Fox News Attacks NEA for Classifying Games as Art
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
... That video was so biased, it wasn't even funny.Ace IV said:
They showed clips of Mario and CoD while he was talking about indie games, while on the other side, they only showed video supporting his point.
Also note how that was very clearly not a debate. The talk show host made no points that weren't part of the question itself and proceeded to attack the government, specifically president Obama, rather than his opponent, who didn't attack any of his points.
As to the neutrality of the host, watch how he addresses each speaker. His dialogue with stressed words in bold:
"Should the videogame Call of Duty get federal funding?" (that one you already know about)
"That's a question for the federal government who is now considering giving taxpayer money to videogame makers in the name of art and education." Not the greatest offense coming from this report, but a notable one nonetheless, stressing the connection between game devs and federal money, with no distinction over which type of developer. Excusable.
"Is this a good use of your cash?" This one deserves a line of its own because the question itself is biased towards one side, without giving the other. If say, he said "Is this a waste of your cash or a natural expansion of the arts?" or some such, it would have been far less biased.
"Joining me for a fair and balanced debate are Brian Ambrossi, the editor-in-chief of icrontic.com, a gaming, technology and geek lifestyle community and radio talkshow host, Niel Asburg. Good morning to you both." The first issue is saying that there will be no bias on his part whatsoever, promising that the host's opinion is one of complete neutrality. Fine if it were true, but listen to him say geek a moment later. This is completely fair, just one side is cooler than the other. It's not the word, it's the way he stresses it, then following with giving Asburg complete credibility.
"Brian, when you think of videogames, you do think of Calll of Duty and Grand theft auto and the like; exactly who would be getting these taxpayer dollars and why?" This is better, though the host does draw reference to two of the most infamous games in the public eye.
"Why?" That was just after Ambrosi's explanation. A complete explanation. "Money goes to indie developers making artistic and educational games." That is why. That brought down his point for no reason.
"mmhmm" as Mario was going and Ambrossi was talking about devs being artists. It's just the sarcasm of it that bugs me.
"Well, let's bring in Niel. Niel, are vieogames a valid form of art and should they get taxpayer dollars? We're talking about between ten and two hudred thousand dollars per grant." Oh shit, that's a lot of money. this is by far the worst offense. It started off okay, then went south as soon as he mentioned what comes to a hell of a lot of money. That's the maximum grant. Does he know how much development costs? How much other people get? How much money will actually be given? Nope.
"The National Endowment for the arts. Brian, that's the question: in these tight economic times, where we're making cuts, cutting teachers, should things like this be the first to go? Have they outlived their original purpose?" There were different original purposes to a lot of things that are better now because they changed, but that's not the point. The point is that the host once more takes Asburg's side and never actually even evaluates Ambrossi's opinion.
"Niel, a quick last word?" Actually, that wasn't a problem at all, I just thought I should put the whole thing in.
Then he does the "let us know what you think on twitter line" and there's nothing wrong with that, either.
That, while running anti-art game subtitles (or whatever those are called) all the way through.
There is subtlety in media bias. This is far from it. It was less subtle than a cow with machine guns strapped to its back walking through a sopping mall while singing Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". I admit to being incredibly biased myself, but this was fairly obvious. Either you're a fox fan or barely caring in the slightest, but you cannot call this unbiased.
All in all a complete disgrace, but then what do you expect of Fox?
Where the fuck is the 'reset' button on life? Seriously, we need something like that. Oh well, guess a pistol and a list of FOX staff will have to do...
What we need are people on the other side of the debate willing to turn the volume up to eleven. Where was the Khandar vet getting in the face of the armchair general saying who was saying that his story shouldn't be told through a video game? Konami should have got a retired drill sargent to turn the piles of blubber into blubbering piles. In situations like this the only way to fight irrationality and volume is with irrationality and volume because reason doesn't work; it gets waved aside.
The debate could have gone the other way if Ambrozy had just channeled his nerd rage (show me a fat nerd with no nerd rage and I'll show you a lobotomy survivor) the minute Asbury mentioned Call Of Duty and called him out on not even skimming over the bare bones of the matter, so why didn't FOX just pull someone from the street?!
Unless it wasn't a live debate.
The debate could have gone the other way if Ambrozy had just channeled his nerd rage (show me a fat nerd with no nerd rage and I'll show you a lobotomy survivor) the minute Asbury mentioned Call Of Duty and called him out on not even skimming over the bare bones of the matter, so why didn't FOX just pull someone from the street?!
Unless it wasn't a live debate.
What's this about Fox News and Mormons? As far as I know, the Mormon church has little to do with Mr. Murdoch's tv stations.Metalhandkerchief said:
I don't think fox news should be called news. it is an article about art in games and all they show is cod BO one of the least artistic games. they could of at least shown halo reach. there are plenty of games out there with unique art direction's like mirrors edge and borderlands. they did not show indie games like amnesia. neither of the people backed up there arguments with facts. the person representing games did not even reference any artistic games. and the other person sounded like an ignorant politician. Games have a large amount of art in them. just look at portal 2, built on a dated engine (source engine 2004 modified) and it looks better than many games built on more powerful engines because of it's art.
