Fox News Attacks NEA for Classifying Games as Art

[Therumancer]

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

Not quite. What he said was that he feels that games are trivial entertainment, and that he objects to the goverment spending any money on projects like this at all. Most of his ranting was about taxes.

It was the failure of "our guy" to do anything other than pretty much quote the press release given when video games got acknowlegement.

Fox News did sensationalize the case to get hype to the "debate" but they took no side, both guys got to say their piece, and neither of them seemed to be spending much time acknowledging the other. A lot of gamers want to act like this was Fox maligning video games, I do not think it was in this case, such complaints are simply borrowing trouble. Was Fox News making the "Call Of Duty" connections a bit out there? Yes it was, but that's what sensationalism is all about, and it wasn't totally uncalled for because someone COULD make a game like Call Of Duty if they could justify it being artistic. The use of the CoD name being to get attention more than anything, they also used scenes of things like Street Fighter and Mario Brothers, all well known games as well, during the debate simply because they are video games people would recognize.

In the end we'll doubtlessly have to agree to disagree, but I really found nothing wrong with this other than the simple fact that Fox failed to actually create the debate that it was hyping. It pretty much played host to two guys who just didn't belong "on stage". We had a video game advocate who acted like a deer caught in headlights, and a guy who wanted to use video games as an excuse to complain about goverment spending.

Also remember the anti- guy, was representing the "against" side, nothing he says is going to win the support of those of us who are strongly FOR video games. You can blame our dude for not doing a better job of confronting him on the issues, not Fox for simply giving him a platform. Do I agree with him video games are like Ping Pong? Of course not. But then again I wasn't the guy whose job it was to argue that point with him.

Both of these guys knew they were going on TV, and "our guy" seemed unprepared, and the other guy might have mentioned games, but as I said, it was only as a means to complain about the spending, I don't think the topic he was there for would have mattered. If he was debating tax breaks for farmers or something he probably would have been saying the same basic thing. That's just my opinion based on what I saw though, there is no concrete way of putting that.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

The Fox News segment can be viewed here [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e80_1305997846]

...sorry, I'd like to keep my sanity intact, if it's all the same to you...

 

[cheesyman987]

I love how its titles "fair and balanced debate." I don't think fox understands those two words

I don't think Fox News understands the word "and."

 

[Eremiel]

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.

Welcome to Fox News.

 

[cfehunter]

Trust fox to go for the most mass marketed trash that has no educational or artistic value (COD).

To be fair to the guy they got to speak on behalf of the NEA, he did say exactly what most of us are thinking.
This has got nothing to do with top-budget aaa games that are created with the goal to generate as much cash as possible and everything to do with indie games developers who don't care about profit and just want to create art and educate the masses through an interactive medium.

Fox news, you disgust me. you push your hate and scare mongering in an attempt to boost your ratings at the expense of art and education? you vile soulless pieces of human refuse.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but when you're deliberately aiding the spread of ignorance, misunderstanding and hate in the name of profit, you deserve to be pulled off the air.
somebody pull fox news off the air....

 

[Brandon237]

Anyone fancy helping me blow up the Fox News building?

*Grabs Shotgun and C4 charges*

(For people with no sense of humour, this was a joke -.-)

What? Why? That is not cool, why is this a joke? It is a seriously good idea. (Unfortunately not a joke).

Wow, just wow, do they not have anything better to complain about? Fox news isn't great at the best of times, but this is just... vomit-inducing.

 

[Korne]

The talk show guy didn't really have much of an argument. He just said some random stuff in a confident manner. He could have easily made a good case (and sort of tried) against games meeting the requirement for this grant, or the fact that the grant is wasteful, but he spent his short opportunity sounding like a campaign speech.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

I love how its titles "fair and balanced debate." I don't think fox understands those two words

Reminds me of how communist regimes always label themselves "democratic".

So far, I've been avoiding watching anything from Fox News, seeing how a lot of netfolk rage as soon as they're mentioned. I thought they were just, you know, your standard TV channel with an agenda - like every other channel out there - and the rage was mostly due to people not agreeing with most of it. Well, except the infamous Sexx Effect, but the amount of backlash that received should have been a lesson.

But this was a travesty. Not just saying "fair and balanced debate", not just starting off with Call of Duty, but constant repeats of "video games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto", pretending no other games exist, and one thing I hate most about democracy - a loud ass spouting "ironic commentary", knowing full well that the average viewer will listen to him, not the quiet guy who tries to make arguments.

