Fox News Attacks NEA for Classifying Games as Art

[Flying Dagger]

It's so funny to watch these. I hope I get to go on one of these one day, I'd give them a taste of their own medecine, hyperbole, incredulity and character assassination. Debating is fun.

 

[pwnzerstick]

Notice how that the entire fox side of that interview was a strawman argument that totaly missed the point, oh wait thats all of their interviews.

 

[-|-]

Wow. I totally did not see this coming! *Sarcasm sphere self test complete*

But you can't say Fox didn't give both men an equal chance to voice their opinions.

There are lots of posts like this. But really, it amazes me that anyone can think this. Fox knows how to create and control a narrative; it frames the debate such that it's own agenda is the one that is prominent. Anyone who knows anything about basic discourse can see how transparent Fox are in this regard. You may agree with their extreme socially conservative view point - but don't be stupid enough to think they are balanced.

 

[Therumancer]

What's more constantly going after Fox News for sensationalizing (that's what it does, all news organizations do), doesn't exactly help matters. To be honest there might very well come a time when Fox might be inclined to back us up, but won't if it feels the need to remain in a state of enimity with video gamers. That was one of the problems with PnP RPGs, a lot of the enemies the community made were so invested in the fight that they refused to concede any point on principle. That's something we need to avoid.

You're operating under the assumption that Fox is going to be conciliatory at all, in any way, shape, or form. Given their track record, especially the past few years, I'm very doubtful of that. Even when they've been called out for having bad information they've still refused to acknowledge it, regardless of the topic.

I get that as a conservative it's tempting to be more understanding of similar viewpoints, but I think you're projecting here. You're being rational with solid ideas, but they aren't providing any of that - lately they've been descending into rants that provide little to no information and just sensationalize matters while being completely dismissive of the opposition. For there to be any chance of a meeting of minds both sides have to come with an open mind and when news outlets go off the wall on ideological rants like this that completely eliminates any chance for that to happen. You saw it yourself - the rant this time was against wasteful government spending and had little to do with the topic at hand, focusing instead on toeing the typical ideological lines. No debate, no discussion, no room for expansion and growth of conservative ideology and its application to the issue being brought to light.

It all just comes off as hateful, reactionary drivel in order to garner more attention, and it's completely reasonable that game fans/journalists/professionals would react in the way that they do.

Well, "bad information" is typically "information I don't agree with". One of the problems with the country right now is that things are politically deadlocked with neither side willing to see the position of the other side. Everyone is basically acting like Adam Sandler claiming that "everyone is dumber for hearing what you just said". While both the left and right wings claim to have a majority, the reality is that the country is pretty much split 50-50 and the biggest political victory in the presidential election we've seen in recent years is Obama pulling a 7% lead last time around. Even on a local and state level ridiculous numbers of elections come down to people counting single ballots and demanding recounts and so on.

Fox news gets nailed because it presents the right wing side of things, as opposed to the left wing side of things. It's not wrong any more than say CNN, which gets the same criticism from the right wing. Albiet one of the ways power is divided right now is that the left wing has more media control, so as a result it's criticisms of what Fox says tend to be a lot more numerous and more widely circulated than what right wingers might say about what CNN says. Both sides sit there and pretty much go "humph" with their feet crossed, while making jokes about the other side's presentation of being "fair and balanced" (given that it's universal for news organizations).

In this case I'm not defending Fox news because it's Fox news, but because I think people are reading a lot more into their method of sensationalizing the debate because of their own political bias. Heck, if this was another news program it would be getting hit the same way by the other side. Overall Fox did absolutly NOTHING to sway or side with either position, both guys got to say their piece, nobody got cut off unfairly, you didn't have the "mediator" obviously siding with one guy or the other, it was pretty straightforward. The only real criticism you can make fairly is that the sensationalism was more interesting than the debate itself. Both of the guys were basically mental furballs. "our guy" did nothing but quote general press hype that you could have gotten from the simple annoucement of games being accepted as art, and the "other guy" seemed to have no strong feelings on games one way or another, other than he didn't think that the goverment should be spending more money on the arts right now, games seemingly just being the target because it was the latest example of goverment waste. Neither of these guys had much to say. Argueing that these guys are "off the hook" because they only had 4 minutes (which some people seem to do) is kind of silly, because I doubt either of these guys just had a microphone shoved under their mouth, they were apparently approached for the segement, and Fox had time to get all their stuff to generate hype lined up. This was just flat out, a terrible debate.

