Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / [LOCKED] Fair Play To EA

Author
Message
Dr Manette
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jan 2006
Location: BioFox Games hq
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 17:14
Link
Quote: "Everything like this is "okay" on prime time TV, but as soon as it's in a game it's lifealtering for children."


And yet kids can play games where they can kill other people? I don't see the difference, especially when sex isn't a "bad" thing. Killing is.

I agree though, they did have it coming in the sense that by doing something like this, some biased stations would make negative comments. Best move by EA was not making a huge deal out of this. It'll die down eventually, until another sexual scene in a popular video game shows up.

Quote: "haha, surely then if gamers can't get sex, they should be allowed the next best thing? I mean it's cheaper than running up bills on their Mum's credit card for naughty websites."


Wait... THAT'S what they want the credit card number for??? Sh***********************t!


BioFox Games...http://www.biofoxgames.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 17:40
Link
Pff, google is free

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 19:27 Edited at: 25th Jan 2008 22:07
Link
Quote: "But I still honestly do not see why the sex in Mass Effect (all 1 minute of it in a 30-hour game) is any more a big deal than the graphic explicit sex on late night TV. The game is rated Mature, for 17+, so yes I believe it to be "unfair" to make it an issue.

The Witcher has several sex scenes with full on nudity, and I haven't heard about this yet.

I can name dozens of video games that have nudity and/or sex in them. Mass Effect is getting big publicity right now, and that's most likely the only reason the news companies are singling it out."


I don't disagree with that. All I'm pointing out is EAs response to it was dumb. They had absolutely nothing to say about it that wasn't already stated in the show. How the content has been handled thus far has been lame, especially compared to other games that have far worse content in them. I just don't see what the big deal is, and gamers are getting overly excited about nothing.

Like I said, EA should be taking notes from developers who "got away with it".

--

Wow leave it to the anti-Sony propogandist to flip someones opinion upside down and side ways because the game in question is on a Microsoft platform.

@Raven: Aside form the fact that 90% of that is not worth reading, I'll go ahead and respond to the comments directed toward me.

Quote: "How about this Kilik, get off your arse.. sell that worthless PS3 you have and grab a 360 and a copy of Mass Effect. If you can honestly sit there and keep coming out with the crap you are coming out with after actually playing the game, then apart from me coming to the understanding you obviously have some degenerative retardation; I guess your opinions might hold a tad more weight."


How about no? You could just get over the fact that you don't like Sony and deal with how other people choose to play video games. Considering I've played just about every game that's come out from BioWare, except for the Neverwinter Nights series, and haven't enjoyed a single one since Baldur's Gate, I think I'll wait until I don't have to spend over $400 to play a single game. The only other thing I really have to say about how you think I refuse to play any other console aside form Sony's is... Well...



Quote: "Raising eyebrows is ok, talking absolute rubbish about it, and making it worse than it really is isn't. What the hell is the problem with sexual scenes in an industry that's dominated by depicting of violence? You can kill and maim people in games and movies and it's alright, but show any bit of sex and there's uproar. In my opinion that's worrying, (nearly) everybody has sex at some stage during their life, most people don't go around killing people, so what is the issue?"


Have you not been paying attention? There was far more of an uproar about violence in video games long before there was about sex. And they still aren't okay with violence, why wouldn't people care about sex? The issue is misleading people's early sexual developement. You should really read some material about serial killers and their early childhood. Sexual urges are extemely powerful, and when they are mislead at an early age, they can become dangerous. I think people have every right to have concern about who teaches them the rights and wrongs of sexual drive.
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 20:15
Link
Nice pic

Another thing that bugged me about that news story is the psychologist didn't even play the game herself. Honestly, how can you go on national TV and criticize something you've never experienced for yourself? That would be like me discussing what a crapload of bull Friends is without having watched a single episode. That is not journalism, and for someone with a degree they should certainly know better.

Keighley asked her flat out if she'd played the game, and it caught her off guard.

On an aside, some people have taken it upon themselves to go to her book on Amazon and start giving it 1 star and writing comments. While I do not condone these actions, I find it a bit witty what some of the people are saying in the comments.

Some people are giving it 1-star simply because others are, and now keywords like Alien Sex are showing up under her book title. People are writing in the comments that they've never read the book before, but they've heard about alien sex from the keywords and would not recommend or read it.

Classic


Back to top
Profile PM Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 20:25
Link
Quote: "I don't disagree with that. All I'm pointing out is EAs response to it was dumb. They had absolutely nothing to say about it that wasn't already stated in the show. How the content has been handled thus far has been lame, especially compared to other games that have far worse content in them. I just don't see what the big deal is, and gamers are getting overly excited about nothing."

Their response was briliant. If you get dissed and someone else sticks up for you, you still want to reply for yourself. It's bullcrap to say its dumb. The other games you talked about weren't wrongly discussed by FOX.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dr Manette
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jan 2006
Location: BioFox Games hq
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 20:38
Link
Bringing any kind of legal action would have dragged this whole thing longer. This way, EA sticks up for itself and in a month or so some new game will come along to get the heat. I don't see the big deal about EA defending their game WITHOUT persecuting FOX. Does everything have to be an eye for an eye?


BioFox Games...http://www.biofoxgames.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
FredP
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2006
Location: Indiana
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 20:53
Link
Quote: "If your kid is playing it then it's the retailer who is accountable."


