gamepolitics: Video Game Study Bill Passes Senate Committee, Moves On

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-03-09 09:16:00

Entry tags:

brownback, camra, cdc, democrats, durbin, hillary clinton, legislation, lieberman, markley, republicans, research, santorum, studies

Video Game Study Bill Passes Senate Committee, Moves On

As reported on CNet, a bi-partisan bill to fund a federal study of the effects of media on children has survived a crucial committee vote and will now move forward.

The Children and Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA) was proposed early in 2005 by U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sam Brownback (R-NE).

GP: As a historical aside, CAMRA was one of the first stories ever covered on GamePolitics.

The "sweeping study" envisioned by CAMRA would be conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bill was passed by the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Although the original version called for $90 million to fund the research, no amount was specified by the committee. Lieberman Press Secretary Rob Sawicki said a funding cap would be set during the congressional appropriations process.

CAMRA would mandate a review of the cognitive, physical and socio-behavioral impact of electronic media on child and adolescent development. Issues such as physical coordination, diet,sleeping habits, attention span, peer relationships and aggression levels might come under its purview. TV, movies, the Internet, mobile phones, and of course, video games would all be included.

"This is a big step toward helping parents get the information they need about the effect of media on their children," Lieberman said following the committee vote.

Marv Johnson, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), however, expressed concern that study results might be used to justify media content legislation. "Down the road when - if there is some sort of finding that there is harm in this - then we're going to see calls to regulate speech because of the potential harm. That's where there's going to be a problem."

A similar bill introduced by Rep. Edward Markey, (D-MA) has yet to be considered by the House.

GP: Don't sound the alarm bells just yet. With so many conflicting arguments about the effects of games, it's hard to argue with an actual study conducted by the CDC.

Page 1 of 2
<<	[1] [2]	>>

(Post a new comment)

	jargon_john 2006-03-09 03:18 pm UTC (link)
	Santorum and Brownback, two of the most vile politicians to me, for reasons other then this. I knew Clinton is for regulating videogame, but to associate herself with those two just made me like her even less. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	van_x_51 2006-03-09 03:26 pm UTC (link)
	/agreed. The outcome of this can ONLY be negative. The bill says "effect of [b]media[/b] on the children but why do i see videogames taking the main stage? (Reply to this) (Parent)

Concurred. -

thevelociraptor, 2006-03-09 03:31 pm UTC

Re: Concurred. -

jargon_john, 2006-03-09 03:36 pm UTC

	Oh no! Facts might get in the way of the fearmongering... braindead1 2006-03-09 03:28 pm UTC (link)
	I hope that some facts come out of this reserch. Facts to prevent crazy fear mongering... nah...it'll never happen. (Reply to this)

	This is like the most amazing thing I've seen. thevelociraptor 2006-03-09 03:29 pm UTC (link)
	Not. Liberman has been already know for that "Kongress Konterversy" with MK and Night Trap. What's next, Captain Kangaroo cavorting with Jack? (Reply to this)

	Of course ace_ofspade 2006-03-09 03:32 pm UTC (link)
	Of course. Completely un-biased people like Lieberman and Clinton are the best people for the job. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Of course xenosphobatic 2006-03-09 03:35 pm UTC (link)
	Name a member of national government that isn't biased. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	scimon 2006-03-09 03:33 pm UTC (link)
	Do you think anyone wants to point out to them CAMRA has been around for a long time. They might not like it's policies either. (Reply to this)

	jindewinter 2006-03-09 03:39 pm UTC (link)
	Can't these people just STFU already? I am tired of the bitch Clinton opening her damned mouth about video games and having to "Save the Children" People keep saying what a great president she will make, well all I know is she ain't getting my vote she seems to have a few screws loose. (Reply to this)

	Could be worse... getwellgamer 2006-03-09 03:43 pm UTC (link)
	Lieberman isn't so bad anymore. After he got all worked up in the early 90's, he's softened to a more moderate approach these days. I can't speak for the other politos in attendance, but at least Lieberman wouldn't make wild logical leaps of correlation = causation or anything like that. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Could be worse... jindewinter 2006-03-09 03:55 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah he is calmed down but I think that is thanks to teaming up with Clinton. Hell a psychopath would seem calmer when around her, she looks like she is going to snap at any minuet. (Reply to this) (Parent)

sallizar
2006-03-09 03:56 pm UTC (link)

"GP: Don't sound the alarm bells just yet. With so many conflicting arguments about the effects of games, it's hard to argue with an actual study conducted by the CDC."

