Tom Brokaw Calls Videogames "Cancerous"

Former news anchor Tom Brokaw says it was OK for NBC to air the Virginia Tech killer's insane video rants, but that videogames and blogs are "cancerous."

Brokaw, speaking in a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, defended his network's decision to give airtime to the killer despite his murderous rampage. Asked if it was the correct decision, Brokaw said it was, adding, "To get back to something we were talking about earlier in general thematic terms, I don't think we're doing a very good job about talking about violence in this country, either. You know, Virginia Tech went away. We didn't have any ongoing dialog in our communities or on the air about the corrosive effect of violence."

He then went on to say, "It was not what he, what people saw of him on the air that will drive them, it's what they read in blog sites, and what they see in videogames. It's that kind of stuff that I think is cancerous."

Brokaw, described himself as a "free speech absolutist" but also said, "I think at the same time, we need to have free speech in some kind of a context," spent the balance of the interview debating NBC's role in potentially "incentivizing" copycat killers. The full text of the exchange between Brokaw and Hewitt is available at GamePolitics.

Permalink

I'd argue the antithesis to Tom Brokaw's thesis, that it's the publicity garnered by media coverage, far more than the isolation of video games, that incents these isolated individuals to commit suicide by massacre; it's not the violence they crave, it's the attention.

However, that may be because of my enjoyment of video games and because my bread-and-butter doesn't come from television news.

-- Steve

If we dwell on those topics of acts of violence and such there is probably more likely going to be more copycats, because they will be like, "Oh my god, they are still talking about this XX (units of time) after it happened. If I did that, I'd be freaking famous!" not like, "Vidja gams mak me wanto stabby shooty shooty!" And if they aren't in it to be famous, but rather having some strange delusions of grandeur, then these people are also corroded to begin with, seeing continued violence and such doesn't help, but a healthy and mentally capable individual is certainly not going to turn into a raving lunatic because of video games. They are intentionally going around and slaughtering people for shits and giggles or some grand, insane dream.

HH: NBC ran the Virginia Tech killer tape on the day they obtained it [...] [d]o you not think it's going to incite other people to try to do the same thing?
TB: No, I don't. I think... to get back to something we were talking about earlier in general thematic terms, I don't think we're doing a very good job about talking about violence in this country, either. You know, Virginia Tech went away. We didn't have any ongoing dialogue in our communities or on the air about the corrosive effect of violence.

So, what do you want Tommy? Do you want to talk about it, or just send the "corrosive stuff" all over the place? Make up your mind.

Here are some of the basic problems that I have with discussions of videogame violence:

1. Violence existed *well* before any form of media did. Nobody ever considers that. "The Iliad" has some of the most graphic depictions of violence in literary form, but no-one is clamoring to remove that from High School lit class. I'm pretty sure the Janjaweed militias in Africa are not spending their down-time playing videogames.

2. It's the insanity, stupid! Most of the (completely bat-shit crazy) people who commit these crimes were crazy *well* before they ever picked up a controller or keyboard. You don't just pick up a copy of Halo and think, "gee, I've got the day off... Why don't I go around forcing people to fellate this here gun!" The arguments for whether or not videogames even exacerbate a pre-existing problem are specious, at best. So far, I've yet to encounter convincing evidence proving any link. And considering the millions upon millions of current and former videogamers who have *not* gone on a killing spree, I'd wager that the ratio of mass-mudering fuckheads to normal people is probably the same as in the non-videogame-playing populace. This doesn't even touch on the idea that most crazy people are too poor to even afford a place to live, let alone an XBox.

3. Most people who rail against videogames don't seem to actually play them at all. Haven't we all encountered that person who reads a movie review, decides that the movie is crap, refuses to even see it, and then loudly denounces it to anyone who will listen? Now replace all instances of the word "movie" from the previous sentence with "videogame", and you get Jack Thompson.

4. Videogames have a strict ratings system. The fact that most retailers don't give two humps whether the purchaser of an M-rated game is actually old enough to buy it is not the fault of those who actually make the game. I get carded way more often when I'm buying cigarettes and liquor than when I'm buying M-rated videogames. The reason for this disparity is that people generally understand that adult activities such as drinking and smoking are for adults only; videogames, however (and also comics, for that matter) are seen as more juvenile pursuits. Which reminds me of another excellent point:

5. The ridiculous and inaccurate things that people say about videogames now are *the exact same* ridiculous and inaccurate things that people said about comic books and rock 'n roll back then regarding their negative influence on society. The only difference is that detractors have subsequently realized the inherent artistic value of all other media except videogames.

