|
ABOUT US
BUY GAMES
FREE STUFF
OUR SITES
OTHER SITES
INDUSTRY
PARTNERS
|
PSP FEATURE
Opinion: is the Change4Life campaign really that bad?
by Rob Hearn
![]() The UK government is running a campaign called Change4Life. It's sponsored by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research and Diabetes UK, and its aim is to promote exercise and healthy eating in an increasingly chubby and unhealthy population.
The government recently ran an ad in which it showed a young boy slouching and inert beneath the words: "Risk an early death, just do nothing." A laudable warning, you might think. Except there's a problem with it: the boy is holding a DualShock controller. The furore To the video game community this can only mean one thing. In the words of MCV, the campaign "attacks 'deadly' games." In the words of Destructoid, the "Change4Life campaign strongly implies that gaming leads to death." In the words of Negative Gamer, the "UK Government Explicitly Say Video Games Shorten Your Life". In the words of Joystiq, "Publishers don't like being called child killers." That's right. 'Child killers.' MCV, leading the charge, has filed a complaint with the Advertising Standards Agency, and its campaign has gained notable followers. Sega has condemned the ads, along with publisher Future and Atari; and ELSPA - having held 'emergency talks' with the Department of Health - is now pursuing the charitable NGOs responsible for the ad. Sony is considering legal action. Industry body Tiga has joined MCV in lodging a complaint with the ASA. CEO Richard Wilson told MCV, "To imply that playing a video game leads to a premature rendezvous with the Grim Reaper is a non-sequitur of colossal proportions." The arguments Wilson constructs what looks almost like an argument to rationalise his objections. "Alcohol and drug abuse, smoking, obesity and involvement in violent crime are forms of behaviour that risk an early death." Indeed they are. But that's not a very forceful point. Alcohol and drug abuse are simply outside the remit of Change4Life; obesity is in part of consequence of the inactivity that the campaign is designed to discourage; and violent crime is entirely irrelevant to this issue. Atari mounts its own argument. "Television, radio, cinema, listening to music, computing, video gaming and of course reading all require a high element of passive participation, but of all these media types it is video gaming that provides the most potential interaction and activity." Again, the argument isn't powerful. 'Why not pick on someone else?' is never a very convincing objection (the obvious and fair response being: 'why not pick on you?'), and it's undone by empirical fact. ![]() Radio and music don't necessarily require passive interaction (I listen while running), children simply don't read as much as they play games, and the cinema is passive but occupies a fraction of the time video games do. Television is the only comparable medium in terms of its ability to beguile children into staying indoors and slouching, but notorious (and authentic) cases of gamers dying at terminals and marriages falling apart are bound to lodge gaming more firmly into the minds of the advertisers. Fair play to them, I say. And would anybody bat an eyelid if the kid in the advert was watching television? And if anybody would, what's the little tyke supposed to be doing: staring at a wall to avoid offending any of the various manufacturers of entertainment products? Because kids tend not to do that. The reality I should say at this point that I hugely respect all of the sites I've mentioned, and all of the others that have given this story coverage. The writers that fill the video game blogosphere are our brothers and sisters. But, like brothers and sisters, they have a tendency to be embarrassing in certain situations. To begin with, the ad does not call video game publishers 'child killers', or anything like it, and the suggestion that it does is bordering on neurotic. The ad discourages inactivity, and the inactive thing the kid in the picture happens to be doing is playing a video game. The two are very different. The ad implies, in the most tangential way, that playing a lot of video games instead of running around in fields can reduce life expectancy, but that's true: playing a lot of video games instead of running around in fields can reduce life expectancy. Of course, video games are no more responsible for obesity than they are for violent episodes. That responsibility falls firmly in the lap of the individual and his guardians. The video game industry doesn't have to feel guilty in the slightest about the fact that kids are playing games instead of burning calories and building muscle. But kids are unwisely choosing to do that, and parents are letting them. It's irresponsible to condemn a campaign that happens - without judgement or censure - to allude to the problem in an attempt to rectify it. The inevitability The blogosphere ignites in a similar way every time video games are blamed for violence, and often with justification. Canadian television programme The Fifth Estate recently aired a documentary called 'Top Gun' in which it managed to blame video games for the death of a boy called Brandon Crisp, who died after falling out of a tree. The allegation is plainly irrational. In January 2008, a preposterous furore surrounded Mass Effect because of its very brief and unexplicit love-making scene. Rabid anchors tore at the game without having any real idea about it, making themselves look ridiculous to anybody with a brain and responsibly concerned to anybody who lacks one. Sadly, society is nine tenths the latter. No wonder the video game community feels embattled and defensive. But that's no excuse for fuzzy logic or myopia. Just because the public is neurotic, there's no reason why we should be. It's not a contradiction to love video games and to believe they can be played to the detriment of the player. To discourage a group of impartial charitable institutions from making this point does no favours to the industry's hard won credibility. I'm sure many of you disagree. What are your views? MCV
Joined:
Oct 2006
Post count:
683
![]() The funny thing that everyone who complains about an advert seems to forget is the complaint - if played across headlines - only further reinforces the original message.
