Fox News Attacks NEA for Classifying Games as Art

[WorldFree55]

I do not agree with Fox News.

That is all.

 

[zeldagirl]

I can't hate Fox News 100% as long as Shepard Smith is still there. He's a genuinely good reporter.

That said, the main issue is that only about 5% of their daily programming is news. The other 95% consists of the talking heads they hire to discuss the news, and that's where the ratings are. The clip in question was not a news report, it was a shallow, snack-sized debate. Yeah, it showed both sides, but it was hardly an in-depth discussion. I think people's opinions of the channel might improve if they just gave these people more time to talk. In a longer debate, the more intelligent and eloquent side will probably turn out on top. In a 2-minute chunk like that, it pretty much goes to whomever's the loudest. As it stands, it's not really an issue of distorting the facts, it's an issue of this pretense of intelligent debate when such debate is nigh impossible in such small doses.

Shep is the only intelligent person on that network - I agree, I really like him.

The rest of your analysis = spot on.

 

[Ukomba]

You have no idea of what NEA grant money is used for. It doesn't merely fund the production of the artwork. Production costs bear no relationship to grant worthiness.

No, I understand that, but how is that an argument in favor of the NEA? The money didn't inspire him and the money wasn't needed for materials. Are you honestly going to tell me that he wouldn't have created it if the government hadn't given him money? That any artist wouldn't try to carry out their vision if the government didn't give them money? If that's true then they aren't artists. True artists would follow their passion regardless. All the NEA does is make it a little easier for the few artists they select. Are those artists better? No, they're just the ones government decided to promote, and in doing so they're stepping on the ones they don't. Is "Piss Christ" the best possible use for that money, space, and publicity? The government apparently thinks so. "Piss Christ" hurts the art world more than helping it my turning it into a joke, and that's what will happen to video games. The games that can't make it on their own merits thrust into prominence though government backing. I can't wait. At least Movie licensed games will finally have something to look down on.

Look, Ukomba, I think you should maybe read some information posted on previous pages in this forum (or even doing a minute's worth of research with Google) that explains what the NEA does because you are really, really, fundamentally misunderstanding how it operates. For one, it provides grants to organizations that have a project they want to make and hire an artist for, not directly to artists themselves. You also seem to be under the mistaken belief that the money goes to "companies" when it can only go to non-profits. Oh, and you seem to be one of those sentimentalists who thinks art is made with fairy dust and that artists don't need to eat. Well, I hate to spoil your Romantic fantasies, but yes, they do. An artist is someone who creates art (shocking, I know), and it has nothing to do with a willingness to starve for it. Not that that actually has anything to do with NEA funding, of course.

At the very least, take a glance at the Piss Christ wiki-page, because you're also misunderstanding how the creator received funds from the NEA in that case (i.e., incredibly indirectly).

Um, no. I know you can try to obscure what's happening by focusing on how it's filtered through a second, non-profit, party but it's essentially the same thing. For example, what project did Corporation of Yaddo have that they got NEA funding for? Answer, none, it's just a place that give artists free room and board. There are a lot like that. These aren't places commissioning artists to paint a mural. You can mince words but it's exactly the same as just giving money directly to the artist for food, rent, and supplies.

I am under the belief that the money will go to companies because that IS where it will end up. Again, don't try to spin some non-profit BS. Sure the NEA will go to a non-profit first, but you need a group of people to make the game, Unlike a lot of other art you need teams of people to make games. Are you saying it's impossible for EA to make an 'artsy game' team and have them put in for these grants? Hell, EA could even make a non-profit 'artsy game' wing, apply for the money them selves, and use it internally in that group. Lots of companies have non-profit side projects and charities. And there you go, money to a corporation for use in that corporation.

Hmm, so artist are the only people who have to eat? That's good to know. I guess having them do commission work or have a day job like anyone else would be asking too much of these special special people. The fantasy here isn't that artists don't have to eat, but that they are more deserving of free money than other people. There are plenty of good artists making a living right now by 'gasp' selling their work with no second hand NEA money.