Wrong.If your kid is playing a game you don't like then you are the one responsible not the retailer,not the people who made the game or anyone else.
The biggest gripe I have about all of this video game hating nonsense is that it's all simple.Video games aren't the problem.Parents not being responsible for their children is the problem.
In all of the "video games gone wrong" cases do you ever see a parent admit that they were responsible for the actions of their own child?
I am a parent and when I read the back of a game...even if I knew nothing about video games...you can get the jist of whether it's a good idea for your kid to play it.
Parents are responsible for the games their children play.
I am responsible for what my children do and if I want the right to decide what my kids can and cannot do without the government censoring video games then it is also my responsiblity to make informed and educational choices about what games my kids should play.

Please have mercy and use the search function.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 21:58
Link
Quote: "Honestly? Tough. Fox news is privately owned and doesn't have an obligation to provide people conflicting opinions. Just as much as EA doesn't have an obligation to make sure the people who play their games recieve differing messages revolving around the subject of their games."

So in other words, If Pepsi wanted to sell motor oil as a beverage, you'd be okay with it? Yes, actually, once they joined the world of journalism, it became their responsibility to deliver honest, fair, unbiased news to the public. That's what news media is supposed to do... they never do of course, because people like you argue that they don't have to . What you're saying is, if Fox suddenly made the outlandish claim that Dallas Texas were invaded by a South American military coalition and scared millions of people, it's all good because Rupert Murdoch is free to do what he wants with his news organization. I'm not saying they would (although they more or less have in the past), but seriously... I don't care if a news organization is a sole proprietorship, ALL news media should have the obligation of delivering fact, not opinion, and when they deliver opinion, it should be fair and unbiased. And the "facts" that they presented in the segment had a marvelously rediculous level of inaccuracy (something they're never in short supply of at Fox is inaccuracy), and I suppose that's okay for them to do as well?

Quote: "No, I'm acting as if EA should suck it up and deal with the consequences of their actions. How hard is this to understand? Honestly, with all the problems with games being accused of these days any reasonable person could come to the conclusion that adding a sexual encounter in your game is going to have people raising their eyebrows. Denying that is odd. Making a fuss about it, is just play dumb."

So one minute you're saying a news media source isn't obligated to providing conflicting opinions, and now you're saying an entertainment media source doesn't have the right to express themselves creatively/ artistically because of the industry they belong to? Got it .

Quote: "All I'm pointing out is EAs response to it was dumb. They had absolutely nothing to say about it that wasn't already stated in the show."

So NOW you're saying Electronic Arts doesn't have the right to defend their product when it comes under fire on TV? EA took quite a few stabs at Fox in that letter, and quite frankly, Fox deserves it. The segment was complaining about a scene less graphic than most episodes of CSI and led by a panel of mental misfits with no practical or even impractical experience playing games. I applaud EA for making a well-written and intelligently-planned rebuttal to what was by all means an unnecessary and completely unfair attack against not just a single game, but this industry as a whole.

Do you really think Joe Q. Public came away from that segment knowing enough about the game? Does he understand precisely how much alleged nudity can be found in the game? Was he presented with enough of the facts to form a positive opinion about the subject matter? And if you said "no" to anything there, then why on earth are EA not allowed to stand up to Fox and defend their product?

The people at Bioware who slaved over this game to develop a product of high quality packed to the rim with poignant artistic vision deserve the chance to defend themselves when they come under fire from the media. Especially when the subject matter in question is no more "adult" in nature than 95% of the dresses worn at major awards shows... and are aired in full side-boob glory on every major television network, including Fox.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 23:01
Link
Fully agree with Matt, too. Whoa... I agree a lot on this issue.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Peter gee
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jan 2008
Location: behind you!!!!
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 23:16
Link
Mass effec t has to be one of the best games i hav ever played screw fox

don't touch that cookie, it's mine!

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 23:20 Edited at: 26th Jan 2008 01:31
Link
Quote: "Another thing that bugged me about that news story is the psychologist didn't even play the game herself. Honestly, how can you go on national TV and criticize something you've never experienced for yourself? That would be like me discussing what a crapload of bull Friends is without having watched a single episode. That is not journalism, and for someone with a degree they should certainly know better.

Keighley asked her flat out if she'd played the game, and it caught her off guard."


The whole "you can't talk about it til you try it", it too played out. I don't feel like getting into it because there are a lot of cases in which it doesn't make sense to use that as a trumpet card in an argument. Observations are observations, based on all kinds of things, and I don't think its completely necessary to try everything to have opinions about it.

Anyway, it wasn't her job to play the game. She wasn't supposed to be reporting what was in the game. The only purpose she served on the show was to inform people of the effects that sexual content could have on children in video games. She did her job, however she sucked at it.

Quote: "Their response was briliant. If you get dissed and someone else sticks up for you, you still want to reply for yourself. It's bullcrap to say its dumb. The other games you talked about weren't wrongly discussed by FOX."


No. Geoff Keighly's response was brilliant. EAs reponse seemed like they were trying to be hereos on a battle that was already fought.

I know they weren't wrongly discussed by Fox. Which is my point. If you're going to diliberately put "offensive" content in your game, either deal with the consequences (all of them), or take notes on how to get away with it.

--

@Matt Rock: I'm kind of glad I don't have to argue against your view point when it comes to the console wars, because most of your post is a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of what I said.

Quote: "If Pepsi wanted to sell motor oil as a beverage, you'd be okay with it?"


Yes. As long as it coincides with my other points.

Quote: "Yes, actually, once they joined the world of journalism, it became their responsibility to deliver honest, fair, unbiased news to the public."


That is NOT the same as doesn't have an obligation to provide people conflicting opinions. They don't. If they report the news and decide to comment on it and you feel outraged, they have no obligation as a news organization to appease your opinion. And I don't care if you don't agree with their opinion, or if you just plain don't want to hear it. They don't, no matter what.