We're talking about the same CDC that was responsible for the "Give your thumbs a rest. Play for real." ad campaign, right?? I'll believe an unbiased report will originate from within the CDC when I see it... The CDC is influenced just as much by politicians as any other federally funded organization...

Article reference:
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/27/governmental-ads-give-your-thumbs-a-rest/

Furthermore, this study doesn't even seem to fit into the defined purpose of the CDC...

From http://www.cdc.gov/about/default.htm:
"Since it was founded in 1946 to help control malaria, CDC has remained at the forefront of public health efforts to prevent and control infectious and chronic diseases, injuries, workplace hazards, disabilities, and environmental health threats."

The CDC has better things to do than study violent media... I'm sure my relatives with cancer would rather I play Halo in peace while the CDC does something important instead...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	dreamshade 2006-03-09 04:28 pm UTC (link)
	And yet, what sweet joy it would be if they can't produce any more concrete evidence than every other group that's initiated a study like this? If the study shows bias, then it will be evident and self-serving. Let's wait and see on this one. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) -

illspirit, 2006-03-09 06:12 pm UTC

	I'd love to believe them enmitywithin 2006-03-09 04:02 pm UTC (link)
	however my common sense overrides that love. there's far too many ways this little "review" can be twisted to a bias that "videogames are bad while tv and other media aren't" I don't trust it one bit. (Reply to this)

	silver_derstin 2006-03-09 04:31 pm UTC (link)
	The problem with those kind of studies is that it would take, oh, 15 years of constant analysis to be sure of getting decent results. And from a cultural point of view, video games are just getting started to be analysed as a literary form, so we don't have the info necessary to really look at it's cultural impact. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jindewinter 2006-03-09 05:31 pm UTC (link)
	I have a feeling it won't take more that 15 weeks for them to come back and see "See we told you! this study says Games are evil and made by Satan we need to save the children!" (Reply to this) (Parent)

	The only benefit will be to the folks recieving the $90 million. verbinator 2006-03-09 04:33 pm UTC (link)
	We will end up with another study that concludes nothing, except that the people involved sure liked getting that first chunk of cash and would love to get their hands on another $90 million in U.S. Taxpayer dollars. (Reply to this)

Honestly now...

phantompvp
2006-03-09 04:39 pm UTC (link)

Is there anyone in the world who truly believes that politicians will get the results of this study back and not find some way to justify federal video game legislation?

Heck, it doesn’t even have to be something from the report. It just has to be something which could be vaguely implied from the report, and then spun into a serious-sounding threat that sounds believable to the 40+ voting bloc.

(Reply to this)

	Probably good. anticron 2006-03-09 04:55 pm UTC (link)
	I see this as a step in the "good" direction. Though, I sincerely hope that the CDC will consider long-term effects rather than the obvious short-term ones (adrenaline/etc). With luck, it'll be both comprehensive and fair. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Probably good. anticron 2006-03-09 04:56 pm UTC (link)
	I guess I should be more clear: I hope they study the "effects" (if any), rather than looking for the "problem." (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

There's always the danger -

jabrwock, 2006-03-09 05:05 pm UTC

We all know what's going to come of this

bigman_k
2006-03-09 05:06 pm UTC (link)

Extremely biased government officals speanding money on research that due to the money's source will no doubt result in extreme bias (aganist violent video games and under the pre-determined belief that games cause aggression or violence) from the researchers who are doing studies. And when you go into something like a research study with a strong bias it's pretty easy to find something, anything within' that research that proves or fits your agenda. We need a perfectly neutral sourse for something like this to be done.

