Fox News Decries Video Games With Eco-Friendly Messages
By Jared Newman | Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I should know better than to get riled up by Fox News’ coverage of video games. The network has an awful reputation for sounding the alarm on anything remotely controversial, always with the refrain of how parents should be very, very afraid.
But this time, I can’t resist.
In a recent segment that appeared on Fox & Friends, T.J. McCormack, a conservative talk radio host, decries video games with eco-friendly messages. (The focus is mainly on Sim City Societies, a four year-old title that encourages players to develop green energy sources like wind power and soy farms.) Host Clayton Morris, meanwhile, wonders whether some video games are a form of “liberal fear-mongering” and “indoctrination.”
It’s a maddening television segment for a long list of reasons…
- McCormack and Morris assume that only children play video games. Yet one of the games they criticize, Molleindustria’s McDonald’s Videogame, was designed for the high-brow crowd that wants to explore serious messages in games. It’s on the museum circuit. (The message is that fast food is a troubled business that requires moral compromise at every turn.)
- Morris says that “at the end of the day, parents don’t really know what’s in these video games, so they send them to play Sim City and they’re learning these lessons that might not be something that parents want their kids to learn.” And whose fault would that be?
- There’s nothing inherently wrong with having an agenda. The fact that Fox News commentators think otherwise is the height of irony.
- I’d argue that present-day shooters like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare push a conservative agenda — or at least a hawkish one. Perhaps Fox News was too busy fretting about the level of violence in those games to notice.
- Is McCormack seriously rolling his eyes at the idea of encouraging children not to kill polar bears? What the heck?
- At the end of the segment, McCormack categorically dismisses these games–despite the variety in genre and play style among the titles mentioned–as “boring.” Hey, at least the problem solves itself!
39 Comments
Read more:
39 Comments For This Post
September 7th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
LOL! Even a 4 year old knows that solar isn't a viable source of base load electricity.
September 8th, 2011 at 5:26 am
At the moment, yes, you need large and relatively expensive panels for a home to be self-sufficent. However with economies of scale are being applied (increasing sales increase R&D and reduce manufacturing costs) that is changing. Ultimately, making each house self-sustaining is one of the most likely solutions to the inevitable exhaustion of fossil fuels.
You might have laughed at the efficiency, capabilities and cost of early motor cars (automobiles), but economies of scale and continuous development have transformed them almost out of recognition.
September 8th, 2011 at 7:03 am
Incorrect. I started designing solar power systems in the '70's. We are NOWHERE near being able to use as base load. Go get you E eng degree and get back to me.
LOL!
September 8th, 2011 at 7:11 am
So we're about in the same age of development (40 years) with the solar panel as automobiles were in the 1920s then? The current efficiency of a solar cell is apparently 21%, so there's plenty of scope for improvement.
Laughing won't make fossil fuels last any longer…
September 8th, 2011 at 10:21 am
You REALLY don't know the physics that limits the total power per square meter? AND, you REALLY have no idea of what base load generation is?
Like I said, get back to me once you have an EDU sufficient to carry on a conversation…
September 8th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Doesn't matter. Even if the physics cannot change, costs and production methods can. And the capital costs of solar power are only 3-4 times that of conventional power sources and will come down considerably. By contrast the fuel costs of conventional are infinitely greater than solar… and will only increase (to the point where any capital cost differences are dwarfed)!
The cross-over point where solar becomes cheaper than conventional is an inevitability. History will see your argument as incredibly short-sighted.
By base load, you're trying to say that the power will need storing because demand patterns don't match those of generation (you could have just said that, of course). Yup, loads of money to be made out of creating solutions to that problem.
That's the thing about disruptive changes: They actually CREATE loads of money and jobs… just not for the companies that are already at the top of the pile (e.g. the oil companies).
Oh, just one more thing: What's the point of having an 'EDU' (education is the word, I think you'll find) if you don't actually use your brain?
September 8th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Apparently DARPA seem to use different physics from the ones you use. They think 50% efficiency is possible (150% better than today's cells).
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/STO/Programs/Very_H…
September 9th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Irrelevant. Same physics. Even with those figures it won't be a viable replacement for current base load gen.
