Should Video Gamers Be Wary Of Obama Admistration?

Should video gamers be wary of President-Elect Obama?
For at least the past four decades, political candidates and government officials (and their spouses) have been slinging blame at the entertainment industry's products (movies, music, video games) for the decaying, lazy, and apathetic aspects of society. For example, in 1985, then-Senator Al Gore's wife Tipper co-founded the Parents Music Resource Center and testified before Congress about the negative effects of some popular music on kids. These hearings eventually led to warning labels on albums – not an entirely bad thing, but it was strange to see Frank Zappa trying to explain his music to a congressional committee.
Today, video gamers are parsing candidate Barack Obama's words to determine what a President Barack Obama will have to say about the influence of video games on people's lives. Obama has said he supports controls for both television and video games and that if the video game industry didn't improve its voluntary rating system, "then [his] administration would."
In campaign speeches to parent groups and educational organizations, Obama often told the crowds "There is no policy or program that can substitute for a parent who ... is willing to turn off the TV, put away the video games, and read to their child, or help with homework."
Overall, for a candidate who so successfully harnessed the power of the Internet, social networking and even gaming (he purchased advertising time on Xbox live games), Obama seems to understand the potential for technology and entertainment to distract kids from learning – and to allow parents to abdicate some responsibility, such as when he told the American Library Association that we have "a general culture that glorifies anti-intellectualism." He cautioned that "it's too easy for the rest of us to make excuses for it - pretending that putting a baby in front of a DVD is educational, letting a 12-year-old skip reading as long as he's playing good video games, or substituting dinner in front of the TV for family conversation."
As much as we love gaming, maybe it is time to talk a walk outside? As the Nature Conservancy pointed out early this year, fewer Americans are visiting national parks each year -- and much of the decline is due to video games.
So when you're done reading and commenting on this post, go get some fresh air. [Source: New York Times.]





Disney World Scammers Scored Four Years of Free Vacations
Stranger's Kiss Keeps 16-Year-Old From Committing Suicide
Rookie Cop Reportedly Berated, Called 'A Rat' For Arresting Off-Duty Officer
Walmart Ending Membership in Conservative Group
How I Went Bankrupt at 23
Can a New Guy Save Best Buy?
Woman Claims Kangaroo Stalked Her for 2 Days, Then Attacked
Pete Cosey Dead: Chicago Guitar Great and Miles Davis Collaborator Dies at 68
Facebook, Week Two: Fortunes Made and Fortunes Lost (Mostly Lost)
Michael Grant Dead: Crescent Shield Singer Dies Aged 39














Comments
6
Subscribe to commentsfirefish42089Nov 10th 2008 9:16PM
The government should stay the hell out of peoples lives like that. If they were to ban all the above listed entertainment, isn't that taking away your freedom? wake up America! Once we go down that road, there is no turning back.
jeremyNov 10th 2008 11:28PM
yep. one of the many things that obama will start censoring. radio will be first.
AnneeNov 11th 2008 1:57AM
I am not into video games, but I can tell you that to say the big reason people aren't going to the National Parks is video gaming is just so New York Times. 1. It is not cheap to go to the National Parks unless you live next door, and then it STILL isn't cheap, assuming you can get in. 2. It is not safe to let your kids play in the neighborhood, especially in New York. Why does anyone buy this newspaper?
matyNov 11th 2008 4:03AM
(In the U.K.), at university, study some 7-10 hours solid each day, but been playing videogames hardcore since I was eight. And all my friends are also testement to that. I guess games weren't really mainstream until I was 8 so I got that educational foundations some kids of younger ages might miss as a result of playing games -too- early?
For me, its not about how much, but at what age you start when it comes to video games. If you started at an older age, towards the end of what is primary school here, you've already had 4-5 years of education without it and games are far less of a distraction.
KristaNov 11th 2008 10:05AM
As a parent, it is MY responsibility to monitor how much time my children spend in front of video games, NOT the governments. My son has time limites on how much game time he gets, his homework is done every night and he is in gifted and talent. I do not need the government telling me how to parent.
GenericNov 14th 2008 6:06AM
Funny everybody's angry about Obama. I understand from the article that he favors that parents not substitute their responsibilities with other tech-tools that allows children to seclude themselves from society and instead be engaged in society, without saying people should or shouldn't play games.
As for the rating systems, he didn't mention any regulation there, just the sticker that is on the box should be clearer about the contents. Wouldn't everybody agree on that? That is not the same as regulating the content.