(Reply to this)

	grandmofhelsing 2006-03-09 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	"it's hard to argue with an actual study conducted by the CDC." Why does everyone assume that government agencies don't deliver the results the government wants? (Reply to this) (Thread)

jabrwock
2006-03-09 06:09 pm UTC (link)

Well, like that flawed EPA report on second-hand smoke (they were disregarding results that didn't agree with their pre-conceived conclusion), with federal studies you can get a court to toss out the report.

Can't do that with independant researchers, you can only criticize them for it, you can't force them to go back and release the data they didn't like.

Then again, they might not publish at all if it doesn't support their notion that games cause violence, but at least you can argue that they don't have proper support if their report never got out at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) -

tollwutig, 2006-03-09 06:41 pm UTC

(no subject) -

turbinerocks, 2006-03-09 09:09 pm UTC

(no subject) -

rlstigers, 2006-03-10 06:28 pm UTC

Waste of money

bluegus
2006-03-09 05:08 pm UTC (link)

This is NOT a good thing. We are talking about using nearly $100 million dollars of taxpayer money to fund research that ultimately is much ado about nothing. Firstly, I agree that this is just a precursor to legislation. Legislation that is doomed to fail. There's a reason that internet porn has not been outlawed. It's because Congress has been unable to find a way to do it without impinging upon free speech rights. And when the conservative U.S. Supreme Court consistently upholds PORN, then you know you have real problems. The same is true here. You can't legislate this issue without trampling free speech rights. Every Federal District court that has tackled this issue has shot down every attempt by every state legislature to curb violent video games.

So if legislation is doomed to fail then why conduct this study? To educate parents? I call bullsh!t. You want to educate parents? Show them actual statistics that show that video games have no causal connection whatsoever with real life violence. The cold, hard numbers play this conclusion out every single time. The only thing this study is designed to do is to try to establish a link that simply does not exist.

Or, better yet, tell them to get off their lazy butts and parent their children. Worried about the effects of violent video games on your kids -- then don't let them play! I am a 32 year-old lawyer, avid gamer, and father of two children. My boys only watch those shows or play those games that I LET THEM WATCH OR PLAY. What they do, what they play, who they play with, and how often they turn on the tube are all regulated by ME. I don't need my government to tell me how I should be parenting my boys. And I certainly don't need my government to waste my money on a study designed to pander to people who are so concerned with MY kids that they forget to parent their own.

This is a massive waste of our time and resources. $100 million. How many homeless people in America could be fed on that money? How many people could receive otherwise unavailable medical care with that money?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Waste of money silver_derstin 2006-03-09 05:19 pm UTC (link)
	I find it interesting that they can waste so much money right now with all the problems they have in the United States right now. How much was spent on the game legislation at this time? Can anyone give us the numbers? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Waste of money -

jindewinter, 2006-03-09 05:51 pm UTC

Re: Waste of money -

jargon_john, 2006-03-09 05:51 pm UTC

Re: Waste of money -

dutch_gamer, 2006-03-09 09:53 pm UTC

	jaykaos 2006-03-09 05:09 pm UTC (link)
	Here's hoping they come up with actual results. Frankly I'm sure video games and violent media have some slight effect, but it's no where near the level these people seem to pretend. If the study's results reflect that, I'll be fine with it. (Reply to this) (Thread)

bigman_k
2006-03-09 05:33 pm UTC (link)

Well everything we watch, read, listen to, play, ect. has an effect on us. But the question is are the effects at such a negative level that regulation is needed. I think not. Violent media might make kids play more aggressively amoungst themselves and might make them think a little more aggressively but they do not cause real-life aggression with intent to harm, which is just about the only thing i can think of that would justify regulation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	I can't wait blitzfitness 2006-03-09 05:44 pm UTC (link)
	I really can't wait for them to tell me what media has done to my physical fitness and diet attributes. (Reply to this)

	the1jeffy 2006-03-09 05:47 pm UTC (link)
	Don't sound the alarm bells just yet. With so many conflicting arguments about the effects of games, it's hard to argue with an actual study conducted by the CDC. My arguement is the price tag in the immediate sense, and the same arguement as the ACLU in the long term. (Reply to this)

	markusdragon 2006-03-09 05:51 pm UTC (link)
	Can't you find a better acronym than CAMRA? Only CAMRA is the Campaign for Real Ale, a cause that, as you can imagine, I'm somewhat supportive of. Mmmmmm.... Beer.... (Reply to this)