Quote: "So one minute you're saying a news media source isn't obligated to providing conflicting opinions, and now you're saying an entertainment media source doesn't have the right to express themselves creatively/ artistically because of the industry they belong to? Got it"


What? They have every right to. They also, with that right, have a responsibility to deal with consequences of their actions. Like Pepsi having to pay lawsuits for the countless deaths their oil beverage would cause.

Quote: "So NOW you're saying Electronic Arts doesn't have the right to defend their product when it comes under fire on TV?"


Did you even read my post? Where did I say they cannot defend their product? I said it was dumb for them to defend their product, when the product (THIS IS MY OPINION as I've seen the sex scene in Mass Effect and I've watched the Fox News report) was not falsely reported, and was already defended ON THE SHOW, with almost the exact rebuttal.
Back to top
Profile PM
Peter gee
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jan 2008
Location: behind you!!!!
Posted: 25th Jan 2008 23:24
Link
seriously in america it's 17+ in britian (or at least Scotland) it's only a 12+ i don't see why it should be anything over a 12+ all it is in the sex scenes is them pretty much holding each others faces lol

don't touch that cookie, it's mine!

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 00:50 Edited at: 26th Jan 2008 00:51
Link
Quote: "when the product (THIS IS MY OPINION as I've seen the sex scene in Mass Effect and I've watched the Fox News report) was not falsely reported"


So there are graphic sex scenes in Mass Effect with full-on nudity. Hmmmm maybe I have the clean version

Maybe our interpretations of "graphic sex scenes" and "full-on nudity" are different.

A side boob shot is NOT full-on nudity. Neither is ass cheek. Hell, they've had male ass cheeks on prime time TV since the 90s. The graphic sex scene is nothing more than a long kiss, and the two participants lay down as it fades out. This might have been risque in 1963. It's not 1963, and this is definitely nothing new in games.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 01:29
Link
Graphic sex is subjective, the word graphic only means something that is vivid or apparent. It is completely apparent that they are having sex. I can understand how someone can say that it could be considered graphic.

The term "full-on" was never used. It was "full digital nudity". When someone is completely unclothed they are fully nude, regardless if they show their pieces. From what is shown the impression is that the female you engage with is fully unclothed (unless she has socks on or something...), and therefore fully nude.
Back to top
Profile PM
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 01:33
Link
But that does not matter. People should not complain unless there is actually something to complain about. i mean its rated for people 17+ it says that on the box. Parents should be held accountable. Its common sense really.

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 01:34
Link
Quote: "How about no? You could just get over the fact that you don't like Sony and deal with how other people choose to play video games. Considering I've played just about every game that's come out from BioWare, except for the Neverwinter Nights series, and haven't enjoyed a single one since Baldur's Gate, I think I'll wait until I don't have to spend over $400 to play a single game. The only other thing I really have to say about how you think I refuse to play any other console aside form Sony's is... Well..."


Oh wow, a whole picture to show you had an original Xbox.
Guess what, I have a Playstation 1, 2 and 3 sitting here in the living room with a combined 400 titles on the shelves for them.
That doesn't mean I like Sony in any form, but I also didn't cite something that Microsoft or Nintendo did in a similar situation when the whole Hot-Coffee fiasco was going off simply to have a pop at the company due to my own preferences.

I'd be surprised if your Xbox still gets much playtime now you have moved to this generation; or does your PS3 honestly have that few titles that you still need to go back to the old titles you love which btw all of the ones you've shown currently work on the 360 with it's backward compatibility; most I see there not only work now but have done since the console release. So what exactly was stopping you upgrading to that rather than the PS3?

I'm sure you'll come up with some smartarse answer to that, but from where I am and your comments against Microsoft the past year or so... doesn't really take a rocket scientist and to see the comment you made that quite frankly you would've been in a better position citing a number of PC or Multiplatform titles (say Farenheit for example which featured full frontal nudity and a sex scene you COULD choose what happened with) you went for something Sony did themselves as if to say "This is why Sony are better than Microsoft and EA"

To me EA's response quite frankly is one of the best I've ever seen, they've called Fox on what they've done with Fox refusing to apologise instead they want to fight on homeground with their own experts and editors calling the shots. Yet you seem surprised that EA has basically turned around and told them to just do the decent thing and apologise.

You know this has a name... it's called BEING CIVILISED. EA could quite frankly, and actually no doubt win a legal case against Fox about this whole ordeal, but they haven't.

If this had been a Microsoft first party title, like say Perfect Dark or Halo 3. Right now Lawyers would be so far up Rupert Murdocks arse they'd be able to tell him how many fillings he has.

Quote: "I know they weren't wrongly discussed by Fox. Which is my point. If you're going to diliberately put "offensive" content in your game, either deal with the consequences (all of them), or take notes on how to get away with it."


How about this, click on my linked video... then what the Fox broadcast. Tell me if anything seems familiar.

You'll probably get a feeling of deja'vu, you know why? Because Fox showed the scene in it's entirety that they were aruging about as the whole "mass effect" showcase footage. It's odd that no-one phoned up and complained about fox doing that, and the presenters made absolutely no mention that it was the scene they were discussing.

I would bet big they didn't even sodding know.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 07:03 Edited at: 26th Jan 2008 07:09
Link
Quote: "Oh wow, a whole picture to show you had an original Xbox.
Guess what, I have a Playstation 1, 2 and 3 sitting here in the living room with a combined 400 titles on the shelves for them.
That doesn't mean I like Sony in any form, but I also didn't cite something that Microsoft or Nintendo did in a similar situation when the whole Hot-Coffee fiasco was going off simply to have a pop at the company due to my own preferences."


Amazing how I don't care. And HAVE an Xbox. I took that this morning with KoTOR and Jade Empire sitting out speficially for you. Problem, the company in question is NOT Microsoft, so how and why would my "negative" opinion about them be affecting this discussion in any way shape or form?

Quote: "I'd be surprised if your Xbox still gets much playtime now you have moved to this generation; or does your PS3 honestly have that few titles that you still need to go back to the old titles you love which btw all of the ones you've shown currently work on the 360 with it's backward compatibility; most I see there not only work now but have done since the console release. So what exactly was stopping you upgrading to that rather than the PS3?"


I STILL don't care that you're getting your panties in a bunch because I choose to play PlayStation games. Actually I don't "love" any of those Xbox titles. I have those titles because I wanted to play those titles, and can STILL play those titles without a 360. All the games I love are on PlayStation platforms, hence my preferencial choice in a games console. And the fact that I prefer the Dualshock to any other controller designed, and yes that includes the 360 and SIXAXIS.

Quote: "I'm sure you'll come up with some smartarse answer to that, but from where I am and your comments against Microsoft the past year or so... doesn't really take a rocket scientist and to see the comment you made that quite frankly you would've been in a better position citing a number of PC or Multiplatform titles (say Farenheit for example which featured full frontal nudity and a sex scene you COULD choose what happened with) you went for something Sony did themselves as if to say "This is why Sony are better than Microsoft and EA""


Maybe if I had known... Why would I cite games I've NEVER played? I've played God of War, and I KNOW the content in it is far worse than that of Mass Effect. I didn't go out and do research before I realized that other games have far worse sexual content. I remember playing God of War, it not having any controversial issues about what was in it. Connecting your delusional dots to try and "figure out" my stance on this issue is ridiculous. Again Microsoft has NOTHING to do with this.

Quote: "Yet you seem surprised that EA has basically turned around and told them to just do the decent thing and apologise."


No, I'm surprised that EA is stupid enough to write a letter that almost matches word-for-word what the guest on the show stated. What I'm not surprised about is the reaction from the gaming community about it, and towards FNC in general. I just thought it was amazingly ironic how a big name company uses the words of a "face for games" on SpikeTV to "call out" a network.

Quote: "How about this, click on my linked video... then what the Fox broadcast. Tell me if anything seems familiar.

You'll probably get a feeling of deja'vu, you know why? Because Fox showed the scene in it's entirety that they were aruging about as the whole "mass effect" showcase footage. It's odd that no-one phoned up and complained about fox doing that, and the presenters made absolutely no mention that it was the scene they were discussing."


No it wasn't... I literally went back and watched the segment on Fox news (this is what people who know how to argue do instead of making stuff up) to actually see if you werent lying. But, yes, yes you were. In the showcase footage, they cut out the opening of the scene showing the characters grabbing and kissing each other, the entire segment where it shows the profile of the nude women/alien, only showing closeups of the faces of the characters mid scene and the ending shot of the scene with the hand in the air. They had a still image of part of the profile censored with black bars, during the middle of Geoff's response... And that was it.

Here's reality -------------------------------------------- here's your mind.
Back to top
Profile PM
dfujis the rocker
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Feb 2007
Location:
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 09:45
Link
Politics, one rule- my money, stay away

If you think about it, every debate has in some way relation back to this rule. I personally have no desire for money, all it is is green slips of paper that bring sadness and I think that's well exchangeable for a bit of extra food to go with my lunch every day. But some people think not, in my definition, all politics is is a bunch of fools squabbling over what used to be theirs. Seriously, it's the governments money people, acting this way is like buying someone a gift card and saying they can only buy a certain CD with it.

Sorry, political unrest in my town and I needed to vent, badly

famous last words: check this out
Back to top
Profile PM
Deathead
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 14:49 Edited at: 26th Jan 2008 16:13
Link
You never back down to say Sony is better than as Raven said you try to make Sony are better than Microsoft and EA. You my friend always make a argument out of anything so stop it Krilik. And if you remember Krilik this is about EA getting their own back on Fox for that review so a. your off-topic all the way and b.YOU ARE JUST DOING THIS TO START ARGUMENTS.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
FredP
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2006
Location: Indiana
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 15:39
Link
This is supposed to be a discussion not a fist fight.Even if you don't agree with someone you should still respect them and their point of view just as they should respect you and yours.
Chill.

Please have mercy and use the search function.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 15:45 Edited at: 26th Jan 2008 15:46
Link
Careful with the strong opinion there Deathead, though I strongly disagree with stuff Krilik has said, I don't think it's necessary to say that you hate him (even if you do ).

The whole argument here, from what I've gathered the game Mass effect contain things you find on prime time TV...Surely for Fox to misrepresent the game and company that they should write a later of complaint? Even if somebody did correct them, but Fox still did the misrepresenting and they should not misrepresent, people lose money and reputation that way and if they're delivering the news then surely it's their moral obligation to represent information correctly.

I mean hoax holocaust writers misrepresent the holocaust...would you say they're right to misrepresent them and for the people being 'hurt' by it not to complain?

Misrepresentation is something that always used to be an uproar, now our media stations are capable of getting away with it, so I think EA had the right to complain in a letter, because it would be their sales and profits being hurt and their industry attacked. Heck EA are in a position to take Fox to court, whether or not somebody on their show did a bit of good representation.

What Fox did, gives more reason for people who are on a anti-video game rampage to go ahead and do it - though how misguided they are. The game is not for kids, even though it demonstrates what can be found on prime time TV and on their favourite TV shows such as Family Guy.