Oh come on, Fox wasn't that bad. Sure, they used CoD and that's so far away from artistic.. The airport segment in MW2 wasn't bad so far as "showing the horrors of war" goes, but off topic.
But the person arguing that the NEA did the right thing didn't argue it very well at all.
"Well in the games development process you have several artists creating something which can only be called art". Wtf is that? The talk show host argued like a talk show host. Loud and louder. Doesn't necessarily know anything, but that isn't a requirement of his job.
You would need people like.. There's this "game", forget who made it. Some people in England, where you can walk around and interact with people in Shakespeare's settings. Forget what it's called, but a quick search gives me links to Arden: The World of William Shakespeare and http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/mar/30/arts.artsnews .
Or that medical training segment in Americas Army which gave someone the knowledge on how to save someones life.
Projects like that, educational and instructional tools would be getting the grants. The games as art argument should include titles like Ico, Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, Nikopol: Secrets of the Immortals, Blueberry Garden. Something that creates a story or brings a world to life, does more than just "Here's a gun, here's an enemy, last man standing wins". Using a comparison of John Zorn to Beyonce for example, art for arts sake and popular entertainment respectively when the talk show host said "I was a music major". If he accepts that music is in the arts then games can be too.
Or "Grants like these will fund small developers who are creating games that will help schools, doctors, thus keeping a segment of the arts industry employed doing something useful for the nation.". There's a trading card game http://phylogame.org/classification/virus/ that helps doctors remember the symptoms to viruses. You could structure a video game the same way, build a game where you're a white blood cell seeking out and removing viruses to show people how your immune system works.
Not just "Video games will get funded". To be brutally honest, the talk show host was right to argue against funding as it seems that not even someone who claims to represent gamers (Like this website for instance) is capable of giving a decent reason as to why games can be art, games can be educational.
One last thing before I stop ranting, way back when games were at the mercy of the government, the video game companies in the USA got together and created a ratings system, they enforced this system, and that's what every other system in the world seems to be based on. Why can't gaming websites, companies, etc get together and make these grants themselves? Show that the industry has some depth to it instead of being parlor tricks and cheap makeup.
Or you know, we could just blast Fox News for being "biased" by hosting a debate and NOT EVER GIVING OUT A POSITION ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.
I call OP libel, manipulative and uninformed drivel. Same goes for this site.
EDIT:
Because I can't close "'s -.-
But the person arguing that the NEA did the right thing didn't argue it very well at all.
"Well in the games development process you have several artists creating something which can only be called art". Wtf is that? The talk show host argued like a talk show host. Loud and louder. Doesn't necessarily know anything, but that isn't a requirement of his job.
You would need people like.. There's this "game", forget who made it. Some people in England, where you can walk around and interact with people in Shakespeare's settings. Forget what it's called, but a quick search gives me links to Arden: The World of William Shakespeare and http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/mar/30/arts.artsnews .
Or that medical training segment in Americas Army which gave someone the knowledge on how to save someones life.
Projects like that, educational and instructional tools would be getting the grants. The games as art argument should include titles like Ico, Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, Nikopol: Secrets of the Immortals, Blueberry Garden. Something that creates a story or brings a world to life, does more than just "Here's a gun, here's an enemy, last man standing wins". Using a comparison of John Zorn to Beyonce for example, art for arts sake and popular entertainment respectively when the talk show host said "I was a music major". If he accepts that music is in the arts then games can be too.
Or "Grants like these will fund small developers who are creating games that will help schools, doctors, thus keeping a segment of the arts industry employed doing something useful for the nation.". There's a trading card game http://phylogame.org/classification/virus/ that helps doctors remember the symptoms to viruses. You could structure a video game the same way, build a game where you're a white blood cell seeking out and removing viruses to show people how your immune system works.
Not just "Video games will get funded". To be brutally honest, the talk show host was right to argue against funding as it seems that not even someone who claims to represent gamers (Like this website for instance) is capable of giving a decent reason as to why games can be art, games can be educational.
One last thing before I stop ranting, way back when games were at the mercy of the government, the video game companies in the USA got together and created a ratings system, they enforced this system, and that's what every other system in the world seems to be based on. Why can't gaming websites, companies, etc get together and make these grants themselves? Show that the industry has some depth to it instead of being parlor tricks and cheap makeup.
Or you know, we could just blast Fox News for being "biased" by hosting a debate and NOT EVER GIVING OUT A POSITION ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.
I call OP libel, manipulative and uninformed drivel. Same goes for this site.
EDIT:
Because I can't close "'s -.-
I would dispute this. Art isn't necessarily good or meaningful, it's some created thing meant to be appreciated for the sensual, intellectual, and/or emotional response it creates.Tom Goldman said:
Still,