 

[Numb1lp]

Wow. I totally did not see this coming! *Sarcasm sphere self test complete*

But you can't say Fox didn't give both men an equal chance to voice their opinions.

There are lots of posts like this. But really, it amazes me that anyone can think this. Fox knows how to create and control a narrative; it frames the debate such that it's own agenda is the one that is prominent. Anyone who knows anything about basic discourse can see how transparent Fox are in this regard. You may agree with their extreme socially conservative view point - but don't be stupid enough to think they are balanced.

THEY are not balanced, but they gave both men an equal opportunity. You can't blame one for being more charasmatic than the other (even if he was crazy). If you want to hear your ideals praised, go watch MSNBC. Fox (as long as it isn't an actual newscast) can push whatever agenda they want.

 

[Therumancer]

*snip*

On the headline: I think we're both agreeing it's spin, but then have radically different views on the value, maybe even legality, of spin, which is good enough for me. If I read you right, you think the government will make "substantially less" money from the games industry, by virtue of massive numbers of individual game developers donating their time to charity. To put it mildly, Gabe Newell and "a lot of people like him" are fantastically successful businessmen. On that virtue alone they have been able to "donate their time" for all sorts of tax-exempt activities for quite some time already.

When you reference the availability of kits to produce games from, you seem to have forgot about the big drive to mobile games, social games, and other, much less "technically" advanced products that have come to challenge, then overwhelm the AAA industry. The barrier to entry to game design is at it's lowest point, ever. If the government loses any revenue from taxes it's a good bet that strengthening one of it's most promising domestic industries will more than make up for it.

I tend to disagree, because one of the big issues with taxation in general is that taxing a bunch of little businesses, does not equal taxing a few big ones. Hence the constant fight over "tax breaks for the rich" and the various deals cut for or around big business to prevent them from outright putting money into the hands of the goverment. I do not think a ton of indie developers in any way equals the amount of money to be made by taxing large AAA game developers.

What's more I haven't researched it heavily, but I do not think big game companies have really been giving much to charities. I admit I haven't followed it closely, but I don't think I've ever seen anything about say Bobby Kotick writing a ten million dollar check to a Children's hospital or whatever on behalf of EA. Little things here and there, but nothing that even seems like it would add up. I pick on Gabe only because he's got STEAM which puts him in a similar catagory to EA in my mind, and again while I vaguely remember seeing things about portions of STEAM sales going to charity at specific times, I don't remember ever seeing Gabe cut a charity a check for millions. On the other hand, right now either of these guys could use art to justify the donation of time or development tools valued at tens of millions for "artistic use" as being tax deductable. I mean heck, if Gabe let art students put their games up on STEAM totally for free and simply ate the cost of them being there, that would be a huge tax write off (to my knowlege he currently does not do this).


I'll also be honest in saying that I do not think these "micro games" are all that big a deal, they are just a short term trend. We simply see a lot of these games being positioned at a time when we have the lowest human denominator coming into the market all at once, and having few standards because they don't know better. Even the lowest human denominator DOES learn however, and what's more while right now this level of development is open to basement developers it's only a matter of time before Big Business finally sinks it's pincers into it and changes everything, heck it's already doing it. Remember toda's big businesses are yesterday's basement developers themselves.

See, what's going to happen is that as these systems pick up power big business is going to increasingly be involved to create games of increasing sophistication for those platforms. The success of things like say "Angry Birds" is largely dependant on what else it's up against. As the systems become more powerful and development approaches the level of dedicated portable gaming systems, three guys in Mom's attic aren't going to be able to produce a product that fully uses the new system to it's power. They aren't going to be able to compete with professional artists and coders who will be churning out AAA games on this platform. Angry Birds is big in it's league, but would it be as successful if say the "Monster Hunter" series was running against it directly right from the beginning?

In short all these indie guys are going to get bought out or squashed, just like any other industry. If these developing mediums actually ARE developing, then it simply means that they will wind up as platforms for more "AAA" development, nothing stays indie forever.