If you feel that seriously about an ad, complain to the ASA, who will uselessly say - at worst - the ad can't be used again. Otherwise get a backbone and focus on the important things going on the world, like... y'know. Real things. Fraser | 9 March 2009
![]() I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one Rob. The gaming press (specifically the online gaming press) are an embarrassingly histrionic bunch at times.
The games industry might be trying to grow up, but so much of the gaming blogosphere seems like it's still mired in a sneering, teenage, snot-nosed, anti-establishment mentality where their subject has become some sort of sacred cow and any criticism leveled at it is hastily labelled as the vandalism of freedom of speech (remember Manhunt 2?). The funny thing is, this sort of knee-jerk outcry from the blogosphere is often accompanied by exactly the same sort of, vocal, self-righteous indignation on the part of the readership as you find on the opposite side of the argument, where the morally outraged join the red top rags in a chorus of tutting and head shaking. By taking such a strong stance against the non-gaming press, the gaming blogs are only exacerbating the situation, as opposed to fostering healthy, useful debate and discussion. I agree that the non-gaming press still has a nasty habit for pinning society's ills on gaming, but by universally failing to consider the other side of the argument, however spurious, the gaming press panders to the stereotypes that the low grade non-gaming press feeds off of. I'm probably unfairly tarring everybody in the gaming press with the same brush here (and coming off as holier that thou myself in the process) - you can't win ;) GamesbriefNicholas | 9 March 2009
![]() It may not surprise you that I disagree with you, considering I set up the Facebook group to show our solidarity with MCV's stance on this (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54213654309).
I've set out my reasons in a detailed post (http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/03/why-the-change4life-campaign-is-wrong-to-scapegoat-games/) but the biggest issue for me is the scapegoating of the games industry. There are many reasons why people get fat. There are many sedentary activities. Too much sitting around and too little exercise is not good for anyone. But games are a small fraction of most people's pastimes. They are a small fraction of total sedentary behaviour. They have much less influence on obesity levels than television, fear of letting children play unsupervised, junk food marketing or economic deprivation. And yet they are targeted in an unequivocally aggressive and direct campaign that links them to early death. It's the lazy, knee-jerk blaming of an entire leisure activity that has got people's backs up. And the only way to respond to that is to make a noise whenever the scapegoating starts. Otherwise it will just keep happening. Renwaldo | 9 March 2009
![]() Hey Nicholas,
I have to side with Rob and Fraser here. When I first read the story on MCV, I thought that it was outrageous that games were being used to illustrate inactive kids, and that playing games reduces life expectancy. Then I remembered my years as a kid (I add here that I'm perfectly healthy now, but that's because I was also active in sports). I used to sit in front of a PC for hours at a time - 8-10 hours. I'm sure that doing that, instead of keeping fit has probably lowered my life expectancy somewhat, in some way. Also, your paragraph: But games are a small fraction of most people's pastimes. They are a small fraction of total sedentary behaviour. They have much less influence on obesity levels than television, fear of letting children play unsupervised, junk food marketing or economic deprivation. I don't think this is entirely true. I think for most, games a a small fraction of people's pastimes. But, for a small small minority, they play games constantly. If you want to see the extreme other end of the scale, look at the various stories about Chinese guys dying after playing games 24/7 until they die. Very rare - but it happens and it's definitely not healthy. crish | 10 March 2009
![]() Great article and yet so true. Gamers act like children, if they feel like their beloved plaything is being attacked. But honestly, is it? I donīt know the full extend of this champaign, just the picture you postet in the article. I think it fits and manages to transport the intended message: Move your ass or you live expectancy will be decreased.
