Since I am Thai, I figure it would be interesting to write a thing or two about the Thai media. Similar to other teenagers, one of my favorite activities that I do in my spare time is playing video games, whether it would be in Play Station III or in the computer. I have been playing various types of game for as long as I remember whether it would be First Person Shooting, Role Playing Game, Intense Real Time Strategy and etc. One of my favorite games is Grand Thief Auto (GTA). For those readers who are unfamiliar with the game, GTA is a Third-Person Action Adventure published by RockStar Games. According to Wikipedia, the GTA series “focuses around many different protagonists who attempt to rise through the criminal underworld, although their motives for doing so vary in each game.” (1) In addition, GTA was also the only game to receive a 10/10 from IGN Entertainment in this past 10 years.
Therefore, given that it is one of my favorite games of all time, one incident that happened only a month back (August 2008) that did not pleased me and a lot of gamers in Thailand was when the Thai Government decided to ban the entire Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series after the fatal stabbing of a taxi driver. “Police claim the 18-year-old confessed to stealing the taxi and said he killed the 54-year-old driver after he fought back. The teenager could face the death penalty if he is found guilty.” What makes this more interesting and distinct from other cases is when the 18-year-old continues to confess that “He wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game.”(Reed) The question that I am raising here is, “Is this action by the government justifiable?”
Despite what the Thai government thinks, I believe this to be about personal responsibility in society. I think that in this case it is acceptable to blame the individual instead of the game itself because "to blame human wickedness on images is the moralistic recourse of a society that is unwilling to condemn trash on aesthetic ground." (Gitlin 120) I understand that some people might wonder whether if something was as easy in real life as it was in the game, but most of these people will hold themselves back because of things such as laws, moral or even religion. Moreover, this reasoning is called hasty generalization. Hasty generalization is when a single example or instance is used as a basis for a broader generalization. Using this logic, the Thai government should not use this incident as a basis for believing that other teens will rob and kill as a result of playing GTA too. After reading this story from many sources, I could not find any of them looking into this 18-year-old teen education, family, socio-economic background and etc at all. Banning this game does not fix any problem at all since there are many more games that are similar and even more violence than GTA.
Another argument that gamers make in favor of the gaming industry is that, violence causes games. It suggests that the game we see today is merely a product of our society and therefore the main cause of the violence in game is the pre-existing social conditions. If there were not all this problems and violence, the gaming industry might be reluctant in making them. I also believe that if the social conditions were great, kids could play violence game all day and not be inclined to rob and kill some random person. Moreover, I think that games are sources of entertainment, and one could make an argument that without these sources of entertainment, many could get more stressful. Games also allow individual to experience many things second-handed --- without hurting and affecting anyone. Therefore it might be possible that gamers tried to do stuff in game in order to experience it secondhand, and not do it in real life.
Despite the disappointment of the game being banned, I find it funny how many Thai gamers wrote blogs making fun this incident. One of the blog talks about how Mario should be banned since it promotes teen jumping on things and killing turtles. Other put up a banner clamming that, “I play Grand Thief Auto and I am still fine.”
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Meaning of Media
Ludwig Wittgenstein once said that “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world,” by this he meant that one could only think and understand the world through language and meanings we put on to words and concepts because; even though some words are quite simple and clearly define, other words are repeatedly misused and challenging. For instance, we take the term “media” for granted --- but what are media anyway? Although Oxford Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary and Princeton Dictionary have different definitions on what “media” means, all seems to come to a consensus that media have something to do with forms of expression and communication. Nevertheless, most sources listed “media” as mainly in the form of mass media such as: television, internet, radio, newspaper, and billboard, hardly ever depicts any other forms of media. Though mass media plays a huge role in today’s society, it is often the subliminal and unspoken form of media that we are often unconsciously exposed to, whether it would be through our Poland Spring water bottles, our Gucci bags or even through stuff that comes up in class discussion. Since we are so immerse in media, talking about it for most people is the equivalent of fish talking about water. Media is so much the routine ground of everyday activities that questioning is taken-for-granted, assumptions and presuppositions is like thinking whether the earth will keep spinning. Besides, it is arguably impossible to be perfectly objective in assessing something we are so accustomed to and so immerged in. This might simply be one of the reasons why it is so hard to precisely and accurately analyze and define media for exactly what it is.