Art wouldn't die if the NEA went away. Most of the non-profits wouldn't go away either, they would just be more reliant on donations. The NEA didn't even exist before 1965, are you going to try to claim that worthwhile art only started being made after that? Did the Renaissance only take place because of government funding? Look, if you want to donate money to Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art that's fine, I applaud you. Go ahead and personalty decide which non-profit group is worth supporting. Just don't make me give them money for promoting trash. You might as well just give that money to deviantArt.

 

[Coffinshaker]

Hey folks... here's a little comic I whipped up in honor of the occasion. Hope y'all enjoy! >D

[http://coffin-comics.jesterbrand.com/2011/05/25/baby-dont-hurt-me/]

You can read more about my stance on "What is art?" and videogames on my site Coffin-Comics.com [http://coffin-comics.jesterbrand.com/2011/05/25/baby-dont-hurt-me/]

(it's about not seeing the forest through the trees so this woodland creature can't see the real art right behind him)

 

[DevilWolf47]

Fox News lies, presents rhetoric as fact and never once have a mediator who will let both sides get a fair argument in. Business as usual with those motherfuckers.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Why should I give a flying shit what Fox News says?

Does it really matter what they have to say on that matter? When it comes to video games they are very ignorant on the subject and I was expecting some backlash against games now being classified as art, so this comes to no surprise to me.

I'm not gonna attack Fox News for this only because it wouldn't make sense to do so, but I will attack their argument on it though since that's what really is the subject here. Some books when they were written at the time were not considered art but blasphemy and a slack to the face of real art. Now that's not a really big issue anymore, and there are art out there that is tasteless but that doesn't make them any less than some of the greatest masterpieces ever.

Art is incredibly subjective and them having a differing opinion on it makes it valid whether I like it or not, but I do think that their opinion is horribly misplaced. Eventually this will all go away and I'm sure that there will be another medium that will come under the same scrutiny that games are going through right now.

I will say that insulting Fox News for saying this isn't helping our argument against theirs and paints us as being a bunch on insensitive and overreacting group of children that can't take criticism.

Just my thoughts on the matter. PM me if you want to discuss this further civilly.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

every time I see a fox news story I am thankful for the BBC.

 

[l3o2828]

*Siiiiiiiiiigh*
Do i even need to comment on this? I believe not. Everything that needs to be said of such stupidity has already been said.

 

[JDKJ]

You have no idea of what NEA grant money is used for. It doesn't merely fund the production of the artwork. Production costs bear no relationship to grant worthiness.

No, I understand that, but how is that an argument in favor of the NEA? The money didn't inspire him and the money wasn't needed for materials. Are you honestly going to tell me that he wouldn't have created it if the government hadn't given him money? That any artist wouldn't try to carry out their vision if the government didn't give them money? If that's true then they aren't artists. True artists would follow their passion regardless. All the NEA does is make it a little easier for the few artists they select. Are those artists better? No, they're just the ones government decided to promote, and in doing so they're stepping on the ones they don't. Is "Piss Christ" the best possible use for that money, space, and publicity? The government apparently thinks so. "Piss Christ" hurts the art world more than helping it my turning it into a joke, and that's what will happen to video games. The games that can't make it on their own merits thrust into prominence though government backing. I can't wait. At least Movie licensed games will finally have something to look down on.

Look, Ukomba, I think you should maybe read some information posted on previous pages in this forum (or even doing a minute's worth of research with Google) that explains what the NEA does because you are really, really, fundamentally misunderstanding how it operates. For one, it provides grants to organizations that have a project they want to make and hire an artist for, not directly to artists themselves. You also seem to be under the mistaken belief that the money goes to "companies" when it can only go to non-profits. Oh, and you seem to be one of those sentimentalists who thinks art is made with fairy dust and that artists don't need to eat. Well, I hate to spoil your Romantic fantasies, but yes, they do. An artist is someone who creates art (shocking, I know), and it has nothing to do with a willingness to starve for it. Not that that actually has anything to do with NEA funding, of course.