September 9th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Do you actually understand how to structure an intelligent argument (for all your 'EDU')? As Monty Python put it "This is not argument, this is merely contradiction".
The whole base load problem is one that power engineers have been dealing with for decades: nuclear power stations (amongst others) generate most efficiently at constant load, requiring techniques for storing and releasing energy at peak loads. Solar power does increase the problem, but it also offers increased scope for solutions:
Solar power generated at homes offers the opportunity to store the power on-site, removing transmission losses getting the power to/from a central store. If every house were to store the power it needs for the next day, loads on the transmission network would be vastly lowered (and so would the costs).
Clearly this is something that you're hoping won't be solved, as a quick peek at your commenting profile reveals that you're happiest hanging out on reactionary tea-party sites, and you see anything vaguely eco-friendly as a threat (even if it is good capitalism and good business).
September 9th, 2011 at 5:52 am
I have an EE degree from MIT, so don't try to pull the "EDU" over me.
You are missing (or deliberately omitting) a couple of things. First of all, not all the inefficiency of solar cells is due to the physics of the semiconductor. Some of it is more basic stuff like surface area, and orientation. Secondly, solar cells do not necessarily have to get that much more efficient if they can get significantly cheaper.
Finally, why are we just talking about solar cells? There are other clean power sources that are contributing quite a lot.
September 9th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Yes, they have to get more efficient to be able to REPLACE current base load gen sources. The cells could be free up front and STILL the op costs would be higher than coal or nuc. You DO know that you can't use soar directly for base load, right?
Or, didn't you learn basics like that at MIT?
September 9th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Translation (because Heraclitus is too lazy… or possibly afraid) to explain himself in plain English:
You claim that, for solar power, the cost of transmission and storage of power for the ~8 hours between peak generation and peak demand will always exceed fossil fuel costs (which seem to escalate daily).
It does seem an amazingly bold and sweeping statement, and my thought is that it is an opinion formed a very long time ago, and looks less tenable with every day that passes.
A good engineer should re-evaluate their opinions on a regular basis. Maybe yours are overdue for recalibration?
September 11th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Nope. Current data. Which is why, without subsidies, solar plants are not able to compete with traditional base load systems.
Also, science isn't "opinion". Back to school ya go.
September 15th, 2011 at 6:02 am
Apologies for the delay replying. Lost my first draft (hint: don't click to expand another comment node, as it makes your reply box and all the text disappear).
You're in denial of the fact that costs will consistently swing in favour of solar. Solar's cost per watt has decreased 33x since 1970, and in now only 3-4x that of fossil-powered sources. And, given that fossil fuels are a finite supply with escalating extraction costs, you don't have to be genius to extrapolate into the near future.
Interestingly I was also talking to a neighbour who has worked on some sustainable power projects (ironically for an oil company!). He pointed out that in many countries (the hotter ones) peak demand coincides with solar's daytime production, as most of the demand comes from air-conditioning units.
You're right: science isn't opinion. Science is based on facts and requires the quoting of facts to support any theory. Since you haven't posted any supporting data to back up your opinions, they remain just that: opinions.
Actually, your posts are so completely fact-free that it makes me wonder if you are in reality an engineer, as you claim.
September 7th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Really? With everything going on in tech news and you decide you want to pick on Fox News? Just because you didn't agree? And I quote… "There’s nothing inherently wrong with having an agenda." It's OK to indulge both sides.
September 7th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
The funniest part is, Fox is correct for criticizing the low IQ energy crap that is being pushed
September 8th, 2011 at 4:40 am
What else can you expect from Faux news but sensationalised opinion?
Their agenda is clear as day, get the masses behind the wishes of the elite. Anything that threatens the current power/wealth balance is to be dismissed as laughable or objectionable.
Of course current solar tech alone is not a replacement for coal/nuclear base load power. Economically viable (less than the cost of renewable alternatives) uranium and Coal will run out, and people will still want power after that point. Looking for and developing alternatives is going to have to happen sooner or later, leaving transitioning to them until the last minute is only going to hurt a countries economy.
