ESRB and the TG16

[guyjin]

just had an odd thought: not one game I can think of for the Turbo or Duo has an ESRB rating, or ratings of any kind, for that matter.

It's not like it was too late - hell, at least one NES game got a rating. Was there some reason NEC/Hudson/TTI resisted or was denied ratings?

[nat]

TG-16 games don't have ESRB ratings because NEC and Hudson know that ESRB ratings are a load of shit and a waste of time, brought to you by your friendly "family-oriented," conservative North America.

If you own a TurboGrafx-16, you are obviously hardcore and have no time for crap like ESRB nonsense.

[Keranu]

Right on, nat.

[GUTS]

Ratings are a good thing, I don't get why anybody thinks they are bad.  The days are LONG gone where every game was appropriate for everyone, if I had kids I know for fucking damn sure I'd be reading the ratings on games before I let my kids play them.

To answer the question though, the Duo was pretty much dead way before the ESRB started rating stuff, I just remember Sega voluntarily rating its games with the MA, MA-13, and GA labels back then.  Out of curiosity, what was the NES game that got a rating?

[guyjin]

egads. i agree with guts. 

IIRC, the NES game that got an ESRB rating was wario's woods. it was K-A.
(this was before they came up with the current E for everyone, T for teen stuff)


http://www.thecoverproject.net/view.php?cover_id=14872

[nat]

While I don't think the general concept of ratings is "bad," in this circumstance I believe it is poor. The implementation is not correct. Since this forum is not really the proper place for politics, I will try to keep this brief and simple, but I feel I must elaborate on what I said.

First of all, the intent of my previous message was to try and make light of the subject while still conveying my underlying feelings about it. I feel that may have been misunderstood.

That said, what the ESRB (and other agencies) represent in this day and age is the slow move this country has been making towards extreme conservatism. The regulation and control of media, in this case. The choices that are made FOR us by third-parties. Freedom of the press, my ass.

While it could be argued that the ESRB is not actually controlling what you buy... think about it. They tout their ratings as "voluntary", but most major chains that sell these games will not sell unrated games. Further, said chains will not sell rated "M" games to kids under a certain age. That all still MIGHT not be so bad, but these jokers don't even play the games they are rating. No, they don't even boot up to the title screen. They rely on a synopsis submitted by the gamehouse to pass judgment. That's why the ratings are a load of shit, and a waste of time.

If I had kids (and for the record, I am certainly old enough to have kids old enough to be playing video games), I sure as hell would NOT be relying on a rating given by some right-wing jackass based on a written synopsis about a game he/she had never even seen. I also would sure as hell hope to know a lot more about the games I was buying my kids than what rating was stuck on the cover.

Don't get me wrong, the ESRB is really only a very small piece of a much larger, much uglier puzzle. This sort of thing hits a nerve with me, though. It was bad enough when they introduced the PG-13 rating. But at least those folks actually WATCH the movies they're rating.

And my apologies to any extreme conservatives here this may have offended. My ill feelings are not against people, just the philosophies.

[termis]

That said, what the ESRB (and other agencies) represent in this day and age is the slow move this country has been making towards extreme conservatism. The regulation and control of media, in this case. The choices that are made FOR us by third-parties. Freedom of the press, my ass.

Not a conservative, but wasn't it Democrats like Liberman and Tipper Gore that were huge on censorship and the like on games?

[OldRover]

The ratings are a shortcut for lazy parents so they don't actually have to research the games before buying them. Considering the vast majority of American parents are lazy as all hell and consider themselves "too busy", we're lucky some of them even read the ratings at all. No, the ratings are not perfect, but it's better than nothing...without them, the carnivorous conservative propaganda machine would have plenty of firepower to keep fighting their ridiculous "war on everything that our needle-eye-narrow minds don't agree with". So it's a necessary evil, really.

[SignOfZeta]

Not a conservative, but wasn't it Democrats like Liberman and Tipper Gore that were huge on censorship and the like on games?

Are you insinuating that Liberman is of what one would call a "liberal" mindset?

The US has no real liberal party of stature (ie: Labor, Liberal, etc), but even our pathetic Democrats decided to no longer support Liberman since he's basically the president's toady and a corporate stooge.