I could go on, but honestly, there's not enough time in the world to denounce the logical fallacies surrounding the violence/videogaming arguement.

Gilgamesh999:
I could go on, but honestly, there's not enough time in the world to denounce the logical fallacies surrounding the violence/videogaming arguement.

Indeed, but here's one more to add to the refutation; I grew up in Brampton, Ontario, and I was there in 1975 when they (we?) had the shooting at Centennial High School. Unless we're talking Pong-as-murder-simulator, that's one data point well outside the "games make murderers" curve.

-- Steve

Some really good points have been made in this thread. I don't have anything to add except to say that I agree with the general consensus and I wish more forums had contributors who were as intelligent and literate as you guys.

Bah, add another old-media kind of guy to the long line of old-media guys that really do not understand anything past mainframes...

Clearly media is secondary to the social and civil reasons that contribute to these horrific massacres. But then again its never easy to go to the root of a problem. It takes too long and if you cant explain it in a sentence or headline, nobody finds it interesting.

I dont think individuals from such an odd position in society as Mr.Brokaw can expect to give any sort of reasoning towards issues which concern individuals on "ground level" as it were. Not in a glass bubble of a lifelong career of talking without listening.

My parents are against violent games and like to see them banned. Mainly because they see we lower our norms, because we do not care what we shoot down in a video game.

Talk about strange, because yo ushould know it is not realistic at all. Maybe i am saying this behind their backs, but videogames aren't meant to be realistic, yet they don't like what they see.

Maybe that's because of the overkill of FPS games on the market(or so i hear).

yup, figured it was about time for one of these. It's funny too, how it always comes from the older generation, that blames these new fangled vidja games.

I wish, for once, they might relate to the fact that possibly mainstream media, might play a negative roll in all of this. In lieu of the recent shooting in the Omaha, Nebraska shopping mall, I'm surprised they have yet to blame video games in that one. I guarantee they are trying to draw up a correlation right now. However, said shooter, writes in his suicide note that "he no longer wants to be a burden to his family [and that] now I'll be famous"...so unless he was planning on going to a world video game championship or something, I'm assuming that he meant that he would be plastered all over news stories nationwide. People do this, for the media coverage, yet the media (for good reasons) seems to ignore that, because horrific news = more viewers.

so while it was good for the news to cover the VT shootings, it was completely inappropriate to idolize (for lack of a better term, but you know what I mean if you saw the reports) the shooter for such a lengthy period. Every time I turned on the TV I saw the videos and pictures of the shooter.

and thank god someone brought up the terrific violence that some books have (Iliad is a great choice, btw) but have since been deemed artistic genius that is totally appropriate for schooling.

and I believe the last correlation I read about between violence and video games was the "beltway sniper" who practiced his "sniping" while playing Halo.

maybe they should focus more on the fact as to why these people have untreated, yet diagnosed psychological conditions (in both cases of the VT shootings and the Omaha ones) and look at the lapse in the system.

hickwarrior: It's probably more to do with the depiction of FPS games on the news, exactly as Mr. Brokaw is doing here. That said, it'd be silly to argue that violent video games don't desensitize us to violence, no matter how unrealistic they are. How much they desensitize us, for how long, and whether or not that's even a bad thing are still very much up for debate, however.

Your best bet is too see if you can find a bunch of the non-violent games that are out there and get your parents involved in playing with you. Once you've got them gaming it becomes easier to see that things aren't as bad as the media likes to make out.

My friend's mom doesn't like videogames. But she loved watching him play ICO.

ROFL

Anything else beyond this acronym is a waste, even the words I just typed.

nothing I could possibly say that hasnt already been said,
but I agree with Kwil.
these games DO desensitize us to violence. but any human with a sane mind can
see that these ARE NOT acts to be imitated.

People in the media will argue all they want about how "Video games are bad"

But what confounds me is that there are such Worse and/or equally bad things to blame.
lots of other things in the media advocate violence in their own ways music, movies, TV.
but video games I suppose bring these to light in a fairly more realistic sense.

but really what do you feel is worse?
seeing someones head get blown off on a TV show.
or seeing someones head get blown off in gears of war?

Gilgamesh999:
Here are some of the basic problems that I have with discussions of videogame violence:

1. Violence existed *well* before any form of media did. Nobody ever considers that. "The Iliad" has some of the most graphic depictions of violence in literary form, but no-one is clamoring to remove that from High School lit class. I'm pretty sure the Janjaweed militias in Africa are not spending their down-time playing videogames.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. So true.

It does seem that it's only from parents and other such older figures (such as politicians) that we hear any sort of Videogame related flak. And as stated above it's a rarity that any of the previously named sources have ever picked up a videogame more recent than Centipede(Violence against bugs!!...what, no takers?) It's like what Roger Ebert said, "Videogames will never be an art form" and again as previously stated, that's what people said about comics, and about rock and roll, and even about jazz music. It's when something new comes along and shakes the foundations that the older generations come to arms. And it always goes away, everything I've mentioned are now considered art forms. And good ones at that.

I don't give a rats mummified testicle about what politicans say about video games because they are just riding a bandwagon to get-more-votes land. But I do care about what parents say, games do have a strict rating system, exactly the same as movies. Yet no one seems to care that Saving Private Ryan had one of the most gruesome (if historically accurate) opening sequences of any movie in recent memory. The Lord of the Rings depicted beheadings, dismemberments, and various other forms of not-for-kids images, yet it was praised to the high heavens (though not for no reason). Movies and books (again, illiad was a great choice) have been far more violent than game have even had TIME to be. Parents usual argument is that movies are rated and kids shouldn't see R films...which they see anyway. Yet even though games are rated exactly the same, they are still in an uproar! Why? Because they are too ready to place the blame on a company (Rockstar, anyone?)that is trying to market SPECIFICALLY to adults for creating a game with adult content that their kids play. Why? Because they aren't looking at what their buying, it's like giving your kid a porno and complaining there's nudity in it...

Anyway, enough ranting from me.

"I think at the same time, we need to have free speech in some kind of a context"

Anyone else think this sounds like bull??

FanboyInDisguise:
It does seem that it's only from parents and other such older figures (such as politicians) that we hear any sort of Videogame related flak.

They fear what they don't understand. Most of them have simply not played games, and probably see their kids sucked into them and can't do a thing.

Underlied: a form of jaleousy.

Kwil, i got the problem that i think my parents won't believe me when i say that even when a person plays such a 'violent' game, that it still desentisizes... Yet, i will not go running out and about, gunning every one i see, just like in GTA. Maybe i should tell them that.

Anyway, my mom played mario kart DS. Yes, a non-brain train or any other form of game that isn't really for us gamers. Well, i hope you get what i mean.

But i think it's in how we think, but i don't think that games can make us unsensitive when we kill someone. If we are raised the 'right' way.

Personally, I think games (and movies, TV...media in general) desensitizes us to a certain degree. We've all seen Locusts get sawn in half (In all it's blood spattering splendor) or someone place a well sized piece of lead through another persons head. And again drawing on Saving Private Ryan, we've also seen people's faces reduced to craters, seen someone getting stabbed very slowly and what happens when a high explosive goes off when a person is still carrying it.

Yes, it does desensitize us, but all it really does is make us not flinch as much (If at all...) when we see it. It doesn't make it seem like an appealing concept for real-life actions. Indeed some games are more of an outlet without reprecussions for those with such urgings, which let's face it, happens to all of us at one point. Who hasn't felt better after the aformentioned chainsawing? People play GTA to do everything you've secretly wanted to do all your life, and now you can without serving 25 to life. The difference between the 99.9% of gamers that live normal lives and the .1 that go to malls in Omaha or places of learning like Virginia and Columbine, is a sort of switch in the mind that says "Ok, I can to X Y and Z in GTA, but if I do that here I'll end up dead or in jail for life." I suppose that switch simply isn't present in those select individuals, and such their violence is more a product of mental instability than the games they play...

One thing to remember about these massacre people is that they do know that what they're planning is wrong. That's why they do it.

