Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-22 18:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:abc news, bf2, jake tapper, nightline, samir

ABC's Nightline Mainstreams Pentagon Battlefield 2 Fiasco

It has been quite a day for video games on the tube.

Over coffee this morning we had Jack Thompson being Jack Thompson on CNBC's Squawk Box.

Then we howled as Jon Stewart flayed Congress over last week's video game hearings. And now the "Samir" story has gone mainstream, courtesy of ABC News and Nightline.

Who's Samir?

As reported last month by GamePolitics and Water Cooler Games, an important Congressional committee was wrongly told by employees of the Pentagon that a Battlefield 2 fan video was an insidious al Qaeda recruitment and propaganda tool.

In reality the video was cobbled together by a gamer named Samir, a Dutch citizen and BF2 devotee. GP's Colin McInnes scored the first interview with Samir (excerpts from which will appear in the upcoming issue of PC Gamer U.K.).

Late last month NPR picked up on the fiasco and now ABC's Jake Tapper has taken it to the masses with a terrific seven-minute expose on just how a Pentagon bureaucrat, prompted by a highly-paid defense contractor, managed to bungle this story.

Frankly, as a U.S. taxpayer, GP expects quite a bit more for the $7 million which the government paid to the contractor, Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC).

ABC interviews Samir on camera (but with the gamer's face hidden, see accompanying screen cap) as well as the Pentagon official who made the erroneous declarations to the House Select Intelligence Committee. It's definitely worth watching.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...




(12 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Time frame
[info]jabrwock
2006-06-22 10:59 pm UTC (link)
Kinda crazy it took them this long to do the story, but maybe it took them that long to convince the Pentagon official to talk about it.

If *I* was him, *I* certainly wouldn't want to talk to ABC about why I grabbed the first "jihadist-looking" video I'd found for a presentation talking about how much effort I put into researching jihadists. :p

It would be like grabbing a list of free net-distributed racist flash games to use as an example of retail games I'd like Walmart to keep out of the hands of children...

Er...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Time frame
[info]gray17
2006-06-22 11:37 pm UTC (link)
My guess is that they didn't realize the screw up on the Pentagon and contractors part uptil it after it hit NPR. At which point(or a week or so after) they started researching the thing for themselves, seeking out the relevant people for interviews and compiled their report. The end result being the month+ turnaround time from the initial story. Personally I'm not complaining as they are making it mainstream, and they are drawing the proper conclusions(i.e. we didn't get our moneies worth for the $7 million dollars we payed for research).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Time frame
[info]kajex
2006-06-23 12:12 am UTC (link)
No crap, we didn't get our monies worth. What kind of cheap turds do we have in the Pentagon that can barely tell you the difference between RAM and Gigabytes? Frankly, I'm scared by the way these old fools are thinking...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Time frame
[info]gray17
2006-06-23 12:59 am UTC (link)
Well, in defense of the old fools, most people would be hard pressed to tell you the difference between RAM and Gigabytes, or a CD and a DVD, or that the hard drive is something that's inside the big case everything plugs into and not the big case itself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Time frame
[info]kajex
2006-06-23 03:47 am UTC (link)
That's why they're supposed to hire experts to tell them what's what, or to prepare a report based upon findings rather than making assumptions- and that means ACTUAL experts, not people whom you trust to find the right information, but people actually tied to the subject in question.

If, for some reason, the Pentagon required a cake, but nobody knew how to make one, would it be better to spend $7 million to have one of their people make a cake based on their findings and their own assumptions, possibly turning said cake into a lump of inedible gross? Or hire a cook to tell them exactly how it's done, aid them with making that cake, and add in certain elements to make it a true cake?

My analogy basically says that if we're going to have our tax dollars fund a group of people who make assumptions first and find facts last, it'd better be a damned good cake.

...

And chocolate.

...

With strawberries.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Time frame
[info]durinthal
2006-06-23 04:27 am UTC (link)
That's why they're supposed to be hiring "experts" that can tell the difference.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

OMG Senator Chambliss Emailed Me
[info]gatz111085
2006-06-23 12:34 am UTC (link)
Dear Mr. Roberts:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding
S.2126, the Family Entertainment Protection Act. I understand
your concerns, and I appreciate hearing from you.
As a father and a grandfather, I understand the concern
about young children being exposed to graphic pictures of violence
and explicit sexual content. And while I believe it is the
responsibility of parents to make sure that children are not exposed
to such material, parents must have the tools necessary to protect
their children and we, in Congress, must pass meaningful
legislation to aid parents.

S.2126 would prohibit a business from allowing children
under the age of seventeen access to any video game deemed
mature, or for adults-only. This bill certainly will not prevent
adolescents from playing these video games; however, they must
first obtain parental approval, by way of the parents purchasing the
game for the child. Should this legislation come before the Senate I
will certainly keep your views in mind.

I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that
children are protected from any kind of unsuitable material. Thank
you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to
receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional
actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web
site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to be in
touch if I may ever be of assistance to you.





Sincerely,

Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: OMG Senator Chambliss Emailed Me
[info]sidender
2006-06-23 03:28 am UTC (link)
Unsuitable material eh? Such as a mayor of a major city admitting heavy drug usage? Or a former president who was involved in multiple major sex scandals? Or pardoning people from federal prison in the final days of his presidency? This 'do as we say not as we do' mentallity of congress is *fun*. I wonder how they will selectivly use it next.

What I don't think he or any other member of congress realizes is that parents do not want to spend time researching a game, they just want their younger kid to quiet up and leave them alone. For the older crowd who do not have that problem, such as high schoolers for instance, if they are having problems recognizing what is good, what is bad, what is make believe and what is reality then it's really too late by that point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: OMG Senator Chambliss Emailed Me
[info]kajex
2006-06-23 03:52 am UTC (link)
I admire that this man has his priorities set, which is more than can be said for most other politicians. Despite that, the problem is that these tools ARE available to parents, but nobody seems to want to pick them up. And making video games a government controlled media shouldn't be allowed unless you add in T.V., movies and books into the fray. And at least this isn't a government telling us what we can and cannot partake in with our hobbies, just a government unaware that parents are buying these games for their kids anyways, and believes it's doing the right thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: OMG Senator Chambliss Emailed Me
[info]aniki21
2006-06-23 09:24 am UTC (link)
This bill certainly will not prevent
adolescents from playing these video games; however, they must
first obtain parental approval, by way of the parents purchasing the
game for the child.
Aren't the majority of games bought for kids purchased by their parents anyway? This isn't going to do a damn thing in most cases.

On the other hand, educating parents about the ESRB ratings (whether you think they're flawed or not, they are a decent guide and they are accurate a lot of the time) and game content would do much more to prevent the alleged corruption of America's youth.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: OMG Senator Chambliss Emailed Me
[info]nightwng2000
2006-06-23 09:59 am UTC (link)
I love the constant reference to "tools".
As usual, the old "I do not think it means what you think it means" comes to mind.

A tool aids an individual, it does not do for an individual.
A mechanism does the work for an individual.

These bills do FOR parents. Therefore, they are mechanisms, not tools.
A tool would be information provided to individuals to aid them in making their own decisions.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Wow.
[info]thevelociraptor
2006-06-23 03:44 am UTC (link)
USA considers a idiotic "terrorist" trailer for BF2 when they should be elsewhere fighting the war or other things. :rolleyes:

(Reply to this)


(12 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…