[GUTS]

I still don't see the problem, it sounds like complaining just for the sake of complaining about something.  Name ONE game where you've been denied some sort of content because of the rating system.  Hell Japan has a rating system too, are they ultra conservative?  Everybody complains about "the conservatives this and that" but jeezus dude you can look at fucking donkey porn all you want, then go down the street and buy a game where you dismember people, then wrap the night up with a huge gay orgy while watching faces of death.  Exactly what have the conservatives ruined for anyone?

[PCEngineHell]

Remember,Nintendo teamed up with Liberman in his 93-94 trials hoping to cause Sega and other competitors grief.
Sega was slaughtering Nintendo in system sales due to the more adult like content on the Genesis.
Howard Lincoln and Hiroshi Yamauchi were big buddies with him sitting by him in court,testifying in favor of Liberman,and against Sega with the basic "Sega doesn't care about children and what they play but Nintendo does" theme.

Too bad for both Nintendo and Liberman Sega was very prepared for this witch hunt mockery and made fools of them both during testimony.

Sega also stole the thunder from Nintendo when they created a rating system and helped pioneer the universal one thats used today.  It could have gone down alot worse if it wasn't for Sega.

[OldRover]

Exactly what have the conservatives ruined for anyone?

It's not what they HAVE ruined, it what they WANT to ruin. It comes down to intention. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Oh, I almost forgot...don't confuse Republican with Conservative and Democrat with Liberal. The labels are not interchangeable. There are plenty of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.

[nat]

Oh, I almost forgot...don't confuse Republican with Conservative and Democrat with Liberal. The labels are not interchangeable. There are plenty of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.

Very good, thank you.

However, my intent here was not to stir up a political debate. I'll be happy to debate this into the ground with anyone, but this is not the correct forum.

I was just adding a little clarification to my statement as to why these ratings represent a bad thing since GUTS and guyjin didn't appear to grasp my intended meaning.

Anyway... We're here to talk about video games! So getting on with it...

The REAL answer to guyjin's question. The ESRB was formed in 1994. By 1994 virtually all Turbo-related production in the USA had stopped despite the fact it would continue in Japan for another few years. I don't think there were actually any USA Turbo releases after the ESRB had formulated it's official rating system.

[Joe Redifer]

(Night Trap - Dangerous Games Documentary)

Night Trap is pure evil

[CrackTiger]

Night Trap is pure evil

I remember at the time all that b.s. was going down, my mother told me how my aunt was so upset about the rape simulator for Sega-CD. She said how she told my aunt that it probably wasn't really like that, but my aunt was like, "No, I know everything about it. I saw it on the news".

Although pretty much every console maker did or would've done anything to make money, it's still pretty disgusting how Nintendo tried to blame Sega for violent rape video games, after the tactics they used to keep 3rd party publishers from putting anything on the SMS.

The ratings are a shortcut for lazy parents so they don't actually have to research the games before buying them. Considering the vast majority of American parents are lazy as all hell and consider themselves "too busy", we're lucky some of them even read the ratings at all. No, the ratings are not perfect, but it's better than nothing...without them, the carnivorous conservative propaganda machine would have plenty of firepower to keep fighting their ridiculous "war on everything that our needle-eye-narrow minds don't agree with". So it's a necessary evil, really.

The problem is that the ESRB is too lazy to actual play the games to judge them. I think that ratings are fine and I have no problem with a child not being allowed to buy GTA. It's just too bad that the ratings aren't very accurate/consistant.

I read a few posts talking about conservatives, liberals, etc. Virtually all politicians have no real morals or value system and only join a political party because they have to get elected and have a career. Video games are an easy target of politicians in general.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. use games to enrage potential voters to vote for them, just as the 'gay' issue was used to win the last presidential election. Even though pretty much every major Rebublican has a staff loaded with open homosexuals who they're friendly with. It's a way to drum up votes from people too lazy to vote(or think for themselves) on a regular basis.

Nintendo played 'the blame game' along with the politicians at the time, but soon funded "Killer Instinct" and had all the Mortal Kombat's on their system.