These people (or, at least, the ones I've read up on) already feel marginalised, ignored by society for whatever reason. In their suicidal state, they twig to the idea that they should go out with a big splash; get all the attention they craved but never got, with no consequences because they'll be dead when its over. (They're already committing suicide... threats of eternal damnation won't act as a deterrent.) So, from that standpoint, it's not the games that matter; it's the press coverage of prior massacres that triggers the act. They've been shown repeatedly that if you do "X", you get attention. So they do "X" and get the food-pellet, er, reward. This isn't some abtruse theory; three recent shooters (Omaha, Virginia Tech, Montreal) have stated so explicitly, in their own words, in the material so enablingly published by the press.

If nobody ever heard about shooters of this type, if we didn't broadcast their faces and names all over the 6-o'clock news, there'd be no incentive to do this and they'd kill themselves in some other spectacular (<-- word chosen carefully) way like a high-dive off an office building into rush-hour traffic. Hopefully one with fewer colateral casualties.

-- Steve

Nobody shoots up a place "because of" a game, anymore than they commit suicide because of Ozzy Osbourne or go insane because of Dungeons & Dragons or develop loose morals and perversions because of Elvis. I don't think you could even refer to it as a symptom, anymore than you could do the same for someone who watches tv or movies or reads books or listens to music.

I really think Brokaw just spoke before he really thought about it. He may say he "thinks" games are cancerous, but I would bet he hasn't thought much about it at all. It's the sort of utterly clueless remark that can only be lumped in with the nonsense that spews forth from guys like Roger Ebert (and I wasn't at all surprised when his name came up): Not necessarily malicious, but hopelessly and adamantly uninformed.

My main point of view on media violence is the history of it, if it's as bad as they say we should not be here the same can be said for guns the issue is not the item being dissed but the fact humans have freedoms and free will because of this crazy people can do more localized damage more often than not.

Then entertainment news (mainstream hard news died years ago) sinks its teeth into it not letting it go spreading the poisonous thought more so when others break down they will copy cat because it feels right.
Really though who's to blame? In the end it's not the media or the news or the games or even the guns it's the fact that humans can be random and very unpredictable when they break down mentally. Society has always been lead by what the elite think they know thus why for centuries "media" and new media in particular have been the blame for all of its woes even though censuring and banning them lead to even more unrest amongst the populace.

Society has to mature to a point that it sees that the problem will never go away that the only way to lower it is to place counselors in every school and business and give them enough power to take people off the job or out of the class and send them for a full evaluation, even then common sense will state a pissed person is pissed but at least for some they will be marked and banned from guns. This of course brings in thoughts of the thought police but... is bringing mental health into the mainstream more so than ever that bad of an idea? While it may not directly condemn a sane person it can at least create a deeper portfolio of a person and their ability to commit crimes and endanger others.
Society needs to be more preemptive on mental health issues at least in terms of gun rights perhaps not so much on "villainy" as long as it's lawful but being a thing made by human whims is it better than the old snobby "we" do not like it aristocratic approach that dismiss the great unwashed for being ignorant and naive.

...ZOMG! Word 07 can translate zippy speak!

PS About Brokow it seems he tried hard to not sound like a douche on this issue but failed, the lil bit at the end is the tail tale sign of covering up what he said starting off, it's obvious he's defending media "entertainment" news's right to portray the world their own way despite fact/ evidence/ moral/ ect.
I still can trust Dan Rather because he gave the acts and let people decide and even went against the network, Ted Koppel, Sam Donaldson are some of the old guard I can respect and so was Peter Jennings, Brokow however has become another old hack.
Although..... I am sure age will screw them up to where they will say stupid stuff too! :P

Gilgamesh999:
Violence existed *well* before any form of media did. Nobody ever considers that. "The Iliad" has some of the most graphic depictions of violence in literary form, but no-one is clamoring to remove that from High School lit class.

And let's not forget the Bible in a hurry.

Copter400:

Gilgamesh999:
Violence existed *well* before any form of media did. Nobody ever considers that. "The Iliad" has some of the most graphic depictions of violence in literary form, but no-one is clamoring to remove that from High School lit class.

And let's not forget the Bible in a hurry.

Its greatest defense becoems its greatest weakness its used as a guide and a lot of the old testament stuff is tant amount to good old fashion crusading and crushing any and all in your way.