And whether or not you think the nudity in the game is appropriate, I don't think it would be a problem, just as much as I don't see the point of Hollywood movies throwing in a sex scene or Neil Gaiman does in some of his books. But I don't think it causing people any problems, for goodness sakes I grew up with movies like Hannibal, played games like Resident Evil, Dino Crisis and Grand Theft Auto...and I'm fine.

These 'screwed up' kids aren't the fault of video games, you see these type of arguments have gone on for a long time, first it was TV, then it was music and now it's video games, people are really evading the real source of their kid's problems and that's parenting. Basic psychoanalysis, abnormalities come from stressful or traumatic experiences in childhood, thus the parent's duty to protect them. Video games, movies and music fall under neither. Yes what people see does influence them if they have no understanding of right or wrong, it's not the TV's, musician's, game creator's fault, it's for parents not teaching or enforcing the most important rule of all - morality.

These attacks on video games I see silly and they remind me of what people used to say about heavy metal (and still say about black metal)...these people's standards will suggest that I should be one totally screwed up guy, I mean I listened to Marilyn Manson as a kid, so I should be worshiping the devil and participating in satanic rituals - but I don't, and one reason why, because I had a good family background and the other is that they didn't influence me in anyway.

Sex in games isn't harmful, they're the same as sex on TV, and when a station such as Fox complains on air about the sex content in games they're a little hypocritical - so much so it just seems they're just trying to cause trouble.


Sorry I went a little off topic, but I felt the need to rant about the type of people I've ranted about.

It takes blood and guts to be this cool, but I'm still just a cliche
Back to top
Profile PM Website
xplosys
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 16:10
Link
Quote: "News media has been dead for twenty years."


So true. As for the media, any media public or private, not having an
Quote: "obligation to provide people conflicting opinions"
, I strongly disagree. Whenever you put yourself in a position of authority and claim to be a "news" provider, you most certainly have a moral obligation to provide the facts. If you decide you want to be an "opinion" provider, you have the same moral obligation to provide a balance of opinion, and not one of your own or for your personal agenda.

Somewhere down the line, and a long time ago, the media stopped delivering news and got into the entertainment business. What twisted and slanted content we get today is far removed from the facts, and mostly irrelevant to our daily lives.

The only thing surprising about what they push today, is that people are surprised by it.

Best.

fpsFREE.com - for FREE FPSC Content
Back to top
Profile PM
RalphY
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Sep 2004
Location: 404 (UK)
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 17:48
Link
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=L2sZPOFSu1o

Kinda going off topic with this link, but it's a segment from Charlie Brookers screenwipe, about how television news has changed over the years.

Oh boy! Sleep! That's when I'm a Viking! | Super Nintendo Chalmers!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 18:02
Link
Interesting video, points I agree with in there.

It takes blood and guts to be this cool, but I'm still just a cliche
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 20:31
Link
Quote: "You never back down to say Sony is better than as Raven said you try to make Sony are better than Microsoft and EA. You my friend always make a argument out of anything so stop it Krilik. And if you remember Krilik this is about EA getting their own back on Fox for that review so a. your off-topic all the way and b.YOU ARE JUST DOING THIS TO START ARGUMENTS."


What?... And I'm going to go ahead and assume you didn't even bother to read half of this thread.

Quote: "I strongly disagree. Whenever you put yourself in a position of authority and claim to be a "news" provider, you most certainly have a moral obligation to provide the facts. If you decide you want to be an "opinion" provider, you have the same moral obligation to provide a balance of opinion, and not one of your own or for your personal agenda."


Everyone is an opinion provider. I don't expect people disagreeing with me in this thread to provide me with another opinion besides their own.
Back to top
Profile PM
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 21:00
Link
Quote: "That is NOT the same as doesn't have an obligation to provide people conflicting opinions. They don't. If they report the news and decide to comment on it and you feel outraged, they have no obligation as a news organization to appease your opinion. And I don't care if you don't agree with their opinion, or if you just plain don't want to hear it. They don't, no matter what."

You just don't understand the basic concepts of journalism ethics, not that anyone does anymore. Yes, they have an ethical and moral obligation to provide factual data (they didn't) and objectivity (the obligation to provide conflicting opinions, as you put it... yes, they're obligated to do so, according to journalism ethics), through self-regulatation, which Fox CLEARLY doesn't do.

Making a clear distinction between an editorial and real news is also important, and "roundtable discussions" like this one always blur the line between op-ed and proper news reporting. It's a remotely clever way for the media to deliver opinion while pretending to dig for the facts. They bring on some so-called "experts," and with the journalist directing questions they pretend to seek out the cold, hard facts regarding the subject matter, and to the naked eye that's what it seems like they're doing. But this rarely, if ever, happens. In reality, the "experts" they're bringing in often heavily favor one distinct camp in a debate and knows very little about the opposing view, and the journalist becomes little more than a referee in a slugfest, poking and prodding the "experts" to spark an arguement. That's not real journalism... but very little is nowadays. As xplosys very eloquently put it, they're delivering entertainment, not news.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Peter gee
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jan 2008
Location: behind you!!!!
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 21:17
Link
lets think of this as sex education lol i mean all they do is touch eacothers faces in mass effect

don't touch that cookie, it's mine!

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 21:36
Link
Well put Mr Rock. And this is why I am scared as a writer, because if I want to make a decent living as a writer, I'll have to enter the world of journalism. Imagine that, Seppuku writing for The Sun If I EVER work for the Sun, please shoot me.