[OldRover]

I know a guy who wanted to make a game where you play a pedophile. It was very interesting to see gamers, who have spent years telling everyone else that violent games don't bring people to violence, suddenly jump ship and start saying how a pedophile game would turn people into pedophiles. It got so heated that the forum that the discussion took place on was shut down and its owner walked away. So the whole "it's bad if it doesn't agree with me" concept doesn't only apply to politicians.

Also, it's rather hilarious that all these politicians who are so gung-ho with their anti-gaming crap never actually DO anything except stir up the media and cause widespread public ignorance. This is why I say that it's not their acts but their intentions that are the real problem. They will never succeed against the gaming industry but they sure know how to piss people off.

[termis]

So the whole "it's bad if it doesn't agree with me" concept doesn't only apply to politicians.

You hit the nail on the head right there

[KungFuKid]

What are you guys talkingabout?!? People DO copy what they see in video games all the time! Only last week I travelled the world and got together a bunch of people who can make fireballs shoot from their hands and competed in a fighting tournament a la Street Fighter 2! And yesterday I copied various shooters when I climbed into my spaceship, went to another galaxy and raced about shooting aliens - it was fun - I enjoyed it - and I don't see anything wrong with it!!! 

I've never heard such an absolute lot of crap as the idiots who think people go out and copy violence in video games - unless you're unbelievably literally retarded, I think 99.99999% of the population know the difference between what is acceptable in a video game and what is acceptable in real life!

[CrackTiger]

I know a guy who wanted to make a game where you play a pedophile. It was very interesting to see gamers, who have spent years telling everyone else that violent games don't bring people to violence, suddenly jump ship and start saying how a pedophile game would turn people into pedophiles. It got so heated that the forum that the discussion took place on was shut down and its owner walked away. So the whole "it's bad if it doesn't agree with me" concept doesn't only apply to politicians.

Also, it's rather hilarious that all these politicians who are so gung-ho with their anti-gaming crap never actually DO anything except stir up the media and cause widespread public ignorance. This is why I say that it's not their acts but their intentions that are the real problem. They will never succeed against the gaming industry but they sure know how to piss people off.

There's no need to make a game like that, there are already plenty of pedophile and rape sim games out in Japan. All someone has to do is translate some. 

I've never heard such an absolute lot of crap as the idiots who think people go out and copy violence in video games - unless you're unbelievably literally retarded, I think 99.99999% of the population know the difference between what is acceptable in a video game and what is acceptable in real life!

I don't think there's anything wrong with very adult and/or extreme games, but I think that truly adult material shouldn't be available to kids. Just as I wouldn't want pornos and snuff videos available for my children to rent at Block Buster.

[Bake]

The Turbo never had ratings, but I'm pretty sure they had recommended ages.  It Came From the Desert has the highest age cohort; 13 and up.

I don't think ratings are a bad thing.  I don't play many of the newer games so I do not know how accurate they are.  However, some of you have suggested that playing violent video games will not cause individuals to become violent.  I would say that this isn't 100% true because games can be a form of influence.  Living in a "bad neighborhood" where violence may be a way of life could influence those living in the neighborhood to become violent.  Violent video games, although they are not real, could have a similar effect.  Yet, I would imagine that for the most part that a majority of people do not become violent because of violent video games simply because the violence is not real.  However, the boys who caused the destruction that is known as Columbine loved to play Doom.  Of course, there are other factors such as bullying and social class that could have pushed them over the edge.  All I am saying is that these games are a form of influence and kids could imitate what they see.  So having ratings that are useful to parents is beneficial to society. 

By the way, I am not a conservative and I certainly do not believe in censorship.  I am just saying that any form of media can influence they way people think and act.

[KungFuKid]

Hmm, each to their own, people will always have different viewpoints on this issue. Personally, I just don't buy it. I think if people carry out violent acts they were always going to do it. I think they play the video game (HU )card to try and justify or identify where their actions have come from, but in my opinion it is just not true. There are unfortunately evil people in this world, and there isn't always an explanation for the ways they act - it's the media who actively SEEK a reason or something to link the behaviour to, even if it isn't there. Oh boy I know all about media manipulation, unfortunately had to study the damn stuff as part of my degree at uni. Just my opinion of course, others are entitled to theirs!