It's like how you might compared computer games in general based on time frame, look at the PC games in the 1980s and early 1990s to the games today. Looking at the market then you could have said "hey, look video gaming is a haven for all these little businesses and indie artists". Isn't that Jobs/Gates team working out of their basement and actally making a living so cuuuuute? What a nice little industry. Well... now look at the industry, reality hit it. If anything reality is going to hit the devs we're looking at now even harder because it's a spin off industry, rather than a genuine new fronteir. Companies like Zynga actually accelrated the process, as they are outwardly one of those "small pocket developers" to those who look at their work out of context, but are a soulless corperate godzilla to anyone who actually looks at gaming as a business. I doubt someone's grandma clicking away at Farmville knows half of what is beyond Zynga that your average person on these forums do. While they might not get to that level right now, none of these guys are going to remain small, or even care about their fans and users. One day, and probably sooner than we think, we're going to be looking at the indie creators of the moment, calling them (rightfully) sell outs, and getting the rock-music "we don't owe you anything" middle finger just like we see with other developers right now. Among them, unknown to us all, are probably the guys who will be the Steve Jobs and Bill Gates of the upcoming generation. The guys who will become big in this developing medium, replace the old guys, and laugh at us from atop their thrones made of money.

The point here being that I don't think there is any "small developer frontier" that is going to remain there forever.

Don't get the wrong impression, I don't totally agree with "that guy" who was argueing against games as an art form for financial reasons, I'm just saying there are some legitimate points there to look at. Of course at the same time, I think that there were goverment bean counters involved in deciding to accept games as art, if for no other reason than goverment bean counters are involved in everything. They basically decided that the pros outweighted the cons. Sure there are legitimate arguements to be made here, but in the end it doesn't much matter because the desician has been made. I think we're in for some problems, but in the end it won't be that big a deal and everything will sort itself out.

 

[A Gent of Villainous Intent]

Nowhere is it ever acknowledged that Call of Duty and games like it are not going to receive taxpayer dollars. The intent of the segment seems as if it was meant to take a dig at the current leaders of the U.S. government using factually incorrect information and an over-animated critic, rather than a look at what's actually occurring in reality.

Actually, (didn't read the entire topic so I don't know if this was noticed), but at around 00:56 during the video, Brian says that no triple A games would get funding.

 

[Groundchuck]

Fox News, GTFO

 

[vikeif]

Wow. I totally did not see this coming! *Sarcasm sphere self test complete*

But you can't say Fox didn't give both men an equal chance to voice their opinions.

There are lots of posts like this. But really, it amazes me that anyone can think this. Fox knows how to create and control a narrative; it frames the debate such that it's own agenda is the one that is prominent. Anyone who knows anything about basic discourse can see how transparent Fox are in this regard. You may agree with their extreme socially conservative view point - but don't be stupid enough to think they are balanced.

I think it was sarcastic, bud.

Edit: nope I was wrong... *le sigh*

 

[mikev7.0]

Get a drink, watch Fox News, and take a sip every time they lie, blow something out of proportion, or use strawman attacks. My record was 20 minutes conscious.

You must have Herculean alcohol tolerance levels.

Awwwww! You missed the great Dwarven bit! See folks, this is why you read the whole thread! Seriously, go back and read it it's a great bit!

 

[mikev7.0]

Fox didn't do anything wrong, they had a debate. Your ire should be directed at the dude who was arguing against video games as art, not FNC itself.

Then you've obviously never seen Fox News.

This is basic Fox News you're seeing, they grab a bunch of over-bearing, loudmouth critics, and seek out the weakest debater for the topic they are against. Now that latter part doesn't always come out to be true, but it doesn't matter. They allow the critic full reign to steer the conversation wherever they please, and even encourage them to talk over the other. They have zero interest in any real debate.

Go watch the "debate" they had over Mass Effect 1's "Graphical, full-frontal nudity sex scenes". And yes, that is exactly what Fox News labeled it, not their chosen critic, who they also chose because she wanted to sell more of her books, and has never even heard of Mass Effect.

edit:
Xanth I do get what you're saying, but with how much the US government spends on military alone, you could probably fun at least 10 NEAs substantially. The costs for the last few wars are ungodly high, and part of it is just overspending. We pay the most in the world, if I remember correctly, on our military, and an absurdly higher amount than anyone else at that. We can afford to cut military funding.
Oh, and big corporations too. Why should we give Mr. Trump a massive tax break, he doesn't need it.

