Fox News Attacks NEA for Classifying Games as Art

[Xanthious]

Whether he was an expert, a dog catcher, or some crazy guy they found under a bridge talking to a dead fish he made multiple valid points. I would go so far as to say he made a far more solid argument than the blogger that they had on arguing for video games. This isn't to say FOX News didn't come off as biased and looking poorly because they did.

The U.S. is in a bad way right now because of wasteful government spending. The taxpayers shouldn't be the ones picking up the tab for the NEA and similar organizations. If people want to support the arts, whether they be painting, music or video games, then they are free to do so. However, to force people to pay for the NEA is just another example of wasteful spending by our government.

He did make valid points. The problem is that they had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. The decision being discussed was not a court decision granting more money for art, to be given to game developers. It was a court decision deciding that the money already legally alloted (and by a Republican-dominated congress, no less) could be given to game designers as well as other forms of artists. Complaining that too much money is spent on art in general[i/] has nothing to do with what percentage of that money is being spent on what kind of art.

If he made any more valid points than "we are in a recession, and shouldn't be spending public monies on art" (paraphrased, obviously) please reference them, I'm willing to tackle this with an open mind.

He was asked how he felt about grants being given to game designers and replied that he didn't want any tax money being given to game developers, or any other artists for that matter and then went on to explain why. His explanation was that the US government is already deep in debt due to wasteful spending and the NEA is part of that wasteful government spending.

I feel what he said was very topical and a fitting response to the issue at hand. He didn't think any federal tax money should be spent on any kind of art whether it be video games or music or painting. There isn't much reason to talk about how he feels the money should be split up when he doesn't think the money should be getting spent in the first place.

 

[Emergent]

No, not really. It's pretty much accepted fact that Faux Noise lies, distorts and generally does whatever it has to to display things/people they disagree with in a bad light. Acknowledging the truth does not bias make.

You can state, to varying degrees, 'this person is lying or misrepresenting facts' without inherently biasing yourself to that fact. To be able to do so is considered a cornerstone of responsible journalism. That is not what Tom did, hence, he gave up any claims of journalistic integrity.

He may not want to be able to make such claims (as evidenced by his writing style in this and other articles), and in this case I completely agree with his opinions.

The problem is that he stated his opinions as if they were unambiguous fact - and that is not honest journalism.

 

[scorptatious]

To think my grandfather regularly watches Fox News...

I feel bad for him. And for the people who actually believe what this guy is saying.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Whether he was an expert, a dog catcher, or some crazy guy they found under a bridge talking to a dead fish he made multiple valid points. I would go so far as to say he made a far more solid argument than the blogger that they had on arguing for video games. This isn't to say FOX News didn't come off as biased and looking poorly because they did.

The U.S. is in a bad way right now because of wasteful government spending. The taxpayers shouldn't be the ones picking up the tab for the NEA and similar organizations. If people want to support the arts, whether they be painting, music or video games, then they are free to do so. However, to force people to pay for the NEA is just another example of wasteful spending by our government.

How and why is it wasteful spending? Do you agree that it's a "valid argument" to use video games as an example of how the NEA has suffered a "perversion" of its goals that makes it wasteful? Because that's the argument Loudmouth McRadio-Host was using.

EDIT: Also, it's funny how one of the arguments being made is "oh no cuts to education; totally cut the NEA instead" when one of the goals of the NEA is providing accessible education in the arts to the public. And since when has FOX cared about the evil, taxpayer-funded public education system and the evil, taxpayer-funded teachers and their commie unions?

 

[Emergent]

If he made any more valid points than "we are in a recession, and shouldn't be spending public monies on art" (paraphrased, obviously) please reference them, I'm willing to tackle this with an open mind.

I feel what he said was very topical and a fitting response to the issue at hand. He didn't think any federal tax money should be spent on any kind of art whether it be video games or music or painting. He was asked how he felt about grants being given to game designers and replied that he didn't want any tax money being given to game developers, or any other artists for that matter and then went on to explain why. His explanation was that the US government is already deep in debt due to wasteful spending and the NEA is part of that wasteful government spending.

Okay, so we agree that the single valid point he made is that "the government is in debt." The problem with him making that point is that, in the context of the debate, it is a Red Herring, or at the very least a non sequitor. It may indeed be true that the government is giving too much money to the NEA - but that has no bearing on what the NEA is doing with that money. They already have it. The debate isn't about how much money the NEA should receive, it's about how that money should be distributed.

 

[Emergent]

EDIT: Also, it's funny how one of the arguments being made is "oh no cuts to education; totally cut the NEA instead" when one of the goals of the NEA is providing accessible education in the arts to the public. And since when has FOX cared about the evil, taxpayer-funded public education system and the evil, taxpayer-funded teachers and their commie unions?

Damn you, I was getting to that. lol

 

[KirbyKrackle]

EDIT: Also, it's funny how one of the arguments being made is "oh no cuts to education; totally cut the NEA instead" when one of the goals of the NEA is providing accessible education in the arts to the public. And since when has FOX cared about the evil, taxpayer-funded public education system and the evil, taxpayer-funded teachers and their commie unions?