[CrackTiger]

However, the boys who caused the destruction that is known as Columbine loved to play Doom.

So did/do about 100 million other people who haven't commited murder. I still can't believe that people only look at the sterotypes after the fact when others do something like that.

It's never "Well, they lived in a house. There are signs that they may have once ingested food. We're pretty sure they breathed air".

But other common traits to the rest of society get singled out when they're subjects that can still trick people into getting riled up.

Which is how 'Bowling for Columbine' got it's title. Why isn't there a national boycot of bowling?

All I am saying is that these games are a form of influence and kids could imitate what they see.  So having ratings that are useful to parents is beneficial to society. 

Like I said before, ratings are fine. But as for kids imitiating what they see... kids entertainment is more tame now than it has ever been. Kids used to watch/read/hear cowboys & injuns shows and play army. All involving humans killing humans.

Then we got to the 80's, with MOTU, GI Joe & Transformers. Again, all out war. Followed by the violent 80's & 90's games. But you know what? There isn't a generation of serial murderers out there.

One of the kinds of modern influences that might taint kids, who shouldn't be exposed to it in the first place, is all the thung & pimp idolism. Not so much because of the 'mature' themes, but because there are many personalities that pretend to really live that lifestyle and some that are caught commiting violent acts. Other types of entertainers still commit as many violent acts and such, but when a thug clown does it, it's a real life extension of their character.

Again, we should still have this and almost any kind of entertainment, but extreme subject matter shouldn't be freely available to children. If parents want to give their children mature subject matter, that's their business. But nowadays kids who can't buy a Playboy can buy other mags and various forms of media far more sexually explicit(like Cosmo).

In the end, the real problem is parents not taking care of their kids. All you have to do is play a few rounds of a popluar online multiplayer game to see how bad it is. But even if every parent did everything right, we'd still have people doing bad things. It's human nature.

[Joe Redifer]

However, the boys who caused the destruction that is known as Columbine loved to play Doom.

They enjoyed taking a pee when their bladders were full as well.  Taking a piss creates murderers!  Ban peeing!

[Bake]

However, the boys who caused the destruction that is known as Columbine loved to play Doom.

So did/do about 100 million other people who haven't commited murder. I still can't believe that people only look at the sterotypes after the fact when others do something like that.

It's never "Well, they lived in a house. There are signs that they may have once ingested food. We're pretty sure they breathed air".

But other common traits to the rest of society get singled out when they're subjects that can still trick people into getting riled up.

Which is how 'Bowling for Columbine' got it's title. Why isn't there a national boycot of bowling?

All I am saying is that these games are a form of influence and kids could imitate what they see.  So having ratings that are useful to parents is beneficial to society. 

Like I said before, ratings are fine. But as for kids imitiating what they see... kids entertainment is more tame now than it has ever been. Kids used to watch/read/hear cowboys & injuns shows and play army. All involving humans killing humans.

Then we got to the 80's, with MOTU, GI Joe & Transformers. Again, all out war. Followed by the violent 80's & 90's games. But you know what? There isn't a generation of serial murderers out there.

One of the kinds of modern influences that might taint kids, who shouldn't be exposed to it in the first place, is all the thung & pimp idolism. Not so much because of the 'mature' themes, but because there are many personalities that pretend to really live that lifestyle and some that are caught commiting violent acts. Other types of entertainers still commit as many violent acts and such, but when a thug clown does it, it's a real life extension of their character.

Again, we should still have this and almost any kind of entertainment, but extreme subject matter shouldn't be freely available to children. If parents want to give their children mature subject matter, that's their business. But nowadays kids who can't buy a Playboy can buy other mags and various forms of media far more sexually explicit(like Cosmo).

In the end, the real problem is parents not taking care of their kids. All you have to do is play a few rounds of a popluar online multiplayer game to see how bad it is. But even if every parent did everything right, we'd still have people doing bad things. It's human nature.