There is clearly a need to work towards diversification of both the power sources and distribution network designs we use, and to favour methods that do not pollute the air/water/land we need to cope with an ever expanding human population is hardly a crazy liberal plot.
For an organisation such as fox news to call brainwashing on a game that dares to be based on the concept of that goal (a requirement in the long term), while themselves being possibly the largest source of biased disinformation in the country is just plain laughable.
September 8th, 2011 at 5:15 am
“Morris says that ‘at the end of the day, parents don’t really know what’s in these video games, so they send them to play Sim City and they’re learning these lessons that might not be something that parents want their kids to learn.’ And whose fault would that be?”
It would be the parents’ fault, of course. However, it’s safe to say that some parents listening to Morris would realize that there may be unwanted messages in some of the video games they had thought a safe alternative.
“I’d argue that present-day shooters like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare push a conservative agenda — or at least a hawkish one. Perhaps Fox News was too busy fretting about the level of violence in those games to notice.”
Seriously? Only far right fanatics seek military confrontation. By contrast, when national interests are at stake, conservatives willingly deploy the military, but they don’t seek opportunities to do so. You might consider some time the significantly larger representation of conservatism in the military; surely that would give conservatives pause before putting the military in harm’s way. What’s more, most conservative parents seek to avoid gratuitous violence in movies, TV programming, and video games. A warning from Morris about that seems exactly on target, so to speak.
“Is McCormack seriously rolling his eyes at the idea of encouraging children not to kill polar bears? What the heck?”
Do you really think that McCormack’s thought was that his audience wanted, instead, to encourage their children to kill polar bears? Of course not. Instead, the issue is that man is superior to animals while being charged with stewardship. Avoiding the death of animals at all costs is the message that comes across from animal lovers, if only because they consider man just another animal. (The funny thing is that the polar bear wouldn’t think twice about killing humans.)
I don’t doubt that the information could have been presented differently and the objections made more appropriately, but don’t read into the comments more than you ought.
September 8th, 2011 at 7:40 am
"By contrast, when national interests are at stake, conservatives willingly deploy the military, but they don't seek opportunities to do so."
Um. Iraq?
November 25th, 2011 at 4:35 am
Fox News "the largest source of biased disinformation in the country" is ridiculous. People are human dissertation editing and subject to many failings, but all of the other news agencies are biased in the opposite direction. dissertation methodology That you disagree with Fox News' editorial view does not make them guilty of disinformation.
September 8th, 2011 at 5:52 am
The problem that is endemic in the media is the blurring of the line between factual reporting and opinion/commentary. In fact, in many media organisations that line no longer exists at all.
This seems to be particularly bad in the USA. A Boston-based friend says he has to revert to UK media to get actual news reports on events in America as the reports in the US are all commentary on the events, or commentary on someone else's commentary. He finds the facts themselves almost impossible to get hold of.
That's not to say that the UK is immune from this decline, just that it is happening slower over here (possibly due to the stronger tradition of public broadcasting).
September 8th, 2011 at 7:04 am
LMAO! BBC is SO politically correct in its "science" reporting that it is pretty much useless to read.
September 8th, 2011 at 7:15 am
Opinion. Thought you engineers were supposed to be fact-focussed?
Actually, I don't even know what 'politically-correct' means in this context, except that it's apparently an insult. Maybe it says more about you than the BBC.
September 8th, 2011 at 6:04 am
@Max
Biased much? Seriously, calling Fox News “the largest source of biased disinformation in the country” is ridiculous. People are human and subject to many failings, but all of the other news agencies are biased in the opposite direction. That you disagree with Fox News’ editorial view does not make them guilty of disinformation.
I agree that it is wise to diversify our energy sources. Unfortunately, the eco-driven fanatics are eager to shut down or reduce the viability of all current forms of energy in order that all effort and money be directed toward the alternative sources. The wiser course is to tap more of the U.S.’s own natural gas and oil sources to reduce dependence on foreign sources while continuing to develop alternatives. Artificially inflated prices make the alternatives look relatively good, but since the higher prices are artificially induced, the effect is merely damage to the economy.
