Senator introduces bill to study violent games

December 20, 2012 4:33AM PST

By Eddie Makuch, News Editor

In wake of deadly Connecticut shooting, West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller seeks measure that would look into how violent games and other programming affect children.

Democratic West Virginia senator Jay Rockefeller has introduced a bill to congress that would task the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the effects of violent video games and other programs on children.

Senator Rockefeller at an unrelated event.

 

The measure comes less than a week after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. that left 20 children and six adults dead.

"Major corporations, including the video game industry, make billions on marketing and selling violent content to children," Rockefeller said in a statement to hishttp://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=63bfd4cf-24f5-46f6-ae89-a054c733752c">website. "They have a responsibility to protect our children. If they do not, you can count on the Congress to take a more aggressive role."

The bill would direct the NAS to conduct a "comprehensive study and investigation" of the link between violent games and other violent video programming and harmful effects on children. More specifically, the NAS would be charged with looking into whether or not video games/programming cause children to act aggressively or "otherwise hurt their wellbeing," and if so, determine if that effect is notably distinguishable from other types of media.

This study would also look at the "direct and long-lasting impact" of violent content on a child's well-being.

"With respect to violent video games, NAS must look at whether current or emerging aspects of games, like their interactive nature and the personal and vivid way violence is portrayed, have a unique impact on kids," the statement reads.

Separately, Rockefeller said he will call on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to further their work in this area. "Changes in technology now allow kids to access violent content online with less parental involvement. It is time for these two agencies to take a fresh look at these issues," he said.

If the bill passes, NAS must submit a report on its study within 18 months to Congress as well as the FTC and FCC.

I just knew some politician would go after videogames as soon as they found out the author of the massacre was 20.

Good idea. How many government monies could I have gotten for "studying" Dishonored a couple of weeks ago?

...and not surprisingly it's a Democrat

foodfather said:

That picture will lead to more violence than video games ever would/could.

I like this idea? A comprehensive negative result commissioned by people desperate for a positive would be great to use if this comes up again.

Oh but it will not be a totally negative result. Since it is a government sponsored study it will at least leave the door open to future studies so they can continue to get money from the government. If the government was interest in the "truth" of the matter there are a ton of independent studies that could even be used for their purposes. This is looking for political gains by jumping on the hate bandwagon. He not interested in the truth just getting reelected, and wasting money. As for the study there has been studies that showed that when there is a major sponsor, in this case the government, the people carrying out the study will bend and spin the results to the sponsor's views, plus the sponsor who holds the rights to the results will spin them.

A good example of this is the only study that "proved" the benefits anti-bacterial soap. It wasn't even a study to study the effects of antibacterial soap put a study to see the benefits of using soap period. But the sponsor Proctor and Gamble supplied their latest product anti-bacterial handsoap to the study. Plus the only test groups where smoothie vendors who used soap at their carts or smoothie vendors who didn't. The study came out that there were marginal benefits to using soap, but the mechanical processes of washing hands took off most of the bacteria. But Proctor and Gamble used it and see anti-bacteria soap has benefits.

There has been largly ignored studies that have come out about the benefits anti-bacteria soap, and most range from the soap is ineffective over regular soap to there are negetive results. (i.e. killing off benefical bacteria on the skin leaving you open to infections.)

So in conclusion economics almost always win again scientific integrety. Another example of this is why we seem to get a major discovery like the missing link only to have them retract the story days or weeks latter. There was one a year or two ago, but the most famous would be the _____ man (I keep mixing it with Java man which was Stop and Go's play on it) it was a missing link that showed without a doubt that man evolved from apes. It was the talk on all the radio stations during the mid 80's and weeks later there was a retraction printed usually on the last page, where the discovery was on the front page. That the scientists too quick to get their discovery out mistaken a mass grave of donkey bones that were killed and buried during WWII and didn't handle the carbon dating correctly or putting the bones together correctly. It usally the same with all such discoveries wanted to get more funding for their studies they will rush results resulting most of time in embarrassing and damaging results to the scientists involved.

It likely won't come up as a negative though. They'll find some circumstancial link like "People playing games have more adrenaline in their blood" and jump to a conclusion from there.

i personally don't mind if it's done scientifically .