Let me put it this way - some people I know frown at me "wasting time playing video games". One of my close friends actually replied to my happy announcement that I bought a PS3 with "Seriously, a console? How old do you think you are?" My dad actually called me out on "not accomplishing anything, but playing games instead". That was just after I graduated with honours from one of the world's top universities and received a letter of admission for postgrad study at an even higher ranking one.

This attitude doesn't come from nowhere. I usually put that down to the usual lack of acceptance for new things, but I see more and more evidence that mass media are actually working to perpetuate it.

 

[Ukomba]

Why do video games need government money at all?

Because many devs are too lazy to make up the funds themselves, and so push it on everyone else to fork out on their behalf.

I don't think that's the case. Bear in mind that the NEA will only grant funding to "artsy" or "public good" video game projects which are not-for-profit. If you can't profit from your project, then you'll have difficulty funding that sort of venture (you're unlikely to obtain venture capital because there's no for-profit venture involved and therefore no return for investors). That's the main reason for NEA funding.

That's nice. So what you're really saying is government money allows companies to make s***y games. That should be enough reason not to give NEA money to video games.

You can have artsy games just fine, and they have. What you need to balance that with is making the games fun and engaging for people to play. Here are you're two options:

1. You make an artsy game that's fun and people buy it. That kind of game doesn't need NEA money because it's good enough to stand on it's own legs.

2. You make an artsy game that no one wants to play. That kind of game does need NEA money but it would be wasted since, with no one playing it, no one is being exposed to the art.

And do you really want the government deciding what is and isn't a good game? When have they ever shown they were capable of making that derision? Hell, they can't even choose good normal art. Most of NEA money is wasted on pure c***. I say cut off all NEA money and just have artists make things people actually want. Video games have done just fine with out it up to now.

 

[Ukomba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrQEMBN8DNU

Comedy but that's the kind of thing I really would expect to get from government sponsored video games.

 

[JDKJ]

Why do video games need government money at all?

Because many devs are too lazy to make up the funds themselves, and so push it on everyone else to fork out on their behalf.

I don't think that's the case. Bear in mind that the NEA will only grant funding to "artsy" or "public good" video game projects which are not-for-profit. If you can't profit from your project, then you'll have difficulty funding that sort of venture (you're unlikely to obtain venture capital because there's no for-profit venture involved and therefore no return for investors). That's the main reason for NEA funding.

That's nice. So what you're really saying is government money allows companies to make s***y games. That should be enough reason not to give NEA money to video games.

You can have artsy games just fine, and they have. What you need to balance that with is making the games fun and engaging for people to play. Here are you're two options:

1. You make an artsy game that's fun and people buy it. That kind of game doesn't need NEA money because it's good enough to stand on it's own legs.

2. You make an artsy game that no one wants to play. That kind of game does need NEA money but it would be wasted since, with no one playing it, no one is being exposed to the art.

And do you really want the government deciding what is and isn't a good game? When have they ever shown they were capable of making that derision? Hell, they can't even choose good normal art. Most of NEA money is wasted on pure c***. I say cut off all NEA money and just have artists make things people actually want. Video games have done just fine with out it up to now.

There are examples in England of what you get when government money is put into video games.

I never said "shitty" games. I said "artsy" or "public good" video games that, by their very nature, will never appeal to a broad commercial market. That doesn't meant they're "shitty." In fact, that they don't have mass appeal may very well mean that they have value of some sort. The masses aren't well known for their ability to discern the finer points of anything.

Your two options make no sense. You can't make the artsy game that's either fun to play and people buy it or that no one wants to play and no one buys it. Artsy games don't get private funding and therefore would never get made. Not without public funding

And the NEA has funded many artist who are far from "crap" and have become recognized as Masters. To cite but one example, Robert Mapplethorpe, now recognized as being among the Masters of American photography, wouldn't have flourished without NEA funding. There's very little of his work that was considered "commercial" at the time he was producing it but, ironically, his photographs can fetch upwards of half a million dollars now that he's dead.

A large part of the value inherent in NEA funding of art is that it allows artists to explore taboo subjects that normally would not make much commercial sense to explore. "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano is a perfect example.

 

[Ukomba]

Why do video games need government money at all?

Because many devs are too lazy to make up the funds themselves, and so push it on everyone else to fork out on their behalf.

I don't think that's the case. Bear in mind that the NEA will only grant funding to "artsy" or "public good" video game projects which are not-for-profit. If you can't profit from your project, then you'll have difficulty funding that sort of venture (you're unlikely to obtain venture capital because there's no for-profit venture involved and therefore no return for investors). That's the main reason for NEA funding.