	I wonder... howdoyouplead 2006-03-09 05:57 pm UTC (link)
	...if this study shows, with out a doubt, that there is no correlation between videogames and violent behavior if politicians (including Hilary and Joe) will immediately stop with the anti-game legislations. Now that would be something, if this completely shut them up. I realize the chances are very small, but I like to think it could happen. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: I wonder... ianc14 2006-03-09 06:40 pm UTC (link)
	Nah, theyd just saw the study was flawed and carry on. Same thing you-know-how would do (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I wonder... -

ianc14, 2006-03-09 06:41 pm UTC

Garbage!

heimdal00
2006-03-09 05:58 pm UTC (link)

The media will definitely draw "factual conclusions" from this study, despite the fact that the field of study that this fits into has never, ever, produced conclusive facts. We simply aren't advanced enough yet.

The findings will be contextual, and there's always that possibility they might only be true in the study itself. Say they find a probability of 75% kids eat more junk food who are always being exposed to the media; what's the probability that probability applies to the real world, and not just in the exact environment of the study?

This is a horrible time for a study such as this. There will be bias.

(Reply to this)

My thoughts

wedgetalon
2006-03-09 06:12 pm UTC (link)

First off, I think this study should have been started a good 10,15 years ago.

A high-profile gov'-backed study like this would be A Good Thing™ for the public, if they do it right. IF. For some reason I have this horrible feeling that they won't.

They will be pressured or forced into using too short of a time frame. Anything less than five years shouldn't even be taken seriously. A full-blown 15 to 20 year study would be better.

Next, I fear that major players will sway the final opinion of the research despite any results they find. The results will be up to the highest bidder. Or, rather, the written interpretation of results will be. "Statistics may never lie, but statisticians do."

Finally, I fear any sort of marginal negative impact - whether concrete or theoretical - reported will be used as as kindling to attempt to force through time and money wasting censorship bills.

(Reply to this)

I am thinking good thing..

tollwutig
2006-03-09 06:56 pm UTC (link)

At least this Bill isn't screaming games are bad lets ban them. It's not even singling out video games.

Even if this study only determines the correlative effects of these types of media produce in the rest of society it'll help in later studies.

As to the bias of the CDC, more than likely this research will be granted out to Universities. Given man power is the largest cost of a research project of this nature, its generally cheaper to give a grant to a University Department who gets the use of free Grad Student labor.

The only concern I have is how much bias the Upper Suits of the CDC who will issue the report to Congress will be at the time of the completion. Also how biased the person(s) compiling the data is. Since this would be a government study though the actual data, and memos between researchers can be made public throught the FIA, giving opportunity to dispute the conclusions of said report, if they research is flawed.

Good:
1) Actual research being conducted
2) All data will be publically known
3) Doesn't specifically target video games
4) Gives reason to shut scaremongers up while research is concluded
5) Gives reason to stop pending legislation see #4
6) Any Bias will should be detectable

Bad
1) Potential for bias by Political appointees
2) Crap load of money to be spent when deficits are high
3) Sponsored by Clinton and Santorum (can you say match made in Hell)

(Reply to this)

	thefremen 2006-03-09 07:06 pm UTC (link)
	So there won't be an investigation about nsa/bush, but this will pass no problem? Meanwhile we sold our airport security to Hamas? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	turbinerocks 2006-03-09 09:11 pm UTC (link)
	Every day is a party when Rs control the house, the senate, and the White House! Here a bomb there a bomb everywhere a bomb bomb! (Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) -

rlstigers, 2006-03-10 06:48 pm UTC

(no subject) -

thefremen, 2006-03-10 07:36 pm UTC

(no subject) -

rlstigers, 2006-03-10 08:18 pm UTC

Page 1 of 2
<<	[1] [2]	>>

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs