact that Fox News doesn't do this in so many of their stories brings their whole organisation into disrepute; the fact that other news outlets don't keep pointing this out brings them into disrepute too.
I don't want to watch a talking-head blogger with good hair when I sit down to watch the news. I want news that I can trust.
(Where is our Murrow? Where is our Cronkite? We can't even measure up to Peter Jennings these days.)
-- Steve
PS: death to the colonospastic monkeys generating reCaptchas
The only reason they're still going is their shows. No one trusts their news anymore. At least, no one intelligent enough to matter.Booze Zombie said:
Dude. Movies, comics and even radio went through the same exact shit. We just gotta ride out the storm until people, like you said, finally realize that the ESRB actually exists and learn what each rating means.Talson said:
Well clearly Fox news needs to learn more about children. The only kids that care about non-CoD clones are the ones that are already too far into the nerd zone to ever get a chance at rape (or want to, for that matter). Bulletstorm has been clearly marketed to manchildren (that's not to say that a mature person can't enjoy it, just that's where the marketing is directed), not actual children. Now if they wanted a game that has an inappropriate marketing problem, they could have taken an easy shot at Dead Space 2. Of course then someone might realize that its campaign was just a failed joke.
At least EA's not being complacent. Farce or not, this kind of statement is an outrage and some people will take it seriously.
At least EA's not being complacent. Farce or not, this kind of statement is an outrage and some people will take it seriously.
Really, either read the article yourself, which was never AIRED anywhere, and is less than a page long or shut the fuck up. It sites sources on both sides makes mention of legal action being taken to try and regulate games in California. How is it gossip to ask a psychiatrist for comment on an issue and tell the world what she said? Do I need to give you the definition of gossip? Gossip would be a retard reading said article and then reposting that "Fox News Says Bulletstorm Could Make You a Rapist " or "The newsgroup is reporting psychologist Carol Lieberman's outlandish claims as pure fact."Anton P. Nym said:
In no way shape or form is the absence of refutation confirm an agreeing, or condoning of statement. Only truly stupid, or insane people would think that people who don't say anything against their opinion/stupidity AGREE with them! Go back to school and slap every single teacher you have, they have failed you utterly and totally in teaching you reason and logical processing.
If I start a website that has nothing but headlines like "Atomysk: child abuser? This psychologist that's been consulted by me on several other topics thinks so" and panels with people that work for me going "Listen, I'm not saying Atomysk abuses kids all the time. We don't know that for 100% sure. It could be true, and it could also not be true, maybe", then published somewhere in the fine print that this is all unfounded, would you be fine with that?Atomysk said:
While you are comparing apples to oranges; the reputation of a media/art work to that of a person. Much more to the point even your hypothetical arguments that Atomysk MIGHT be a child molester is a far cry from saying Atomysk IS a child molester. If the reporter does not side with a psychiatrist that THINKS or asserts that Atomysk IS a child molester in her opinion, and gives NO basis for this whatsoever you are saying that the reporter is equally to blame for the slanderous accusation of said psychiatrist. However Bulletstorm IS a violent, crass video game, it would be more accurate to compare that child molesters increase the occurrences of bank fraud.ark123 said:
You are trying to equate maybes with definites, Bulletstorm is a definitely a violent video game. Violent video games influence young gamers that have not fully formed there objective mind, the ability to distinguish fully what reality is. This is why the ESRB rating system exists, and why parents should be mindful of what their children play. It is not Fox News that asserts that violent video games are run amuck warping the minds of the youth with no accountability or regulation.
However the reality of the article in question is that only one person is responsible for their words and that is the person that says them. It is my hope that Carol Lieberman has trouble finding work in media for making outlandish and absurd claims. I find it equally absurd that someone would say that this was reported as FACT when it was a quote, as in I past a man on the street today and he said,"The sky is blood." If I don't refute him I apparently am asserting his comment as fact. This is a ludicrous and insane stance to take, no reasonable mind on the planet would argue that a 0 = 1 AKA that a lack of refute or a 0 is equal to agreeing to a statement or opinion or a 1. The argument is literally based on NOTHING.
I was suspended for 3 days for pointing out the hypocrisy of multiple authors at "The Escapist" that in one hand are railing against Fox News for running an article in which it quotes Lieberman, and in the very same breathe LIE bold faced and without remorse about what the article asserts and whom asserts it. I wasn't respecting the content, or the persons that wrote said content, I really don't care if I get banned from a site that prints such hypocritical BS. It just shows how hypocritical the staff truly is, it takes advantage of freedom of speech in this country to strike out slanderously against those it does not agree with and then turns around and says "my forums my rules, shut your mouth naysayers!" Welkum to the new Amerika komrade!! Hail the Nationalist Socialist Worker's Party of The Escapist!!!