I was waiting for somebody to bring that up, and I think you're right, no offense to our defender, but I'd rather see that shining ball of bluster take on Moviebob but no one who has ever heard even one of his rants would ever put him in even a Fox News "Fair and balanced" debate. I wonder how they picked who would represent being pro NEA grants for educational games? I agree with you that they seem to have a knack for picking an advocate that's going to say "uh and um" a lot once in the lion's den.

 

[mikev7.0]

i wasn't sure about the stipulations for receiving federal funding, but i'm glad they were cleared up. the way i see it, games aren't purely art. they are a unique medium in that they combine things generally considered art, like storytelling, visuals and cut scenes, with, well, a game. games in general have never been considered art. it's kind of funny to think about it, really, that video games can trace their heritage from literature, visual art, film, and games ranging from battleship to tag.

See? Something like this is what our pro video game representative should have been pointing out. Or that Tetris was invented as a way to give lab assistants something to do that was intellectually productive while they waited for the results of complicated tests. (and he thought that attempting to test pre-cognitive thought patterns would be interesting.) Or that the first video games were strictly educational and created by scientists not business people. There are so many positive points that he could have made and didn't and his last sentance was so awful it was hard to watch. He completely lost me right there. That was an um too far.

 

[Calbeck]

In a display of manipulative journalism...Fox News attempts to debate

Perhaps you missed it in Journalism 101, but "debate" is part of the same "commentary" side of news that's been in your local newspaper since forever...and on cable news networks ever since commentary shows became popular.

They don't fall under the nom de plume journalism, nor its rules...and never have.

Instead, categorize it (and all the same kinds of shows from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Comedy Central, ad nauseum) as "those who take this seriously deserve to".

 

[-|-]

THEY are not balanced, but they gave both men an equal opportunity. You can't blame one for being more charasmatic than the other (even if he was crazy). If you want to hear your ideals praised, go watch MSNBC. Fox (as long as it isn't an actual newscast) can push whatever agenda they want.

Go read about a little about discourse analysis. Seriously,

 

[RatRace123]

I really want to post a rage filled rant about why I absolutely hate FOX news, but I've already said it before. Everyone's said it.

They're not fair and balanced, they're barely a news channel, they are evil. There's no hiding it anymore, they're evil, plain and simple.
I'm not saying that out of anger, but as a fact: FOX news is evil.

OK, that might possibly be hyperbole, but as a gamer, it's very clear that FOX just loves to attack our chosen hobby and everyone who enjoys it. They paint with a broad brush, describing us all as violent, mentally unbalanced monsters.
Frankly I'm tired of it, I'm really really tired of it.

 

[KezzieZ]

Well, I should've known Fox News would be along to foul up my mood again.

I noticed that in the article here it's pointed out that the debate shown was either ignorant or intentionally manipulative. I'm of the opinion that it's intentionally ignorant. Since when has Fox ever had anything decent, or even true, to say about video games?

Any time I think of Fox doing their so-called "fair an balanced" reporting, I'm reminded of their baseless attack on Mass Effect. You know, the one where they said the game is a rape simulator that's like "Star Wars meets Debbie Does Dallas"? Those charlatans will never earn my respect.

 

[Demitri Kamoraz]

I would argue that however much that bald shouty guy gets paid in a year is total waste, and America should save its money. His very first argument was along the lines of "there are too many people without jobs", to which the big geek guys counter was "this is how you make jobs"...Is he really a professional radio host, or just someone they found on the street shouting at a parking meter?

If you've ever heard his 'show', you'd see he is leaning towards the random guy shouting at a parking meter side of the radar.

 

[bomblord]

One guy said blatant facts then the other said video games are like ping pong and obama's raising our taxes to pay for video games I mean seriously how is this even related to the subject at hand they also gave a lot more screen time to the man on the right for him to spout nothing but hate and try to make people think they're taxes are being raised to pay for the next call of duty. The news reporter even said that its going to call of Duty and showed images from that games most violent scenes almost all the way through it

 

[LarenzoAOG]

Is there ANYTHING Fox News likes?

White male upper-middle-class christian right-wing conservative republican set-in-their-ways fear/hate mongering ignorant... people.

I think that about sums it up, but then again I only watch Fox News while waiting in the pharmacy because it the only thing on that damn TV and they won't change it, so that might just be my outsider's view of it.

 

[Do4600]

Of course they attacked the NEA for considering video games as art. Bashing video games is at least 30% of what FOX news uses to fill time when literally NOTHING "reportable" is happening in the world. If video games are art they just look even more like assholes for bashing it.