Black Tiger,
My original post was not meant to convey that Doom caused Columbine.  I said other factors were probably the reasons why the boys did what they did.  But, Doom was an influence on them.  I realize that most people can play Doom and will not go on a killing spree.  That's because they cave into societal norms and killing contradicts their constructed views of morality.  I had a feeling that sentence would not go over well.  It may have sounded like I meant, "if you play Doom you will kill people" and that is not what I am saying.  Again, the meaning of my post was to say that media will socialize people.  Movies, music, video games will affect how people think and feel, and they may or may not act on those feelings depending on other influences in their lives such as parents, peers, neighborhood environment, and societal norms and values (or a disregard for those norms and values because of feelings of alienation or something to that nature).  There is no denying that.  I'm assuming the Columbine boys had numerous influences, Doom being one of them, that caused the violence to occur.  So Dooms was NOT the sole reason but possibly one of many.  Influences cause people to do what they do.  If you don't agree with me, that's fine. 

I agree that parents have to be more involved in monitoring what games their kids are playing.   However, to say that people will continue to do bad things even if they have parents who do "everything right" and because it's "human nature" may or may not be true.  To say that humans are naturally violent or "bad" is very difficult to prove.  In fact, it is probably impossible to prove.

[OldRover]

It IS true that violent media can bring out the violence potential in a person already "wired" for that kind of behavior. But a person not predisposed to violent behavior is not going to be affected no matter how much you expose him or her to. We've known this for centuries...amazing how much society likes to forget when it's convenient for them to believe something else.

To put it into modern terms...you have to already have a violent nature within you to be affected by a violent video game. End of story. No ratings are ever going to change that basic truth.

[Bake]

Just out of curiosity nodtveidt, are you saying that there is a violent gene out there that causes people to be violent?

[CrackTiger]

However, the boys who caused the destruction that is known as Columbine loved to play Doom.

So did/do about 100 million other people who haven't commited murder. I still can't believe that people only look at the sterotypes after the fact when others do something like that.

It's never "Well, they lived in a house. There are signs that they may have once ingested food. We're pretty sure they breathed air".

But other common traits to the rest of society get singled out when they're subjects that can still trick people into getting riled up.

Which is how 'Bowling for Columbine' got it's title. Why isn't there a national boycot of bowling?

All I am saying is that these games are a form of influence and kids could imitate what they see.  So having ratings that are useful to parents is beneficial to society. 

Like I said before, ratings are fine. But as for kids imitiating what they see... kids entertainment is more tame now than it has ever been. Kids used to watch/read/hear cowboys & injuns shows and play army. All involving humans killing humans.

Then we got to the 80's, with MOTU, GI Joe & Transformers. Again, all out war. Followed by the violent 80's & 90's games. But you know what? There isn't a generation of serial murderers out there.

One of the kinds of modern influences that might taint kids, who shouldn't be exposed to it in the first place, is all the thung & pimp idolism. Not so much because of the 'mature' themes, but because there are many personalities that pretend to really live that lifestyle and some that are caught commiting violent acts. Other types of entertainers still commit as many violent acts and such, but when a thug clown does it, it's a real life extension of their character.

Again, we should still have this and almost any kind of entertainment, but extreme subject matter shouldn't be freely available to children. If parents want to give their children mature subject matter, that's their business. But nowadays kids who can't buy a Playboy can buy other mags and various forms of media far more sexually explicit(like Cosmo).

In the end, the real problem is parents not taking care of their kids. All you have to do is play a few rounds of a popluar online multiplayer game to see how bad it is. But even if every parent did everything right, we'd still have people doing bad things. It's human nature.

Black Tiger,
My original post was not meant to convey that Doom caused Columbine.  I said other factors were probably the reasons why the boys did what they did.  But, Doom was an influence on them.  I realize that most people can play Doom and will not go on a killing spree.  That's because they cave into societal norms and killing contradicts their constructed views of morality.  I had a feeling that sentence would not go over well.  It may have sounded like I meant, "if you play Doom you will kill people" and that is not what I am saying.  Again, the meaning of my post was to say that media will socialize people.  Movies, music, video games will affect how people think and feel, and they may or may not act on those feelings depending on other influences in their lives such as parents, peers, neighborhood environment, and societal norms and values (or a disregard for those norms and values because of feelings of alienation or something to that nature).  There is no denying that.  I'm assuming the Columbine boys had numerous influences, Doom being one of them, that caused the violence to occur.  So Dooms was NOT the sole reason but possibly one of many.  Influences cause people to do what they do.  If you don't agree with me, that's fine. 