Back to Fox (though the Sun is basically Fox written down and in the UK) It only makes sense for our News station to deliver news and not entertainment or 'give us opinions' - opinions should be separate from facts, which is what editorials are for or 'political' columns. People will sway with the point of view they take. When your favourite news media decides to mix facts and opinions in the same article, you agree with them, not because thats the conclusion you've come to, but because it comes to you mixed up in fact. When I was learning how to do editorial writing for newspapers I learned about how to control the reader's opinion. Learning that I actually saw it as a very scary thing for a writer to be able to do. And the Fox is one of these that implements their opinions into the fact in order to get people to agree with them or to think in a certain way.

I've read through tabloids and watched media stations and they use the exact techniques I was taught and this is why I am horrified by the media. So it's all fine and dandy to put opinions up, but you know, when they distort the true it kind of breaks their moral obligation as news givers.

These people are representing the truth, as soon as they misrepresent it, people will think what they say is so. It's how well people trust the news media - you can't give any organisation or industry the power to actually alter people's opinions. It's immoral. This is very different than proposing a point of view or argument.

It takes blood and guts to be this cool, but I'm still just a cliche
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 21:38
Link
I have a few points about this thread.

I don't remember reading anything here saying 'Sony is better than Microsoft'. If I missed that post please point it out but I think there is too much of an attempt to 'read between the lines' and seeing things which aren't there. THAT is how you try to start an argument.

The Fox video I watched seemed more like a panel discussion program than a news report. Although I agree that news reports should state the facts and steer clear of opinions, if it was a discussion panel program then the the whole point is to discuss opinions. Even if its on a 'news' channel.

When I first read the letter I though it was a fake. I couldn't understand why EA would bother responding when the public would do it for them, especially as it was so 'weak' in its nature and held no threat at all for Fox to do anything. Then there is the question of why they would release/leak the letter. The only conclusion I can think of is to try and keep the story alive and gain from its publicity. I don't blame them, but I am afraid its had a negative effect on me as I can only see it as a publicity stunt now.


Chart data provided with kind permission from ELSPA
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 22:24
Link
Well, the lady came back and apologized in an interview, saying she asked someone about it and they called it "pornographic". But then she actually watched someone play the game for a couple of hours and realized she was grossly mistaken.

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Insert Name Here
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2007
Location: Worcester, England
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 23:28
Link
That's no excuse. You can't write about something and then say 'Oh I didn't know about it'.


Русский.
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 26th Jan 2008 23:43 Edited at: 26th Jan 2008 23:53
Link
Quote: "That's no excuse. You can't write about something and then say 'Oh I didn't know about it'."


She was obviously rail-roaded by Fox. She's a small time author thinking *Free Publicity!*

She was unprepared, and she knows it now. No use in pitchforking her, forgive and forget. Fox, as it happens, has not yet apologized. They only invited EA to "Speak their side", which you know means Fox wants to dig into the game (or to games in general) further.

The woman though, she was just a casualty of war, so to speak.


Want free hosting? Click the sig, go to hosting link on right nav. Password is "tgc".
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 00:12 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 00:13
Link
Quote: "The Fox video I watched seemed more like a panel discussion program than a news report. Although I agree that news reports should state the facts and steer clear of opinions, if it was a discussion panel program then the the whole point is to discuss opinions. Even if its on a 'news' channel.
"
Opinions can't be based on false information. Not on a news channel. Actually, that's not an opinion, but a lie.

Quote: "When I first read the letter I though it was a fake. I couldn't understand why EA would bother responding when the public would do it for them, especially as it was so 'weak' in its nature and held no threat at all for Fox to do anything. Then there is the question of why they would release/leak the letter. The only conclusion I can think of is to try and keep the story alive and gain from its publicity. I don't blame them, but I am afraid its had a negative effect on me as I can only see it as a publicity stunt now."

I'll go lie about your creative child and see how much you don't want to respond if other people do it for you. I think it's great of EA to leave out all the legal things and talk as people instead of companies for once.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 00:20 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 00:21
Link
Quote: "You just don't understand the basic concepts of journalism ethics, not that anyone does anymore. Yes, they have an ethical and moral obligation to provide factual data (they didn't) and objectivity (the obligation to provide conflicting opinions, as you put it... yes, they're obligated to do so, according to journalism ethics), through self-regulatation, which Fox CLEARLY doesn't do. "


Maybe you should take more effort into doing research. In particular interest is "advocacy journalism", the different genres of journalism, and the different ethical standards that each of those genres practices. Also take note of the lack of enforcement of those obligations and the nature of ethics within the industry as noted in your Wikipedia article: leading news organizations that voluntarily adopt and attempt to uphold .
Back to top
Profile PM
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 00:27
Link
Jeez Krilik, as far as I estimate you, you're probably are some sort of businessman with a cold heart and nothing but zero faith in humanity. I think we should be able to trust our news-channels to portray true data. Again, I'd like to see you lied about on TV one day, and see how you react.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 00:32 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 00:33
Link
And again, I still don't think Mass Effect was lied about. I think there is an overreation to miscommunication based on select words like "graphic" and "full digital nudity".

I don't see how you can accuse me of having zero faith in humanity with 3rd parties (gamers) deciding to spam negative opinions (lies) about a guest on a news station they don't like out of spite. Its ridiculous. And irony at its best. Faith in that kind of backlash is sad.
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 00:36
Link
Quote: "I think we should be able to trust our news-channels to portray true data"


Seriously? I can't tell you the last time I trusted anything on TV:/

Go listen to NPR or read the NY times for a few weeks, then watch the TV news and see how twisted they become. And this isn't just, left side vs right side, they really do twist the story.