That's nice. So what you're really saying is government money allows companies to make s***y games. That should be enough reason not to give NEA money to video games.

You can have artsy games just fine, and they have. What you need to balance that with is making the games fun and engaging for people to play. Here are you're two options:

1. You make an artsy game that's fun and people buy it. That kind of game doesn't need NEA money because it's good enough to stand on it's own legs.

2. You make an artsy game that no one wants to play. That kind of game does need NEA money but it would be wasted since, with no one playing it, no one is being exposed to the art.

And do you really want the government deciding what is and isn't a good game? When have they ever shown they were capable of making that derision? Hell, they can't even choose good normal art. Most of NEA money is wasted on pure c***. I say cut off all NEA money and just have artists make things people actually want. Video games have done just fine with out it up to now.

There are examples in England of what you get when government money is put into video games.

I never said "shitty" games. I said "artsy" or "public good" video games that, by their very nature, will never appeal to a broad commercial market. That doesn't meant they're "shitty." In fact, that they don't have mass appeal may very well mean that they have value of some sort. The masses aren't well known for their ability to discern the finer points of anything.

Your two options make no sense. You can't make the artsy game that's either fun to play and people buy it or that no one wants to play and no one buys it. Artsy games don't get private funding and therefore would never get made. Not without public funding

And the NEA has funded many artist who are far from "crap" and have become recognized as Masters. To cite but one example, Robert Mapplethorpe, now recognized as being among the Masters of American photography, wouldn't have flourished without NEA funding. There's very little of his work that was considered "commercial" at the time he was producing it but, ironically, his photographs can fetch upwards of half a million dollars now that he's dead.

A large part of the value inherent in NEA funding of art is that it allows artists to explore taboo subjects that normally would not make much commercial sense to explore. "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano is a perfect example.

Companies can and do make games right now that don't appeal to a mass market. Portal, for example, was believed to be a very niche game when it was being made. The fact that it was good turned it into a hit. You'll only need NEA money if you're game sucks, and in that case it doesn't deserve it.

The simple fact is, catering to the pretentious gamer isn't going to make gaming better, and really that's the target of this money.

Bull, you can't predict what the world would be like without the NEA. If the NEA existed for video games before, and Portal took some of it, you could be claiming right now that without NEA funding, Portal would have never existed. Robert Mapplethorpe might well have done just fine without NEA money. There are artists right now that don't get it and do just fine. If you want to go into 'what if' territory, which is what you're doing, how about this? Robert Mapplethorpe would have had more success had he not been given NEA funding. He would have had to market his work and, as a result, would have had more publicity and it wouldn't have taken until his death for his works to be come valuable. Your what if scenario isn't any more provable than mine.

All Government money does is distort the market and puts the decision on what's good art and what's not in the hands of the bureaucrats and politicians. Do you honestly believe some senator won't try to get NEA money to a game company just because it's in his state? It's more money for his state, what does he care if they're doing something worth while?

And how much money did Piss Christ cost to make? You could make it with common house hold trash, I doubt he paid for any of it. Not really something that needs money, and certainly would have been created with out it. It's not hard to create, it's not cleaver, and it's not deep. Compare that with anything from the great painters of the Renascence who's works require a massive amount of time, effort, and skill. "Artists" like Andres Serrano are as much of a joke as Terry Pratchett's Daniellarina Pouter.

 

[JDKJ]

Why do video games need government money at all?

Because many devs are too lazy to make up the funds themselves, and so push it on everyone else to fork out on their behalf.

I don't think that's the case. Bear in mind that the NEA will only grant funding to "artsy" or "public good" video game projects which are not-for-profit. If you can't profit from your project, then you'll have difficulty funding that sort of venture (you're unlikely to obtain venture capital because there's no for-profit venture involved and therefore no return for investors). That's the main reason for NEA funding.

That's nice. So what you're really saying is government money allows companies to make s***y games. That should be enough reason not to give NEA money to video games.

You can have artsy games just fine, and they have. What you need to balance that with is making the games fun and engaging for people to play. Here are you're two options:

1. You make an artsy game that's fun and people buy it. That kind of game doesn't need NEA money because it's good enough to stand on it's own legs.

2. You make an artsy game that no one wants to play. That kind of game does need NEA money but it would be wasted since, with no one playing it, no one is being exposed to the art.

And do you really want the government deciding what is and isn't a good game? When have they ever shown they were capable of making that derision? Hell, they can't even choose good normal art. Most of NEA money is wasted on pure c***. I say cut off all NEA money and just have artists make things people actually want. Video games have done just fine with out it up to now.