I agree that parents have to be more involved in monitoring what games their kids are playing.   However, to say that people will continue to do bad things even if they have parents who do "everything right" and because it's "human nature" may or may not be true.  To say that humans are naturally violent or "bad" is very difficult to prove.  In fact, it is probably impossible to prove. 

Ted Bundy had a thing for killing blonde hair girls. I don't think that hair dye or natural hair color is dangerous or incites people to act violent. Blonde hair didn't influence him to kill. Ted Bundy was just messed up in the head. Same with those kids. Doom or any of the music they listened to had nothing to do with their rampage.

Many argue that something like Doom can be an outlet to vent and therefore Doom might've been a driving force to keep those kids from hurting more people. But I don't think that a fantasy game like that made much difference either way.

The average goth kid is a pussy. I don't mean that in a bad way.

When one person in however many million is the exception to the rule, they're the exception, not their favorite book or TV show. They just caught that kidnapper, the 'Xbox Live kidnapper'. I don't think that Xbox had anything to do with his abducting a boy.

The Columbine losers were teenagers. Teens play games like Doom. Teens listen to music like NIN. Teens don't generally do what those guys did. Doom was a factor of their teenageness.

Horrible things have been commited by humans as long as we've been around. Games and TV are brand new.

[Bake]

Ted Bundy had a thing for killing blonde hair girls. I don't think that hair dye or natural hair color is dangerous or incites people to act violent. Blonde hair didn't influence him to kill. Ted Bundy was just messed up in the head. Same with those kids. Doom or any of the music they listened to had nothing to do with their rampage. 

According to your Bundy comment, you keep thinking that I am saying that Doom was the only reason Columbine happened and in both messages I did not say that.  I thought I made that very clear.   Whatever, it's obvious that you don't agree with me.  That's okay. 

Combinations of influences cause people to do the things they do, not just one.

[OldRover]

Just out of curiosity nodtveidt, are you saying that there is a violent gene out there that causes people to be violent? 

No, I didn't mention genetics whatsoever. But it's not exactly a mystery that every person is different and made up of millions upon millions of variables. The "violent gene" ideaology was invented by some crackpot who believed, like so many other short-sighted dumbdumbs, that a human can be broken down into general aspects. But it's horseshit. That aside, there are people who have a penchant for violence within them for one reason or another (usually many factors, no human can be generalized down to a single variable no matter how hard you try to do it). The factors could include a bad living environment (abusive parents is a very good example), poverty (this is a particularly nasty modifier), or being born a Scorpio (hehe). Violent media can strengthen or "awaken" this person's violent streak. That's not to say that it will, just that it can.

[guyjin]

HOO boy. What have I done? We need a can-of-worms smily. 

[OldRover]

[guyjin]

yum. 

[2X4]

Back on topic, Splatterhouse was the first game to get a parental advisory disclaimer.  Not the same as ESRB, but part of the same legistlative movement.  As for the monkey see monkey do argument, of course people who have a propensity for violence love violent video games, that does not mean there is a causal link.  Cannibals probably prefer a steak to steamed veggies and rice, but that doesn't mean beef causes cannibalism. 

[akamichi]

Back on topic, Splatterhouse was the first game to get a parental advisory disclaimer.  Not the same as ESRB, but part of the same legistlative movement.  As for the monkey see monkey do argument, of course people who have a propensity for violence love violent video games, that does not mean there is a causal link.  Cannibals probably prefer a steak to steamed veggies and rice, but that doesn't mean beef causes cannibalism.   

Exactly.  Politicians don't seem to understand (or want to understand) this.  To put it in a more general way:  Correlation does not imply causation.