At the very least, take a glance at the Piss Christ wiki-page, because you're also misunderstanding how the creator received funds from the NEA in that case (i.e., incredibly indirectly).

Um, no. I know you can try to obscure what's happening by focusing on how it's filtered through a second, non-profit, party but it's essentially the same thing. For example, what project did Corporation of Yaddo have that they got NEA funding for? Answer, none, it's just a place that give artists free room and board. There are a lot like that. These aren't places commissioning artists to paint a mural. You can mince words but it's exactly the same as just giving money directly to the artist for food, rent, and supplies.

I am under the belief that the money will go to companies because that IS where it will end up. Again, don't try to spin some non-profit BS. Sure the NEA will go to a non-profit first, but you need a group of people to make the game, Unlike a lot of other art you need teams of people to make games. Are you saying it's impossible for EA to make an 'artsy game' team and have them put in for these grants? Hell, EA could even make a non-profit 'artsy game' wing, apply for the money them selves, and use it internally in that group. Lots of companies have non-profit side projects and charities. And there you go, money to a corporation for use in that corporation.

Hmm, so artist are the only people who have to eat? That's good to know. I guess having them do commission work or have a day job like anyone else would be asking too much of these special special people. The fantasy here isn't that artists don't have to eat, but that they are more deserving of free money than other people. There are plenty of good artists making a living right now by 'gasp' selling their work with no second hand NEA money.

Art wouldn't die if the NEA went away. Most of the non-profits wouldn't go away either, they would just be more reliant on donations. The NEA didn't even exist before 1965, are you going to try to claim that worthwhile art only started being made after that? Did the Renaissance only take place because of government funding? Look, if you want to donate money to Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art that's fine, I applaud you. Go ahead and personalty decide which non-profit group is worth supporting. Just don't make me give them money for promoting trash. You might as well just give that money to deviantArt.

The American government has long funded public art projects. Before the advent of the NEA, there was the WPA funding a slew of artists and art projects during the Depression, the results of which -- particularly the murals -- still stand as some of America's best and most prized works of art.

And you should read up on Art History. Your knowledge in the area apparently lacks. The city of Florence, quite wealthy at the time, threw much of its public money behind the Renaissance artists and commissioning civic art projects. That funding wasn't the sole funding (the Catholic Church also did its fair share of art funding) but it was critical to the development of Renaissance art.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

BREAKING NEWS: Fox continues to make moderate conservatives across America weep as their chances of political power shrink with each new broadcast.

 

[Rooster893]

Wow.

Just wow.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

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.

They set up the debate so the guy opposing video games would ignore every point the other guy made. Fox is just as much at fault for this as that asshole radio guy.

They set up the debate so people could hear a different point of view. The dude from FNC never took a side, as good reporters don't. Stop blaming Fox for reporting the news in an honest way

Edit: Okay, fine, framing the story with "Call of Duty" isn't honest, wrong choice of words, whatever, geez. But at least they presented both sides of opinion, and that's all you can ask for in a debate, really.

... That video was so biased, it wasn't even funny.

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?

 

[ReservoirAngel]

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...

 

[Siege_TF]

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.

 

[smearyllama]

The guy on the right looked like Ten Nunb from Star Wars to me. Anyone else notice that?

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Alright, as a Norwegian - which means "foreigner" to the people of America - why the fuck is this gang of Mormons still broadcasting in your country? Is Fox news separate from Fox, the movie company? If not, then they are one hypocritical mass of gremlins. I can't count the movies Fox have made, marketed towards children, that either is full of product placement or "promoting" violence (here's to using vocabulary Fox should understand) in the exact same ways that they so indiscriminately abhor without even 5 minutes of research.

These people aren't journalists. You know they aren't. I'd spit in their face before calling myself a "colleague" of theirs. Their producers and funding providers must be downright rotten as well.

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.

 

[Dr Jones]

Is this even newsworthy? I mean shouldn't all just close an eye to whatever Fox does?