Also one could say the Bible is a history book of 2nd hand story's, its stuck somewhere between fiction,history and religion because of tis dubious genre its not simple fiction made to "titillate" man like 90% of fiction tries to do, still tho violence is part of humanity and blaming it on ill logical sources seem to go hand in hand.

ZippyDSMlee:
I still can trust Dan Rather because he gave the acts and let people decide and even went against the network, Ted Koppel, Sam Donaldson are some of the old guard I can respect and so was Peter Jennings, Brokow however has become another old hack.
Although..... I am sure age will screw them up to where they will say stupid stuff too! :P

You can still trust Dan Rather? The man who "broke" a political story two weeks before a presidential election using documents so clearly forged that he was canned for it, whose "impeccable source" is a man known chiefly for his history of mental illness, whose "document experts" didn't know you cannot substantiate copies of documents but only originals (although they now claim they never authenticated the documents), who attended a Democrat fundraiser but when caught claimed he didn't know it was a fundraiser, who howls at the moon... Well, maybe not that last. But dude, Rather's a seriously unbelieveable man. Has been since Viet Nam.

It's funny that Broclaw can claim playing video games contributes to making one a murderer, yet knowing the media will make famous an otherwise stone cold loser has no effect.

Blaming school shootings on video games makes it clear he hasn't bothered to research the shooters; dismissing what happened as the person simply being "crazy" also misses the target. The best explanation I've ever seen, evidence and all, is How To Create A School Shooter. As he pointed out, these tragedies will continue until we fix the source, which means looking into what mental illness the gunman realistically had (depression? delusions?) and in most cases finding out what caused it.

My life in junior high was basically what he described -- and computer games were part of what saved me from continuing down the dark path. At first, I hid from reality in the non-linear games (like Ultimas or Interactive Fiction) I loved, which usually had the player as the main character. Eventually I started wanting to be like my alter-ego: the kind of person that did what she could to make things better even when it was really hard, unlike the adults that had silently watched my daily torture. As I worked at becoming who I wished to be, my rage at the world changed into a strong drive to do what I could in everyday life to aid or protect others and improve society. That's sure not a lesson or a change I would have made from watching the evening news and sitcoms...

I don't really know who the guy is to start with, but we get the same kind of egotistic people over here spouting the same kind of rubbbish.

I love how these reports always link back to FPS games when really using a real gun is nothing like clicking your mouse on a target and watching them fall down. The only games I can say really come close to shooting a real gun are lightgun games.

Even then they are so far removed from the workings of a real gun that you could hardly blame games for a guy going crazy with a real pistol. Somewhere along the line that kid had to learn to load, possibly maintain and fire that gun. He certainly didn't learn that from counter strike.

I know this is a video game forum, but I'm slightly more alaremd at Brokaw's other target - blogs.

"We didn't have any ongoing dialog in our communities or on the air about the corrosive effect of violence."
and then...
""It was not what he, what people saw of him on the air that will drive them, it's what they read in blog sites," and cue cancer comments.

Does he not realise that the better, more popular blogs are the disucssion of this material, by sensible rational people? Like this thread, really. This rant just strikes me as old man shaking stick and blaming pesky modern kids with their videotoys and interwebs; he'll strike a nerve with a lot of people though because a lot of people want to blame tragedies like Virginia Tech on anything apart from individuals and a high gun owenership.

It seems obvious that one man perpetrated that disaster, and he did it because he wanted to - not becuase Led Zepplin was playing backwards, not because he'd watched too much Kubrick, not from reading peoples' blogs on Myspace and probably not from playing Viva Pinata and losing his Buzzlegum.

Jack Thompson causes brain tumours. Fact.

One would think that the prevalence of violence in movies and TV predates the advent of violence in video games by decades. One would think that people have watched TV and movies far longer than they have played video games. One would think that Tom is trying to deflect criticism of violence in the media to one specific genre rather than looking at the media he represents as a cause of these disturbances.

but look who Brokaw calls the "greatest generation"...basicly this guy doesn't think about what he says or simply isn't intellectually honest with his facts.

I don't know how many Michael Moore fans are in the building (probably not many), but back before he was well known, he did a documentary called Bowling for Columbine. It posed that the strongest link to violence of this sort was the media, specifically the news. Sensationalist scaremongers.