Sure, they could have also taken a photo of a kid reading or watching TV, but letīs face it: The gaming industry is being the most rapidly growing industry world wide. Kids are gaming these days and I dare to say that there are a lot of children who own a Playstation, a PSP and a Wii, but do not have a football, although this probably isnīt usual. However, the gaming community is whining about nothing. If the champaign would have featured a dead asien, who died because of a blood clot while playing WoW, the gaming community would have had the right to complain. Still the picture would have told the truth. (Sorry for the english, Iīm german.) Joined:
Apr 2007
Post count:
244
![]() I have 2 kids 8 and 6 years old.
We have a Wii, a few DS Lites, a PS2 and a few PCs in our house. We also have a trampoline out the back, some footballs, my kids go swimming on Tuesdays with school and I take them swimming on Saturdays as well. We have a park quite close to us where we take to to play and climb trees and stuff at least once a week amongst other activities. I limit them to 1 hour a day on electronic toys (probably a bit more on weekends). And that's it really, just be sensible. That ad would have got a better reception if it would have sent a message of moderation rather than what looks pretty clear to me saying "video games are bad for you". I'm an avid reader, I encourage my kids to read books a lot too, which they are really starting to get into. However sitting about reading books all day would ALSO be bad for you, but you never see ads like that. Joined:
Apr 2007
Post count:
244
![]() I think another problem is that Parents these days are much more protective of their kids than in the past.
When we goto the park and lets the kids climb treees, we're the ONLY parents who let their kids climb trees. The few parents we talk to there are horrified we let them do it. So many grassy areas areas in the UK have "No ball Games" No wonder kids just wanna stay inside. Fraser | 10 March 2009
![]() Sounds like a good scenario dansk.
Responsible parenting is the key issue of the ad really, and if it jerks some less conscientious parents out there into action, then where's the harm? Sure it might seem like gaming is being unfairly targeted in this ad, and the notion that too much gaming leads to an untimely end is definitely a bit of a leap. But that languid kid with the dualshock is a powerful image and I don't think it's necessarily such a gross distortion of the truth. I don't think there's any dispute that there are scores of kids out there that spend more time gaming than is good for them. I'm not a parent, but if I was, I'd want my kids to spend more time climbing trees and doing other outdoor activities than playing games too. Master Heywood | 11 March 2009
![]() A good comparison case is Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me. In that, Spurlock very explicitly singled out McDonald's - much more so than Change4Life singles out games: the comparison there is much more like generic chips in Jamie Oliver's crusade - and they still weren't in a position to claim damages, because his point was good.
I always felt a bit sorry for McDonald's, because a) clearly they were only one of millions of junk food outlets, and b) they're not trying to get people to eat nothing but McDonald's, so the experiment was grossly unfair. But I don't think pity for McDonald's should in any way encourage us to say "Down with Spurlock and his anti-junk food films!" If the message is a positive one, we should shut up and listen and not get weighed down by considerations about how it affects or offends. We all should have the good sense to understand that nobody's pursuing a vendetta or trying to denigrate us, and whingeing about the Change4Life campaign is plain solopsistic. Joined:
May 2007
Post count:
387
![]() Is it wrong of me to suggest that the majority of videogame and console manufacturers want kids spending as much time as possible in front of their consoles? Every hour spent playing outside is an hour the child could be completing their latest game and needing to buy another!
While I agree it is short-sighted and sensationalist to show the picture of a child with a PlayStation controller, maybe it's about time the industry started taking some responsibility for its part in the childhood obesity crisis. Whilst television is often a family activity, many children have games consoles in their bedrooms and spend long periods of time isolated and gaming when parents don't even realise. My little brothers have active healthy lifestyles but it's all too common for their parents to be busy with housework for a few hours and wonder what the kids are doing since they've been strangely quiet, only to find them sat in front of a console in near silence to avoid detection! The reaction of some of the industry players to this so called 'attack' smacks of a guilty conscience. It's churlish to simply cry "we're not the only ones responsible, what about tv and movies?" Why not accept some partial responsibility and use this as an opportunity to convince the world that the industry can do something to combat childhood obesity and isn't wholly interested in profits for shareholders? JOIN THE DISCUSSION: 13 comments >> |
POPULAR FEATURES Friday Freebie: The PSP gets some new wheels in Gran Turismo... Various
LATEST COMMENTS Disgaea 2: Dark Hero Days (2)
LATEST DEMOS Pipe Mania PSP download
LATEST VIDEOS Run-and-gun with Metal Slug XX
LATEST SCREENS
Top reviews:
iPod Reviews
Sony PSP Reviews
iPhone 3GS Reviews
Nintendo DS Reviews
Product search: |
||||||||||||||