May 2018 – Media Matters

May 29, 2018

First Person [School] Shooter Videogames

First person shooter (FPS) video games have been around for quite a few years. Even if you haven’t played them, you’ve probably heard about Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Call of Duty, and Halo. While the idea of putting a virtual gun in the hands of young, impressionable gamers creates angst for parents and other adults, the fact that little Johnny is killing Nazis, monsters or aliens softens some of the objections.

FPS games played in more natural settings, e.g. inner cities, elevated concerns once again and games like GTA: San Andreas led to protests and calls for greater restrictions on content and labeling.

But it took a Colorado resident who created a video game based on the Columbine High School shooting to really fire things up. Danny Ladonne made Super Columbine Massacre RPG in 2005 and a documentary about his experience a few years later.

In 2011 another video game based on Columbine was released as a modification for Half-Life 2 and received equally harsh criticism. School Shooter: North American Tour 2012 was cited in the Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The 7-2 opinion established protection for video games under the First Amendment.

Most recently, a new release slated for June 6 is renewing the controversy around FPS video games in school settings. Active Shooter is designed to give players the option of the role of S.W.A.T. team or shooter. According to a news report,

Steam said in a statement on its site that the game does not promote any sort of violence, especially any sort of a mass shooting, referring back to the phrase dynamic SWAT simulator.

However, in light of recent and strong criticism the game maker is considering removing the option to take the role as shooter.

If you believe that FPS games set in high schools is a bad idea, sign the petition at Change.org

May 20, 2018May 20, 2018

Spotify’s Values

Spotify provides a streaming music service to millions of users, and like any media platform is legally entitled to pick and choose which artists and content to carry and feature. In what is very likely a response to the #TimesUp and #MuteRKelly movements, Spotify’s recent decision has become the subject of debate by both artists and listeners.

According to Billboard magazine’s website,

As part of the new policy, Spotify also de-playlisted works by R. Kelly, who has faced a slew of sexual abuse allegations he denies but who “never has been convicted of a crime, nor does he have any pending criminal charges against him,” Kelly’s team said in a statement Thursday, noting that the “lyrics he writes express love and desire” while Spotify “promotes numerous other artists who are convicted felons, others who have been arrested on charges of domestic violence and artists who sing lyrics that are violent and anti-women in nature.”

To be clear, I’m not a fan of R. Kelly, or XXXTentacion, but this new policy by Spotify raises some important questions about how sanctions are applied to artists/performers who have been accused of bad behavior. In the past it was often a criminal conviction that was the tipping point that led to censure. But in the absence of a criminal charge, on what basis is Spotify making this decision? And will this move by Spotify be followed by similar action by Apple Music, RCA, and Ticketmaster: other entities that have a stake in Kelly’s music? And what about other artists that have been accused of mis-behavior?

Spotify is trying to make clear their decision-making process and published a webpage for artists that details what kinds of private behavior may lead to censure by the company. According to Spotify,

We don’t censor content because of an artist’s or creator’s behavior, but we want our editorial decisions – what we choose to program – to reflect our values. When an artist or creator does something that is especially harmful or hateful (for example, violence against children and sexual violence), it may affect the ways we work with or support that artist or creator.

This problem is not limited to Spotify and we can expect to see similar responses from social media sites, especially content-communities such as YouTube and Reddit, when cultural norms are breached and offended individuals/groups bring complaints.

May 17, 2018

Net Neutrality Ain’t Dead Yet, But It’s On Life Support

If you’ve been paying attention to the news the past couple of days you may have heard that the US Senate narrowly (52-47) voted to reverse the FCC repeal of net neutrality rules. But don’t pop the cork just yet. For the Senate vote to mean anything will require that the House follows suite, and that the ensuing legislation makes it past the veto pen of President Trump. Neither of those are likely to happen.

If you haven’t been tracking this story all along, FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s net neutrality repeal is scheduled to take effect on June 11, unless Congress acts to overturn the FCC’s decision. So while you will hear plenty about Net Neutrality in the coming weeks, most of the political noise will be posturing to drum up support for the fall midterm elections. If you like Net Neutrality (the policy put in place in early 2015 by the Obama administration) and want it to stay, you will be encouraged to vote for Democratic candidates for congress. And if you think that Net Neutrality is unnecessary government regulation of the telecommunications industry, you will be encouraged to vote for Republican candidates.

If you’ve read news headlines that make it appear that the Senate vote is going to stop the repeal of Net Neutrality, you are a victim of having just a portion of the info necessary to be an informed citizen. And sometimes have a little information is as bad as having none.

May 8, 2018May 11, 2018

Virtual Reality on 1A

This week the NPR radio show 1A featured Jeremy Bailenson, a professor at Stanford University, who believes VR has “the power to create empathy and change how we see the world.” Here’s the podcast…