Friday March 16th, 2012--Headlines: sdadfdfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffAlpha Beta Omega















Manufacturing Outrage

Making this new schedule work is proving to be quite difficult.  But in the coming days, and with a fall break around the corner, I hope to get to some belated reactions to Gears, my current favorite indie game, and why more games should emulate Dark Souls.

 

For now though, a few thoughts on IGN's smack-down of former Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett.

First, there's Bennett's CNN editorial which states oh so provocatively:

'Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys."

Not exactly fire and brimstone.  But IGN wasted no time in publishing an editorial in response, stating:

"Bennett uses games as a catch-all 'bad thing' ignoring the fact that it's merely part of the fabric of modern life, has many social uses and offers people a welcome release from our stressful and / or humdrum lives, as well as a sense of achievement and progression."

A scathing critique to be sure.  And like any enthusiastic gamer, I could point out any similar number of benefits and positive effects resulting from the medium.  But the IGN editorial not only states Bennett's positions in the most uncharitable light; it completely exaggerates them.

The only full sentence of Bennett's quoted by Colin Campbell in the IGN article is the bit about how much time men in their 30s spend playing video games.  Campbell's conclusion is:

"Bennett is the latest in a long line of commentators who believe that the world's ills can be blamed on something that's new and unfamiliar. He says his problem is with games, but if you read between the lines, it's clear that what he really doesn't like, is people."

Why Campbell sought to manufacture this bit of "new," and felt one sentence of one column written by one man required such a thorough rebut is beyond me.

Whatever one thinks of Bennett's civic service, and Campbell pulls no punches when degrading Bennett's time in the Reagen and H.W. Bush administrations, there is little to be enraged by in his piece.  Far from laying all the blame for the relative demise of males (Campbell calls it "alleged" despite never providing evidence to the contrary) at the foot of video games, Bennett's critique is broader and spans all of pop culture:

"So what's wrong? Increasingly, the messages to boys about what it means to be a man are confusing. The machismo of the street gang calls out with a swagger. Video games, television and music offer dubious lessons to boys who have been abandoned by their fathers. Some coaches and drill sergeants bark, 'What kind of man are you?' but don't explain.

Movies are filled with stories of men who refuse to grow up and refuse to take responsibility in relationships. Men, some obsessed with sex, treat women as toys to be discarded when things get complicated. Through all these different and conflicting signals, our boys must decipher what it means to be a man, and for many of them it is harder to figure out."

Bennett hasn't been the only one to note the relative decline of men, though he may be unique in attributing it mostly to cultural factors rather than economic ones.  For instance, in a prescient cover story for The Atlantic Monthly, Don Peck discusses the fate of the American middle class at length, noting how the changing economy and increasing demand for better educated employees has hit male labor especially hard.

But the issue is less whether one actually agrees with Bennett or not, and more about the stereotypically soft-skinned response of Campbell and the outlet whose opinions the editorial represents.  Perhaps Bennett's article warranted a casual blog post in reaction.  In it, Campbell could have demonstrated the inadequacies of Bennett's account, offered some counter examples, and explained why the decline of males is a complex social event with no clear cut cause.


Instead, IGN devoted nearly 500 words and a homepage banner link to a crudely juvenile overreaction.  Not only does Campbell fail to see past his gamer associations and actually acknowledge the social ills Bennett is trying to address (rightly or wrongly), but rather than devote the limited space in IGN's editorial to offering a humble yet full-throated defense of gaming's cultural value, Campbell and Co. preferred to languish in gamer victimhood.

I'm a gamer and a super liberal one at that.  Sometimes in the morning I turn on Bennett's AM talk radio program just to get my blue blood boiling.  But when one of the medium's most prominent media outlets manufactures controversy where it barely exists, well, it almost makes me embarrassed to call myself a "gamer."

Cross-posted from 1up Community blog, "ethangach."