Want free hosting? Click the sig, go to hosting link on right nav. Password is "tgc".
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 01:06
Link
Not as much here in the Netherlands, I think we can be semi-proud of our news-channels.

Quote: "And again, I still don't think Mass Effect was lied about. I think there is an overreation to miscommunication based on select words like "graphic" and "full digital nudity"."

Oh, that's why she retracted her statements after playing the game, eh? You mean that any sane person would not agree that what she was trying to say was that the game featured full frontal nudity, or would mistake her for saying so?


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 01:20
Link
Quote: "Not as much here in the Netherlands, I think we can be semi-proud of our news-channels."


That's probably the case. U.S. tv news is a joke.


Want free hosting? Click the sig, go to hosting link on right nav. Password is "tgc".
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 01:37
Link
Quote: "Oh, that's why she retracted her statements after playing the game, eh? You mean that any sane person would not agree that what she was trying to say was that the game featured full frontal nudity, or would mistake her for saying so?"


Do you even know who you are talking about? The women who retracted her comments was a psychologist brought on the show as a guest. She is not a news reporter and she is not a journalist. Her comments are not the report. Any problem EA had with her comments rests solely on her shoulders, not Fox.
Back to top
Profile PM
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 01:39
Link
Quote: "Maybe you should take more effort into doing research. In particular interest is "advocacy journalism", the different genres of journalism, and the different ethical standards that each of those genres practices. Also take note of the lack of enforcement of those obligations and the nature of ethics within the industry as noted in your Wikipedia article: leading news organizations that voluntarily adopt and attempt to uphold ."

First off, I don't need to do research into journalism, this is a topic I already know about, and it's a topic you clearly know nothing whatsoever about. But have no fear, I'll quickly enlighten you .

Advocacy journalism is when you use journalism as a public platform to support a cause by showing facts that back your claims. If Fox came out and claimed they were advocacy journalists, I'd say "fine, not a big deal." But Fox notoriously claims they're objective and neutral, often making these claims whenever someone comes along to question their ethics. Tony Snow famously claimed that Fox was neutral, arguing that the rest of the media swings to the left. The Fox Chairman said that his network is "Fair and just". There's tons of other examples of Fox claiming they're neutral, even when studies prove otherwise. The point is, Fox don't promote themselves as advocacy journalists, like, for instance, the San Francisco Chronicle. They claim that they're objective journalists who play by the rules of ethics... and they very clearly and unarguably don't.

This segment about Mass Effect wasn't presented as advocacy journalism, not by a long shot. Roundtable discussions, very common in today's lackluster media industry, are designed not as editorials, but as proposed "fact-finding explorations" where they try to conduct the research on-air and allow the viewer to develop their own opinion directly from the source of information that the journalists themselves would go to. The problem with this method of "shoot from the hip news" is that they almost always take a side. These discussions are always biased and the journalists themselves often interject their own notions and idealisms into the segments. How on earth did you come to the wild assessment that this segment was in any way related to an advocacy op-ed? I'm dying to know here.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 01:50
Link
Lets just all agree that none of them knew what they were talking about except knightly. That anyone who is going to bash a video game better have damn well played through the thing. Especially if they are going to claim it has graphic nudity when in fact it could not be any further from it.

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 01:53
Link
Quote: "Have you not been paying attention? There was far more of an uproar about violence in video games long before there was about sex."


Hmm, surely not because violence was put into video games earlier on because sex was too taboo?

Quote: "And they still aren't okay with violence, why wouldn't people care about sex? The issue is misleading people's early sexual developement."


Well, and this is where the issue comes back in, where Fox stated that the games was targetted at young people. The game is rated M, for mature and should not be played by children.

Quote: "You should really read some material about serial killers and their early childhood. Sexual urges are extemely powerful, and when they are mislead at an early age, they can become dangerous. I think people have every right to have concern about who teaches them the rights and wrongs of sexual drive."


Such a sweeping statement, if that was the case would it not be possible to accurately predict who is going to be a serial killer or not, or at least to some degree of accuracy? Some people are deeply affected by some kind of sexual experience, some people are deeply affected by the death of someone they know, hell, I'm sure some people are affected by falling off their bike, shoving it all onto one thing is just stupid.

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 02:22 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 02:23
Link
Quote: "Do you even know who you are talking about? The women who retracted her comments was a psychologist brought on the show as a guest. She is not a news reporter and she is not a journalist. Her comments are not the report. Any problem EA had with her comments rests solely on her shoulders, not Fox."

Jeez, you're smart. If you doubted whether anyone in here didn't know that, you're severly underestimating the others around here, or I'm severely overestimating them. I'll just take this as an ignorant insult.

FOX should not allow 'fake experts' on TV, especially not if there's obvious proof that she has no clue what she's talking about. FOX should've kicked her out, they didn't. EA's product got bashed in front of hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers that'll now not allow their children to play a gem like Mass Effect, and thus resulting in a possible loss of profit for EA. Even if it doesn't do the above, it could've. That's bad. EA replies politely, which is good. FOX was wrong. Miss Cooper was beyond wrong. Anything besides the above, in my opinion, is utterly ignorant or just searching for an argument. FOX was wrong to air this, and I'm sure FOX will do the same back if EA has a 'fake expert' telling lies about FOX in their games.

Again, I'd love to see it happen to you. Not because I wish anyone to be lied about on TV, but because you seem to not notice that EA is right and FOX is wrong.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 02:25
Link
Quote: "FOX should've kicked her out"


Fox shouldn't have invited her.


