Violent video games

"Write a blog post about a mass medium (e.g., Grand Theft Auto) that could send undesirable messages. Locate at least three academic journal articles about the medium (e.g., violent video games). Describe the medium, cite the research about media effects, and reflect." Of course I took the high road and used the example they gave me. Based on the secondary research I did, I have concluded that violent video games do not increase violence in society.

I found three separate articles that pertain to the topic of violent video games. The first one I found was an article in the LA Times about a law that prevents violent games from being sold to minors. As of right now, the sale of violent video games is legal to minors. The state argues that parents could use the help in preventing their kids from video games. However, the video game attorney makes a solid point: "Maybe a state will say we shouldn't let you sell, without a parent's permission, books about homosexuality or sex education or birth control," Paul Smith, the industry's attorney, said after the hearing. "I think it's a very scary prospect." The state is trying to make its case by saying that because video games are interactive, they promote participation in violent acts. This point is the same exact point that the next article I found was based on.

The article was on the American Psychological Association website and was titled, "Violent Video Games Can Increase Aggression." It claims that violent video games are more harmful because they are interactive. It claimed that based on their research, men who were habitually aggressive were more violent because of violent video games and that everyone who participated in the violence showed a short increase of aggression. So basically they are saying that violent people are still violent after they play a violent video game and that mild-tempered people are violent for only a short time. Did they think that it was possible that the short lived aggression could be contributed to something else? Most violent video games are contest based so couldn't the aggression be based on an adrenaline rush from competing?

The last article I found was on the PBS website. It was about myths concerning videogames. The article was written by a professor at MIT. His overall message is that video games are given too much credit and that sane individuals can disassociate fantasy from reality. I agree fully with this article. Video games only have as much power as they are given. Why does it matter whether or not video games increase violence? From the first article I found, it matters to the parents who don't want their kids playing violent games and it matters to the game producers who want to keep making and selling their product. It is an issue about freedom versus responsibility. Some people just want to blame and put the responsibility on others. What really needs to be done is that we need to take responsibility for what we choose to participate in. If parents don't want their kids to play certain games then they should take responsibility to do it themselves. People need to be responsible. We can't sacrifice freedom for dependency.

Dear Mr. President

Why is it that celebrities think that they have a responsibility to make their political opinions publicly known? The real problem is the idiots in the public that validate the celebrity's opinion. In this particular case I am talking about Pink and her song "Dear Mr. President. Whether you have heard it or not, I suggest you check out one of her live performances on youtube. It literally made me sick. The words she was singing were so wrong and uninformed. She is either really confused, or really stupid. She blames President Bush for the homeless and the hungry and the ban on homosexual marriage. It is just so frustrating that people attack his integrity when he has nothing to do with anything that they're mad about. Nobody seems to know how this government works. People need to keep in mind that it is a checks and balances system and that the President only has a third of the power. Congress really has the most power and they are overwhelmingly liberal. The judicial branch holds the other third of the power and the supreme court is a liberal majority as well. All Bush does is pass the bills that the LIBERAL congress puts on his desk. yeah he vetos stuff but he doesn't make the decisions himself. Pink talks about him like he's literally the devil. I don't know if she remembers but the entire country with a couple exceptions voted homosexual marriage unconstitutional. the president is entitled to his own opinions just like everyone else. Obama doesn't plan on legalizing gay marriage. Clinton never even brought it up. Nobody talks about that. Nobody wrote songs to Clinton saying he made a mockery of the highest position in the country. Nobody wrote protest songs about the war Clinton got the US into.
The bottom line is that people need to shut up if they don't know what they're talking about. especially celebrities who think their opinions are more important than anyone elses. It's like every celebrity that picks up a guitar thinks that they're Bob Dylan or John Lennon. I dont care if you dont like what the Bush administration has done or if you're a democrat or what but dont make it a personal attack against George Bush. Politics are more complicated than that but I guess you can't expect an idiot like Pink to understand that. Go back to being a rich snob in hollywood and stay out of Washington you self-righteous hypocrite. You dont live paycheck to paycheck. you have never lived in a cardboard box. you dont go to sleep hungry. If i were bush i wouldnt want to take a walk with you either you ignoramus. If you want freedom and love and peace like you so valiantly preach than how about starting with not insulting people with morals. Just because you dont have any yourself doesnt mean you need to bash someone who does. If you're so concerned about the homeless and the hungry than why not give all your money to those who need it more than you! you hypocrite! you selfish vermin! How do you sleep at night knowing you have so much and give so little? how do you sleep at night knowing that while you curl up in one of your mansions, some child is dying while you live in luxury? You contribute nothing to society you worthless harpy. although politicians are known to be corrupt, at least they make some kind of positive difference in society. Any dirty lie that has ever passed through any politician's mouth is nothing compared to the garbage spewing from yours. You are a disease that spreads through the population of ignorant people, zombies, so easily corrupt by the media. A population that gets their political views from saturday night live and the daily show(quality programs but you still need to have a mind of your own!). This disease is slowly infecting my country, brainwashing the weak-minded. all i can do now, Pink, is pray to my Christian God that your warped, hypocritical idealism isn't the death of my once great country. People used to be proud to be Americans. I still am. The reason you arent being arrested for slandering the President is because our country was founded on religious ideals that allow you to do so. I suggest you not take advantage of that freedom.
Today's lesson: Shut up Pink. and... I rant when i'm frustrated.
Gabe Nevills