Damn you, I was getting to that. lol

Oops, sorry! Your arguments are much better articulated than mine too.

That was for me the funniest part of the entire segment though.

 

[Xanthious]

How and why is it wasteful spending? Do you agree that it's a "valid argument" to use video games as an example of how the NEA has suffered a "perversion" of its goals that makes it wasteful? Because that's the argument Loudmouth McRadio-Host was using.

How is it wasteful? It's wasteful because right now America is collecting more tax money than they have at any other point in time. However, even though we are collecting massive amounts of money we are still spiraling further and further into debt as a country. The NEA is small when you consider the much larger waste from things like military spending and foreign aid but it is still part of the problem none-the-less.

It shouldn't be the government's place to force people into supporting the arts. I for one, don't want to support the arts, however, I am forced to against my will when my taxes go to organizations like the NEA. The people who wish to support the arts should do so with private donations or other such funding while the government stays out of it.

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

This is so aggravating because of the point the article makes at the end. Normally, groups like the Westboro Baptist Church or annoying YouTube vloggers can be ignored because, at the end of the day, no one cares about their cries for attention. But people listen to Fox News (and CNN and other news sites) and don't ask for more information. They believe everything they are told...and then lies like this get propagated.

Its infuriating (also, its my birthday...come on, Fox, you couldn't say something nice in honor of this special occasion?).

 

[Emergent]

Oops, sorry! Your arguments are much better articulated than mine too.

That was for me the funniest part of the entire segment though.

Don't worry, you nailed it.

 

[team star pug]

If pong is just a game, then the Mona Lisa is just some paint on cloth and wood.

 

[Merkavar]

i just dont understand how fox news isnt breaking some sort of broadcast or news regulations.

the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that ?rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.?

doesnt fox news distort the news every day.

 

[Avatar Roku]

All games are art and ignorance of this only causes more confusion for people on the outside looking in.

Grand Theft Auto. Duke Nukem. That school shooting mod game. The Conker series. Twisted Metal. Mortal Kombat. Ninjabread Man. God of War. Most of the Movie Tie-in games out there.

You're really going to try to classify all those kinds of games as art?

I can keep going if you need me to.

Yes, there are games I would not say are art. But that is true of every medium. Would you say pornography is art because it is a subset of film? Or that trashy romance novels are art because they are a subset of literature? Of course not. That doesn't mean that you can disregard an entire medium. Sturgeon's Law always applies.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Did you watch the same video as me? The moderator of the debate correctly identified Neil Asbury as a radio talk show host, no one was identified as an "expert", so I'm curious as to why you put that word in quotations.

I'll take the bait. I put "expert" in quotes because he isn't one, as you pointed out.

But no one claimed he was an expert. It's a non-quote because no one said it.

If you bring in a person to debate, the expectation is that he is an expert, or at least somewhat well versed, in what is being discussed. Otherwise, that is deceitful, as viewers will give his words the same weight as an actual expert. Remember the whole thing with Cooper Lawrence during the Mass Effect fiasco on fox?

 

[conflictofinterests]

once again fox news gets the equivalent of thousands in free advertising by running offensive material and having angry people post their nonsensical dribble all over the web


with fox "news" mediums the best thing to do is ignore them, and they will literally die.

Normal people ignoring them isn't going to do anything
It's the fucktards that need to ignore

 

[Emergent]

But no one claimed he was an expert. It's a non-quote because no one said it.

That isn't a coherent argument. I don't even know what "It's a non-quote" means (and I bet neither does anyone else), and other than the fact that the sentence can be structured in a way as to appear to refute something I didn't actually claim it's pretty irrelevant to the discussion. No one claimed he was an expert. That's the point. That's why I put it the word "expert" in quotes (to do otherwise would be disingenuous).

All you've succeeded to do so far is point out that it was, indeed, accurate of me to only refer to him as an expert ironically.

The issue isn't whether or not he is or is not an expert (that one's self-evident), the issue is why he was chosen to represent his side of the argument. If he isn't some sort of authority on the issue, well, why is he talking again? On national television? About something no one will admit he knows anything substantial about? In a debate with an actual expert on the subject matter?

The most likely conclusion is that it's because his opinions support those of the network's leadership.

Why not? They invited a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. In a debate, it your responsibility to stop someone who's acting like an ass and tell them to get a fucking clue.

That's just your viewpoint, though. Other people might say he had a valid point, that our tax dollars shouldn't go towards video games. It's an economic argument and there's nothing wrong with that.

Oh, feel free to disagree with him, but that doesn't mean his opinion shouldn't be heard.

Thing is, it's an economic argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand. They were ostentatiously there to discuss the merits of including videogames to the list of projects the NEA will consider funding with the money they are already allotted by a Republican-dominated Congress.

The erroneous conclusion his argument is intended to draw the viewer to is that including videogames into the list of NEA applications will somehow cost tax payers more money, and that is blatantly false and purposely misleading.