Obama Disses Video Games?
GamePolitics, a part of the Entertainment Consumer Association, writes about something Democratic candidate Barak Obama has been saying on the campaign trail:
I know how hard it will be to alleviate poverty that has built up over centuries, how hard it will be to fix schools, because changing our schools will require not just money, but a change in attitudes.
We’re going to have to parent better, and turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children, and that’s going to take some time.
GamePolitics.com’s founder, Dennis McCauley, seems convinced that what Obama means here is “video games are a metaphor for under-achievement”. I beg to differ. Why?
It’s in the first paragraph. Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago’s South Side. This is one of the very worst and poverty stricken places in America. Places like that have unique problems and one of them is inattentive parenting and over-reliance on TV and video games to pacify kids. It keeps them out of trouble but also makes them unproductive. It’s not a black or poor thing, I think the same thing happens in suburbs. Parents let their kids have a TV and Xbox 360 in their room. Grades suffer as a result.
When Obama references “bad parenting” or turning off TV and putting away video games, he isn’t attacking the hobby. He’s reinforcing the notion that it is a hobby. Before I did this as a job, video games were something I did when I wasn’t working or socializing. I became a video game pundit because I wanted to play games more – but I still consider what I do to be work and it’s all part of a career plan. Most gamers, especially teens and young adults, turn to video games and get sucked in. It’s not the game’s fault, but people do lack self-control and I don’t think gamers need to get offensive when Barak, or anyone, acknowledges the notion that there might be more productive things you can do with your time than playing video games.
I actually agree with that.
Good parenting means informed parenting, but it also means setting limits. We set limits because we don’t want our kids to underachieve. Video games are a supplement to a child’s life. That’s what entertainment is.
I submit Obama only used the term “video game” because he’s current. I bet his daughters play some kind of games, and I bet Obama approves of their limited use in his children’s lives. Just as I do in mine.
So I’m going to call this story sensationalism and continue giving Barack Obama my GamerParent Endorsement.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I agree. He could have said “stop watching movies and flying kites”. The point is not “what” people do to while away the time, but what they should be doing “instead”. If we are going to fix problems, we might havre to give up some recreation time to fo it. Really, it’s not a lot to ask.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Exactly Steve,
PLUS he used video games which indicates he’s hip. Well we knew that already.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
My current personal pet peeve is kids who walk around everywhere playing their DS … it reminds me of kids way too old who are walking around talking through their pacifiers – take out the frikin’ binky, put away the DS, and parent your kids a bit! They do not need constant pacification!
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:36 am
As always, you are a voice of reason. Video gaming opponents often (mis)use highly polarized, flat and linear thinking when attacking our beloved hobby. This is obviously nothing we should endorse or just swallow. So here, Game Politics serve an important role. However, if one is to be taken seriously by real people, real parents out there, one need to accnowledge that both sides hold a seed of truth in them.
It is all to easy to fall into a defensive position, zealously defending one’s territory and ideas. If this noble work is done without a sense of humbleness, however, one will soon find oneself locked-in, barricaded behind a framework of made of thoughts and ideas, maintained by pride.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:37 am
Innit, that’s just a choice of words. FOX’ll probably have something to say about it though..
Out of interest, anyone see this?: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331732,00.html
Written by the Associated Press, yeah? Here’s the headline FOX are using: Video Gamers Leave Baby to Die
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 am
Or rather, that’s what it was.. They’ve changed it now.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
How offensive. This horrible story has NOTHING to do with video games.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Did anyone see Barack crush Hiltery last night?
TYhis is one of the few times I disagree with GP.
Funny thing is the same people who slam video games by them for their children.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I like Obama, but with all due respect, you are taking some major leaps of faith. Wasn’t there another post on this blog about how the Sierra Club’s statement about getting kids to stop playing games and go to parks was portraying games as something that was not all that good? Now that Obama says something similar (though without some kind of tax), it is a good thing and he is hip? Does anyone actually know if he likes games or lets his kids play games? I am sure some parents need to do a better job, but it isn’t up to the president to make sure.
Sorry, I agree with GamePolitics. If he wanted people to play games in moderation, he should have said so. It just doesn’t seem that he has a high opinion of them. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. He is good on plenty of other issues that are more important to this country and I don’t believe he would do anything to censor games.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
The more I ponder it, the more I think he is just being kind of vague. I suppose it could be interpreted in multiple ways, so we don’t really know unless someone asks him specifically. I would still like to get a better feel for some of his comments related to ‘technological tools’ for helping parents keep certain things from their kids.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Frankly if I spent my time at the grass roots level in one of the worst ghettos in the US, I’d ts
take a dim view too. I don’t see the problem here. Does anyone believe gaming is anything but a diversion/hobby that compliments an active ambitious life?