The second manner in which people take media for granted is when they assume that their perception of the media is objective and reflects the reality. Since we are human beings, there are various limitations in our perception and logic. When talks of perception, one normally thinks of only sight but really, perception means all sense of knowing whether it would be sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch. One limitation of perception is that perception is a selective and interpretative process. Since perception is selective and interpretative, it is often biased and contains many filters such as personal perception filter, socio-economic filters and cultural filters. These filters are the very thing that makes the same thing different to each individual perceiver. Age, gender, race and past experiences are examples of personal perceptions filters that make young children, teenagers, and adult “see” things differently. Socio-economic filters include occupation, level of education, environmental factors, and family upbringing. These socio-economic filters are what advertisers are specifically specialized in. Cultural filters include language, for example, a concept or idea might not be available in one language when it is available in another. After the “selective” process, one continues on to interpret. The limitations of interpretation are the fallacies of reasoning. There are various fallacies of reasoning but some of the most common fallacies are false dilemma and popularity. False dilemma is when two choices are given when in fact there are more than two options. Popularity or bandwagon is another form of fallacies where a statement is deemed to be true because it is widely held to be true. These fallacies often take place while we are watching advertisements.
The third way people take media for granted is when they relate media directly with information and ultimately relating it (media & information) to knowledge. We tend to belief that the more information we have, the better. Yet, one has to realize that at this Age of Information, information often dominates our attention and overwhelm our capability to digest it. In fact, "excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener they drown him." (Ellul 30)This leads us to adapt and "learned to fill in the gaps" and "merely draw a general picture from them." (Gitlin 89) (Ellul 30) Moreover, we also have a tendency to treat media and information as powerful representation of the truth and act as if they are factual and incontrovertible since they come from sources we may never get to see or comprehend. The common substantiation phrase one usually hears is “of course it is true, I saw it on TV” or “I’ve read it in an article!” not realizing that these media we take for granted could be erroneous as well.
Given that there are countless limitations to our perception of the media and the world, I think it is pointless to precisely define what media really is. Rather, I think it would be more beneficial to stop taking the media for granted and seek to recognize its limitations, flaws and our interaction with them.
The second manner in which people take media for granted is when they assume that their perception of the media is objective and reflects the reality. Since we are human beings, there are various limitations in our perception and logic. When talks of perception, one normally thinks of only sight but really, perception means all sense of knowing whether it would be sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch. One limitation of perception is that perception is a selective and interpretative process. Since perception is selective and interpretative, it is often biased and contains many filters such as personal perception filter, socio-economic filters and cultural filters. These filters are the very thing that makes the same thing different to each individual perceiver. Age, gender, race and past experiences are examples of personal perceptions filters that make young children, teenagers, and adult “see” things differently. Socio-economic filters include occupation, level of education, environmental factors, and family upbringing. These socio-economic filters are what advertisers are specifically specialized in. Cultural filters include language, for example, a concept or idea might not be available in one language when it is available in another. After the “selective” process, one continues on to interpret. The limitations of interpretation are the fallacies of reasoning. There are various fallacies of reasoning but some of the most common fallacies are false dilemma and popularity. False dilemma is when two choices are given when in fact there are more than two options. Popularity or bandwagon is another form of fallacies where a statement is deemed to be true because it is widely held to be true. These fallacies often take place while we are watching advertisements.
The third way people take media for granted is when they relate media directly with information and ultimately relating it (media & information) to knowledge. We tend to belief that the more information we have, the better. Yet, one has to realize that at this Age of Information, information often dominates our attention and overwhelm our capability to digest it. In fact, "excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener they drown him." (Ellul 30)This leads us to adapt and "learned to fill in the gaps" and "merely draw a general picture from them." (Gitlin 89) (Ellul 30) Moreover, we also have a tendency to treat media and information as powerful representation of the truth and act as if they are factual and incontrovertible since they come from sources we may never get to see or comprehend. The common substantiation phrase one usually hears is “of course it is true, I saw it on TV” or “I’ve read it in an article!” not realizing that these media we take for granted could be erroneous as well.
Given that there are countless limitations to our perception of the media and the world, I think it is pointless to precisely define what media really is. Rather, I think it would be more beneficial to stop taking the media for granted and seek to recognize its limitations, flaws and our interaction with them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
