{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/6/2013 5:20:05 AM
22
He "strongly" supports the right to freedom of speech afforded by the first amendment, but implies the media should be restricted in some way or another.
Journalistic freedom or not?
English
-
I say we should just let the community of people censor what they do or don't read to better their reading experience. Maybe apply some sort of "silencing" function.
-
[quote]Maybe apply some sort of "silencing" function.[/quote]lel
-
Edited by Big John: 11/1/2013 10:13:57 AMWhat's this American gaming journalism? All I ever see is PR.
-
There's a difference between law and recommendation. He says they should exercise more care around these subjects, not that they aught to be silenced by the state. It is the public that makes these reports end up front page, more than the reporters.
-
Once again, I was very careful with the way I worded that sentence so as not to mean censorship. Secondly, I refer you back to my original question - should the media have journalistic freedom to report on these events or not?
-
To report truthfully, however that does not require images of the shooters or there names.
-
Implying that there should be legal restrictions is still not the same as recommending self control. When I decide not to shout in a crowded library, for example, my freedoms aren't being taken away, I'm just being courteous. There have been plenty of reporters to question the ethics of covering such stories on the same basis. And I, of course, as I implied earlier, believe in journalistic freedom, regardless.
-
Edited by Seggi: 4/13/2013 5:03:56 AMAnd you can do exactly the same thing for video games: self-regulate yourself, as a developer, so that you don't develop violent games. And, uh, exactly what kind of games does this guy make? Oh, right, of course he'd never propose anything like that as a solution to the problem, because that would disadvantage [i]himself[/i], and he's stuck much too far up his own arse to do that. His free speech isn't any more important than journalists'. In fact, I'd say it's much [i]less[/i] important.
-
Are you serious? Video game violence is not the problem here! This is one of his points. You're just choking down what the media is force feeding you.
-
Edited by Seggi: 11/1/2013 10:51:09 AMVideo game violence is as likely to be a source of the problem as journalism is. He acts as though being a gun-owning developer of violent video games makes him an expert on the subject - it doesn't, it just means he has a vested interest. And by the way, he clearly does outline a case for not blaming video games due to first amendment protections, which also happens to apply to (shock horror) journalism, even if he decides not to pursue it in his muddled little op-ed.
-
Ok this is a good comment. Before it just didn't seem right, not formulated. It looked like you were just yelling "It's the video games!! They're corrupting the youth!!!"
-
He's not calling for media restriction via legislation, but through self-control. After the Newtown shooting there were eight school shootings in January alone (after the Christmas break was over). I wouldn't call that a coincidence.
-
Edited by Seggi: 4/11/2013 8:35:00 AMSo why not call for video game restriction through self-control? All this guy's doing is cherry-picking the potential sources of blame that suit him.
-
Christ, seggi. You do realize you're posting on a forum that makes ( and is currently making) violent games? Are you just a troll or something??
-
[quote]He's not calling for media restriction via legislation, but through self-control.[/quote]I know, and that's why I was very careful with the way I worded that sentence. [quote]After the Newtown shooting there were eight school shootings in January alone (after the Christmas break was over). I wouldn't call that a coincidence.[/quote]Unless you're implying the media is contributing to this, in which case I'd like to see some evidence for that claim, I don't see the relevance of this statement.
-
He is making the implication that the media fuels the fame lust of these killers, and they want to be famous, instead of just offing themselves alone.
-
Again, as I clearly said, I'd like to see some evidence for claims like these.
-
As id like to see a clear connection between violent behavior and owning guns, or violence and video games. None have clear associations, but you can look and tell there is a huge amount of sensationalism with media. And i believe adam lanza had a chart, with a kill count, and he wanted to top it. You may say that is video game related, but who reports those kill numbers, and who talks about it nonstop? The media. They over analyze subjects, and skew them to their political agenda. They could have handled the media coverage in a much better manner, instead of sensationalizing it.
-
[quote]As id like to see a clear connection between [u]violent behavior and owning guns[/u], or violence and video games.[/quote]Can do. [quote]Our iterative model-building strategy also allowed us to observe whether the effects of more proximate risk factors mediate the ef- fects of more distal factors in a manner con- sistent with theory. [b]For example, [u]the 8-fold in- crease in intimate partner femicide risk associated with abusers’ access to firearms at- tenuated to a 5-fold increase when character- istics of the abuse were considered[/u][/b], including previous threats with a weapon on the part of the abuser. [b][u]This suggests that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse[/u][/b]. [b]However, consistent with other re- search, 3,23,15,24,25 gun availability still had sub- stantial independent effects that increased homicide risks. As expected, these effects were due to gun-owning abusers’ much greater likelihood of using a gun in the worst incident of abuse, in some cases, the actual femicide. The substantial increase in lethality associated with using a firearm was consistent with the findings of other research assessing weapon lethality[/b]. A victim’s access to a gun could plausibly reduce her risk of being killed, at least if she does not live with the abuser. A small percentage (5%) of both case and control women lived apart from the abuser and owned a gun, however, and there was no clear evidence of protective effects.[/quote][url=http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089]Source[/url] No, I won't make claims about the effects of video games because AFAIK that has been debunked. I'm also not particularly interested in your personal opinions on why or how you think the media affects these people either. Again, if you've got the research I'd like to see your position confirmed, because then we can go from there.
-
Edited by Capitons Wang: 4/7/2013 2:36:53 PM[quote]As expected, these effects were due to gun-owning abusers’ much greater likelihood of using a gun in the worst incident of abuse, in some cases, the actual femicide.[/quote] All i am seeing there, is that someone who was previously prone to abuse, if they have access to a gun, will use the gun to abuse as well. That in no way is suggesting, that guns create violent behaviors, just that people who already are prone to violent behaviors will use a gun in the same manner.
-
in addition to Capiton's post, just like to point out, domestic violence charges are a disqualifier from owning any firearm.