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
PS: that is me above – using an iPhone.
Steve, FYI, I’ve never criticized the Sierra Club for anything related to gaming. Sounds like GamePolitics to me.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Oops, sorry GD, it was a Mike Anderson essay.
I never worked in Chicago and mostly spent time working with rural poor, but I have some experience with the indigent. There are certainly some issues related to poor parenting, but they go deeper than video games and TV. Like you point out in your comment about the couple in Illinois that left their baby so they could play games (among other things). The issue isn’t video games, it is bad parenting.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Meh, this reminds me of some commercials I saw while watching George Lopez on Nick. They were advertising (from the channel) something called KOPO which stands for kick one, pick one. They said “It’s about kicking a bad habit (PS2 controller with red circle around it shows up) and picking a good one (open circle with soccer ball shows up)” It then goes on to say that you should not do anything that involves a screen for 21 days and do sports for 21 days. Well it’s good if you do one thing less and start doing something else I think you just need a middle ground. That’s what people don’t realize. Videogames aren’t evil, and they aren’t making kids any stupider. It’s when moderation is not applied, but this could be anything. What if a kid (like me) decided to read instead of paying attention in class in school (teacher didn’t teach and I knew enough vocab from reading a ton)? Would this not also be classified as a bad habit? And it’s reading. I think what Obama should have said was “we’re going to have to parent better and monitor how much our children use the TV or video games”. It’s shouldn’t be abolishment it should be moderation.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Oh btw, this is umm179/derek posting. I changed my name with a newer computer.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I see your point DJ, but again, as a parent I certainly don’t mind George Lopez and Nick telling my kids that SPORTS > for you than Videogames.
Most kids game to their detriment. Most kids aren’t balanced. Most kids are WAY overbalanced toward things like video games. Best way to counter this is to push them away from games. Best way to do that isn’t to preach moderation.
Obama was looking for a sound bit and I’m arguing that he used one only people very sensitive about how videogames are portrayed would argue about.
I also don’t know if you guys realize how new it is for a politician, a leading one, to make a comment this neutral about videogames.
Before this it was always “Videogames are bad, we know this, and we need to do something about it!” With McCain and Hillary, I think it still is this way.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I still think that he could have made the same point without mentioning video games and that it was slightly negative, as opposed to neutral. I am probably being overly sensitive, as the media and most politicians don’t like my hobbies. One of my other big hobbies is shooting, so I am used to even more negative coverage with that. In the end, Obama doesn’t seem to want to ban or censor games, so I am still happy with him. I see your point about parenting and I agree. Good analysis GD.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Ahem,
Why thank you Steve. We disagreed but your reaction was more reasonable than GamePolitics was (IMO). What I’m more concerned about is Dennis’ reaction. I didn’t write that story because I wanted to highlight what Obama said – I wrote it because I disagreed with Dennis’s idea he was judging gaming. I can see Dennis thinking it – even floating it – but it’s hyperbole (in my opinion) to post it the way he did, and not a whole lot different than the exaggerated mischaracterizations the anti-video game people like to use.
We’re going to have to parent better, and turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children, and that’s going to take some time.
As a parent – – I see nothing in that paragraph I disagree with. TV and Videogames can get in the way of excellence and “putting them away*” is a good idea.
* aha! I think these three words here are the culprit! You guys are seeing a permanence that is implied there. I can see that now, but I’d still argue that “putting them away” speechifyies a lot better than “And turn off the television set, and moderate their use of video games, and instill a sense of excellence…”
February 25th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Also, darn it! And I still had my secret weapon at the ready. Want to hear it? It’s an arguement stopper! He kinda paints TV and games with the same brush. Putting the games away isn’t all that different than turning off the TV. I mean, putting away the TV just sounds weird.
Anyway, Obama has told many reporters that his daughters watch Nickelodeon among other things. He also said that his concern about that is that they don’t see an upsetting commercial. ( <--- I'm nodding vigorously). So his daughters watch TV. So, you can infer with the same brush that maybe they play video games. I can see them with a Wii, especially since they're with Grandma and Grandpa while mom and dad are out campaigning. I know Michelle bought two MacBooks so Obama can chat with the girls using the cameras. So we know they're not computer gaming. 😉
February 26th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I think my reaction was probably knee-jerk and GD’s was more thoughtful. I recalled the other day about his kids watching Nick, so I agree that they aren’t anti-TV by any means. I don’t think it would be unfair to conclude that, absent some evidence to the contrary, they are ok with games (in moderation).
Somehow, I can see them with a Wii, too.