[esteban]

It IS true that violent media can bring out the violence potential in a person already "wired" for that kind of behavior. But a person not predisposed to violent behavior is not going to be affected no matter how much you expose him or her to. We've known this for centuries...amazing how much society likes to forget when it's convenient for them to believe something else.

To put it into modern terms...you have to already have a violent nature within you to be affected by a violent video game. End of story. No ratings are ever going to change that basic truth.

Actually, I think there is a fine point to add to this.

First, though, let's remove ourselves from the video game discussion (since I don't think violent media causes violence, but I do believe that violent media can contribute to an unsavory environment... in the same way that racist, sexist, etc. media negatively influences our culture...)

Anyway, I submit that ALL of us are very capable of doing heinous things... and it doesn't necessarily take a lot for us to commit those acts (for starters, consider Milgram's research on authority, State-sanctioned violence, etc).

So, I agree with you, some folks probably do have a penchant for violence (often as a means of solving problems?)... but we shouldn't sit back smugly and consider ourselves too far removed this brutality. I know this is a fine point, and it is only meant to expand on what you have already argued.

If it helps folks understand where I am coming from: I don't think we, as humans, are inherently good or evil (because it's a lazy / inaccurate way to explain social phenomena).

[OldRover]

There are other specific examples that do prove links between certain media and certain behaviors. For eample, look at the explosive growth of self-inflicted anorexia. What caused it? An image of beauty as portrayed by the media. Never underestimate the power of the media, especially when one is a willing subject of its influence.

[NecroPhile]

If media had no influence on people, companies wouldn't spend millions on advertisements.  I'm not a marketing genius, and I don't understand how advertising works.  I've never seen a Pepsi ad and thought "I've been drinking Coke for 20 years, but maybe I'm wrong".  But they must be working, since they keep making more ads.

[CrackTiger]

If media had no influence on people, companies wouldn't spend millions on advertisements.  I'm not a marketing genius, and I don't understand how advertising works.  I've never seen a Pepsi ad and thought "I've been drinking Coke for 20 years, but maybe I'm wrong".  But they must be working, since they keep making more ads.

Marketing in theory is just information. Its a way of informing potential customers when a company wants to get a message out.

Marketing has become it's own industry and the main victim of it's 'brainwashing' is it's own customers.

If marketing was anywhere near as effective as it markets itself to be, everything would be successful, not just the small percentage that is. And without marketing, would there be any smaller a percentage of successful businesses out there?

[2X4]

I shouldn't further this, but it is interesting.  Advertising (my forte) is a means of reaching people who have a specific need or want with a message about a product that will fill that need or want.  So again the propensity (or whatever you want to call it) already exists, the ad is simply trying to make a connection.

Nod, we both agree that there is a link between media and behavior, I actually took a couple of courses about this very specific subject.  I maintain that the link is not necessarily causal, as akamichi and I have said.  With anorexia, it is another case of a psychological disorder, which I don't know a lot about.  But I do know that anorexics develop this problem as a way to have control over something.  That is why it is common among people who experience rapid and extreme success, like young celebrities.  I think the explosion we are seeing is actually an explosion of media exposure of a condition that has been common for a long time.  This happens a lot when a celebrity has any kind of problem.  The problem becomes more interesting when it happens to somebody famous, and media responds to the interest with more coverage.

[esteban]

I shouldn't further this, but it is interesting.  Advertising (my forte) is a means of reaching people who have a specific need or want with a message about a product that will fill that need or want.  So again the propensity (or whatever you want to call it) already exists, the ad is simply trying to make a connection.

Well, I think you're being too generous with this definition . I tend to go with a more critical approach: Marketing is often designed to *create* a need. Do we, as humans, really have a need for 99.99% of the stuff in ads? Hell no. If staple foods and neccessities of life (shelter! detergent! toilet paper!) comprised most of the items being marketed, then I'd agree with you.

But sugary snacks, luxury vehicles, beer, get-quick-rich schemes, lose-weight-effortlessly schemes, etc. dominate the landscape. I actually like to watch infomercials, since they are often entertaining (Chef Tony! Ricardo Montalban and his passion for the Grillerie! ).