Want free hosting? Click the sig, go to hosting link on right nav. Password is "tgc".
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Krilik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Mar 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 02:25 Edited at: 27th Jan 2008 02:42
Link
@Matt Rock: I didn't say Fox was advocacy journalism, I was pointing out a form a journalism that is NOT objective like you say its their obligation to be. This was about what news reporters are obligated to do, NOT what Fox news is. Get that out of your head, then come back to me.


@Kentaree:
Sex was in games as early as a Atari. And a lot more graphic than violence was.

Fox didn't state the game was marketed towards young people. Fox stated that critics say the game is marketed towards young people. Which is clearly evident by the guest they brought on, errorneously stating that kids play these games, Cooper, the critic.

I'm not saying shoving it all onto one thing is not stupid. But saying its "okay" to allow videogames to influence children because other things also do is fallacious. All influencial things should be treated with caution. And I'm not agreeing people should overreact about videogames, I'm just saying that they should be allowed to have concern, but also concern for other areas of influence on their children as well.



@tha_rami: If the woman who retracted her comments were so offensive, then why did EA respond to Fox, and not Cooper?

I still believe you have no idea what Cooper's expertise really was. Her knowledge on Mass Effect has nothing to do with her purpose on the show. End of story.

How do you feel about reviews of videogames? Hundreds of games are bashed each year out of opinion. People are more influenced not to buy games that score 6/10 on a review site than a 5 minutes segment on Fox news. Should EA send all of them letters also?
Back to top
Profile PM
tha_rami
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 02:26
Link
And people should not be lied to about influential things. Not through something as influential as national TV. End of story.


A mod has been erased by your signature because it was larger than 600x120
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Keo C
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 03:41
Link
Fox is evil!!!1


Image made by the overworked Biggadd.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 03:59
Link
@
Quote: "Matt Rock: I didn't say Fox was advocacy journalism, I was pointing out a form a journalism that is NOT objective like you say its their obligation to be. This was about what news reporters are obligated to do, NOT what Fox news is. Get that out of your head, then come back to me."

Um, you're contradicting yourself right? Is that intentional? If Fox claims that they're objective and neutral, then yes, they have to live up to that. And if you're saying they can be advocacy journalists and pretend that they aren't, then you're about as wrong as wrong can be. And what's the difference between Fox News and other news reporters? Are you saying Fox isn't a news organization? If they're a news organization, and they're claiming objectivity (as I proved earlier), then guess what? They're violating journalism ethics. But then again, you're just about the only person who takes Fox seriously anyway, so I guess the world will keep spinning .

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 27th Jan 2008 04:39
Link
Krilik, reviews are there for the purpose of providing gamer experience on a game and offering their opinion.

News is there to deliver the facts as researched by their journalists and experts.

With a big media station that's widely trusted and listed to such as Fox, anything they say there will have an effect on what people believe, Fox have the power to use their language and what they say to manipulate peoples opinions. When something like Fox misrepresents its information or allows their speaker to speak as they did on air - as professionals are to hold for it and to blame and not so much the speaker. Even on our little radio station, if we have a guest that breaks the rules/our contract, the guest is not held to blame, we are - we're supposed to professional enough to be able to make sure what our guest is going to say is safe for them to say (Fox should have done this), thus I as the producer of the show would get the fine and threats.

Even if the expert corrects what they said, there is still damaged done, and considering Fox is big - the potential damage is still enough to warrant a complain such as EA made.

Also, on our radio station, if we so much as misrepresent a political opinion, our butts will be for sale - hence in our contract so much as the word 'politics' results in a fine, a warning or discussion of the show being cut. Seriously. The reason because, we're a neutral radio station, we're not allowed to go either way...not even with student politics, we're not even allowed to say an artist is terrible.

Fox, well they can provide an opinion - even though they call themselves neutral when they're left wing (by the way I'm all for left wing), but fact and information, should be not be subjectified in presentation, you can give your point of view, but not merge 'fact' and 'opinion' together, because that's how you manipulate people's opinions and misrepresent information.

[hypothetical situation]"The evil football player took a diabolical kick into the poor mans shin and he cried out in pain. The crowd wasn't pleased." As an example of 'subjectified information'...well that's the reporter's view of it, but what if the 'poor man' was shouting severe abuse at the footballer and the footballer lost his temper, 'the crowd displeased' - did the report do a survey on the crowd? 'Cried out in pain', perhaps all he said was 'ow!' and left it be. 'Diabolical kick', it may have not been that bad.

Dramatisation and speculation like that occurs often in News media, some cases it's much more subtle. Lets say the situation was what I just said, the reporter wouldn't be lying, but purposely missing out the point that the man was shouting abuse, and speculating on the opinions of the crowd. (what if there was an 'ohh' causing the reporter to think they disapprove, when it's probably an 'ohh' for another reason, such for the unexpected kick) This would be a complete misrepresentation of data, would it not? And the 'opinions' of the crowd could very well be a lie, I mean I would doubt a report would debrief every member of the crowd, I mean if I was in the crowd, I'd be amused not displeased.

If you think that's perfectly okay, then there's an ethical issue, as people reading the article will think the footballer is outrageous (if I know my media, such a thing would be followed up with gossip articles to rub salt in the wound) - when it was probably just a moment of human anger that due to the insults he couldn't contain and was almost justified.

But my example there was inspired by the writings of the British tabloid owned by the same guy as Fox, (Rupert Murdoch) 'The Sun' and 'The Mirror', doesn't matter which, they're pretty much as bad as each other (except the Sun actually makes up untrue articles)

It takes blood and guts to be this cool, but I'm still just a cliche
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-19 22:32:28
Your offset time is: 2024-11-19 22:32:28