alternative media

This second graded blog is about comparing alternative media sources with mainstream media sources. The main difference between the two is that alternative media does not profit financially which creates an obvious difference in motives. That being said, I selected Democracy Now! which is a radio program that is broadcast nationally. I checked out their online site and the stories that they covered were on there with summaries. I noticed that the stories covered the election which is no surprise. However, I also noticed that all of the stories had a liberal slant and were targeted towards democrats. For example, the first story listed was titled, "WV Voting Machines Switch Votes from Obama to McCain." The story then points out that in West Virginia, Republicans were in charge of overseeing elections. This is an obvious shot at Republicans for corruption and conspiracy. The stories don't get any better for conservatives. Here are the titles for the other four stories I read. You will see that they are pretty self-explanatory:McCain Supporters Harass Obama Voters in North Carolina, Ohio Governor: GOP Is Trying to Scare Newly Registered Voters, Obama Campaign Volunteer Assaulted in Wisconsin, and the last story which was not about the election, Fox News Hires Judith Miller. This last story talked about how Fox News, a known conservative news source, hired this woman who was said to have "aided the Bush Administration in making a case for the War" I then looked at their mission statement in which they claimed to be independant and providing a view not seen in mainstream media. I would hardly call them independant considering every story was aimed at liberal democrats and most stories were bashing republicans. Since this assignment required comparison, I thought what better comparison than to do Fox News. We were urged to report on the same stories for both sources but I could not find a single similar story, at least, pertaining to voting. Indeed Fox News reported on stories geared towards conservatives so I wasn't too surprised in my findings. My curiousity got the best of me and I decided to do a little extra credit work. I went to MSNBC which is NBC's news program. They are consistantly liberal so I figured that they would have the same stories as Democracy Now!. To my surprise, They only had one story in common which was about Obama's grandmother's broken hip. I even checked another alternative media source and they didn't have the any of the same stories as Democracy Now!. Given the information I collected, I have come to the conclusion that Democracy Now! isn't a reliable news source, but a source for stirring up hate towards Republicans and a catalyst for conspiracy. In fact...now that I think about it, maybe Democracy Now! is the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks...
Today's Lesson: Keep your ears open and your eyes open wider. Make sure you have all the information before you come to conclusions.
Thats all for now.
Gabe

Who Am I?

I am Gabe Nevills. I am 19 and currently enrolled at the University of Oregon, majoring in film studies. This is my first blog and I am looking forward to it. This blog is actually an assignment for a journalism class but nevertheless I am excited. I enjoy writing but generally don't do it often in my spare time. This blog will be a great opportunity for me to write regularly and maybe change some habits. My interests range from basketball to star wars and anything in between. 

As far as my political views are concerned, I lean strongly to the right. I do have a few liberal views but I consider myself more traditional in my beliefs. I come from a strong family environment. My parents aren't divorced and took the kids to church every sunday. I am the youngest of four. I lived in Portland until I was ten and then moved out to Beaverton/Hillsboro area. I played varsity basketball at Aloha High School and graduated in 07. Right out of high school I wanted to major in history. I have always been fascinated with U.S. history. I attended Warner Pacific College my freshman year. It was close, small, christian, and liberal arts. While I was at Warner, I discovered my love for film. I loved watching and analyzing movies. I wanted to learn how to write a screenplay, film a shot, and edit the whole thing. Warner didn't offer anything like that so I transfered to Oregon where they have a terrific film studies program(and it's a whole lot cheaper). That's how a conservative guy like me ended up at a liberal place like Eugene.

As for the purpose of this blog: The purpose is to address social and political issues as well as the assignments given in class. I am a passionate writer with passionate beliefs so every blog should be a fun read. 

That's all for now.

Gabe Nevills

 

     

The 2nd Presidential Debate

So my first blog post was supposed to be about me. However, I have decided to do it on the second debate between the presidential candidates. Frankly I am embarrassed. Embarrassed as a republican that the McCain campaign resorted to name-calling and finger-pointing rather than sticking to the issues. (He didn't just decide to respond that way. His advisors told him to.) Embarrassed as an American that the debate looked more like a high school cheerleaders in a cat fight than two presidential candidates. The whole time I was watching, Brokaw was breaking up fights more than he was mediating. The candidates wouldn't even follow the rules that they themselves set. It was so frustratingly painful that I eventually just had to turn it off. I know I shouldn't base who I'm voting for off of one debate but after this one, I am seriously considering not voting for either of them. Even when they weren't at each others' throats, they were just repeating the same tired lines over and over again. They didn't address the questions directly. I'm sure that the people who were present, especially those who were asking the question, I would be offended. If this is how these men conduct themselves during a debate, I would seriously question their competency as leader of my great country. If this pointless bickering doesn't stop, I'm casting a protest vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger. At least he is not afraid to tell it like it is. Now stop being girly-men and act like you can run this country.


I liked this article by AP writer, David Bauder.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_el_pr/debate_tv