And companies have spent a lot of money and research on how to effectively (mercilessly) target young children (i.e. see research on the "nagging effect", the McLibel case in the UK and McDonald's tactics towards kids, commercials pumped into classrooms -- young captive audiences -- under the guise of  "free" educational programming, corporate sponsorship of school sports, etc. etc. etc.)

But I'm not actually trying to make a fork in the discussion; I have a young daughter and I am trying to figure out the best way to handle this crap. I also feel guilty for having worked in a marketing department that created tons of banner ads that continue to clutter up the internet (it was near-predatory lending at its finest ).

I've mentinoed this before, but a famous marketer whose career ended in the 50's (or 60's... sadly I forget his name) said that he foresaw a future world with "ad-free zones"... sanctuaries that could provide a brief escape from the onslaught of ads. It's an idea that I find fascinating and disturbing. Unfortunately, I think he was too optimistic: We should be so lucky!

[GUTS]

Does anyone remember those old science shows they used to show in public schools back in the late 80s and early 90s (usually on the actual film reels)?  I don't remember any of them ever having "corporate sponsorship" or anything like that.  Were they all funded by the government?  I always wondered who paid for them.  It also always bothered me that PBS was supposed to be commercial free but you'd always have little commercials before the show, and then the stupid pledge drives, I always wished they would just do full on commercials.

[esteban]

Does anyone remember those old science shows they used to show in public schools back in the late 80s and early 90s (usually on the actual film reels)?  I don't remember any of them ever having "corporate sponsorship" or anything like that.  Were they all funded by the government?  I always wondered who paid for them.  It also always bothered me that PBS was supposed to be commercial free but you'd always have little commercials before the show, and then the stupid pledge drives, I always wished they would just do full on commercials.

Yeah, PBS has corporate sponsers and used to only mention them briefly and show a logo. Over the last 20 years, though, they've turned into full-on commercials. It's still better than having commercials (since you only get 1 short 15-30 second commercial every half-hour on PBS), but I think they should go back to the old method.


--------
The old films, hmmmmmm, they were probably made by third parties, who were commissioned by the government (federal / state / local i.e. Dept. of Education, Dept of Health, etc.). Sometimes, I suppose, the Department itself could have made the films, but this would require them to have all the equipment / facilities to do this. Over the years, with budget cuts and changing technologies, I doubt many departments had "film making" as a permament part of the department. This is speculation, though, because I don't know the actual details here. It actually is easier to make films now (technology), so it is more feasible to have in-house production.... but even this is a hassle

Now, in addition to films that were directly commissioned by government, I'm sure there were (are) films made by independent companies that were / are directly marketed at school districts. As long as these films follow some basic guidelines (to satisfy school boards), then these films might not have to be "officially" endorsed by a government agency.

[GUTS]

Yeah I've noticed that too on PBS, I remember the days when they just mentioned the name of the Corporate sponsor instead of full commercials.  I wish they would just accept some more corporate sponsors so that they could do away with the pledge drives, I wouldn't mind a few minutes of commercials at the beginning of a program if it meant no pledge drives.

[esteban]

Yeah I've noticed that too on PBS, I remember the days when they just mentioned the name of the Corporate sponsor instead of full commercials.  I wish they would just accept some more corporate sponsors so that they could do away with the pledge drives, I wouldn't mind a few minutes of commercials at the beginning of a program if it meant no pledge drives.

But if there were no pledge drives, there wouldn't be any epic 2-hour televised Yanni concerts on TV!!! Or ABBA concerts!!! Or  dancing competitions.... oh wait, they always have dancing competitions .

Anyway, check out the re-runs of the Lawrence Welk show if they play it on your local PBS. AWESOME! I'm only partially joking, since I actually, for some perverse reason, enjoy the damn show.

[GUTS]

I loved that Yanni concert, and the Abba one was fucking awesome too.

[guyjin]

I'm exactly the opposite way: I wish there were no corporate sponsorships at all, just pledge drives 4 times a year.

[esteban]

I loved that Yanni concert, and the Abba one was fucking awesome too.

They were, of course . The Abba one was better (partly due to the outfits!) ... but I drove across country listening to a lot of Yanni, so what can I say?