There are examples in England of what you get when government money is put into video games.

I never said "shitty" games. I said "artsy" or "public good" video games that, by their very nature, will never appeal to a broad commercial market. That doesn't meant they're "shitty." In fact, that they don't have mass appeal may very well mean that they have value of some sort. The masses aren't well known for their ability to discern the finer points of anything.

Your two options make no sense. You can't make the artsy game that's either fun to play and people buy it or that no one wants to play and no one buys it. Artsy games don't get private funding and therefore would never get made. Not without public funding

And the NEA has funded many artist who are far from "crap" and have become recognized as Masters. To cite but one example, Robert Mapplethorpe, now recognized as being among the Masters of American photography, wouldn't have flourished without NEA funding. There's very little of his work that was considered "commercial" at the time he was producing it but, ironically, his photographs can fetch upwards of half a million dollars now that he's dead.

A large part of the value inherent in NEA funding of art is that it allows artists to explore taboo subjects that normally would not make much commercial sense to explore. "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano is a perfect example.

Companies can and do make games right now that don't appeal to a mass market. Portal, for example, was believed to be a very niche game when it was being made. The fact that it was good turned it into a hit. You'll only need NEA money if you're game sucks, and in that case it doesn't deserve it.

The simple fact is, catering to the pretentious gamer isn't going to make gaming better, and really that's the target of this money.

Bull, you can't predict what the world would be like without the NEA. If the NEA existed for video games before, and Portal took some of it, you could be claiming right now that without NEA funding, Portal would have never existed. Robert Mapplethorpe might well have done just fine without NEA money. There are artists right now that don't get it and do just fine. If you want to go into 'what if' territory, which is what you're doing, how about this? Robert Mapplethorpe would have had more success had he not been given NEA funding. He would have had to market his work and, as a result, would have had more publicity and it wouldn't have taken until his death for his works to be come valuable. Your what if scenario isn't any more provable than mine.

All Government money does is distort the market and puts the decision on what's good art and what's not in the hands of the bureaucrats and politicians. Do you honestly believe some senator won't try to get NEA money to a game company just because it's in his state? It's more money for his state, what does he care if they're doing something worth while?

And how much money did Piss Christ cost to make? You could make it with common house hold trash, I doubt he paid for any of it. Not really something that needs money, and certainly would have been created with out it. It's not hard to create, it's not cleaver, and it's not deep. Compare that with anything from the great painters of the Renascence who's works require a massive amount of time, effort, and skill. "Artists" like Andres Serrano are as much of a joke as Terry Pratchett's Daniellarina Pouter.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Jack Macaque]

This is what I see when I read any heading with Fox News in it:

Fox News BLAH BLAH BLAH TERRORIST BLAH BLAH BLAH VIDEO GAMES BLAH BLAH BLAH GAS PRICE BLAH BLAH BLAH.

You'd think they would give up on the whole lie to the world and exaggerate on things to get more viewers.

 

[Anchupom]

I'm going to respond to this the same way I always respond to stories where FOX News bashes videogaming...
HAHAHAHHAAAA! Gaming's doing something right!

As we all know, FOX dislikes everything good in the world and ignores logic/reason. Having this outrage at the NEA only proves that it was the right thing to do.

 

[VGC USpartan VS]

I would be totally happy if Fox News just stopped existing.

Imagine a world in which Fox News never existed.. ah, that would be a world in which humans live peacefully and anyone who tries to start something like Fox News is sent to prison.

 

[zombiesinc]

The worst part is that these sorts of segments, though less than 5 minutes long, affect people. Someone is probably in an argument right now about how the government is using taxpayer dollars to fund Call of Duty, and that simply isn't the case. Not every game is art, but interactive media can absolutely be developed in an educational or artistic way, and that's all the NEA is recognizing. It's sad that media outlets are still using the general ignorance of the public about the broad spectrum that videogames now encompass for their own ends.

More like it's frustrating that media outlets are using the general ignorance of the public, while it's sad that the general public is so ignorant.

People seem to enjoy being fed information, seemingly too lazy or uncaring to take the time to do their own research. It's no longer about forming your own opinion but rather choosing whichever one seems "right" or easiest. Obviously not always the case, but more often than not... it is.

 

[Numb1lp]

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,

It's a Fox talk show. Do you think the people watching a show like that would care if both sides were represented equally? Instead of complaining, why don't people get active and start informing people.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

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).