The same attitude is evident from those that push for electric cars, decry the use of SUVs, and want all to live in cities to decrease the use of cars. Those are nice goals, and will reduce energy usage, but reality encroaches. Some families are too big to use tiny cars. Some folks abhor the close quarters of a city or cannot afford the in-town housing needed for their family. Not everyone shares the same agenda or priorities or has the same needs. If they did, the world would be terribly boring!
September 8th, 2011 at 7:39 am
"calling Fox News 'the largest source of biased disinformation in the country' is ridiculous"
Documenting the bias and outright falsehoods on Fox News is practically a cottage industry itself. Calling Fox News a propaganda outfit is a well-supported allegation.
September 8th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Dude … wrestling is also fake. Sorry to break it to you. It is the exact same thing as Fox News. In the 1980's, we did not know wrestling was fake. It was just as fake then as it is now, only we did not admit it to ourselves. It was very entertaining! But over time, the evidence that it was fake became much too overwhelming … former wrestlers wrote books detailing how they came up with entertaining angles and how they made hits look real and so on, and other former wrestlers stopped wrestling and kept right on acting in movies. Ultimately, we had to admit it was fake, fake, fake. But it is still entertaining!
Admitting it is fake is good for your psychological health, though. It's not good to blur the line between reality and fantasy. You have 2 different people in your head named "Barack Obama." One is President of the United States, and one is a character on Fox News. The real one did a reading from the Bible to start a prayer breakfast the other day, and read the words precisely as written on the page. The fake one flubbed the words, because he was reading from one version of the Bible, and Fox News fact-checked him with another version of the Bible. So you, the Fox News viewer think Barack Obama can't even read a Bible verse that is in front of him! Doesn't he respect Jesus? Outrage! Outrage! Outrage! Wow, you are so much better than him, right? But the problem is, that is a fictional character. You are just entertaining yourself with that fictional story. As I said, the real Barack Obama, President of the United States, read the bible verse perfectly.
One way to see things more clearly is to compare Fox News to other Reality TV shows. Notice that they both have scripts, and in both cases, the characters in the scripts have the exact same names as the actors. "Gretchen Carlson" is played by Gretchen Carlson, "Bill O'Reilly" by Bill O'Reilly. And they have flashy news sets so you know they must be telling you the news … right? It is all fictional. And they invite people in and talk to them for a half hour, then later cut out 20 different parts totaling just 3 minutes that makes them fit into tonight's script, and they deliver for you the entertaining lib-bashing narrative that you so enjoy.
It does serve a purpose in that it prevents, say, a Texan from finding out that they are a welfare state subsidized by New York and California liberals. But ultimately, it is better if Texans know that so that if they don't like it, they can work to change that, they can elect better Texas governments and create a reality that they don't have to hide from themselves.
Just imagine how you'd feel if you met a guy who swore up and down that wrestling is real. That is how you sound to most people. Fox News viewers only number in the millions … the cable news audience is surprisingly small. The rest of us just know Fox News as the successful and innovative Realty TV show that's popular with grandpas in the red states.
September 9th, 2011 at 12:27 am
Wonderful comment and an excellent analogy!
September 8th, 2011 at 7:40 am
I noticed that the graphic on this article is from Flower. I love that game. They didn't attack THAT did they?!
September 8th, 2011 at 8:07 am
They didn't call it out by name, but footage from the game rolled in the background throughout the segment.
September 8th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Fox News is just a soap opera where one of the characters is the American flag. It's 100% manufactured.
Fox News is a Johnny Carson monologue, a few headlines and some commentary, only instead of being designed to elicit laughter, it is designed to elicit a false sense of self-righteous outrage.
Gretchen Carlson, the Fox & Friend who is constantly going viral saying outrageously ignorant things? She has like 3 Masters degrees. She is acting. It is a soap opera.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I really loathe Fox news, and it bothers me that anybody in their right minds listens to them.
December 8th, 2011 at 10:36 am
the graphic on this article is from Flower. I love that game. They didn't attack THAT did they?!
December 11th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Host Clayton Morris, meanwhile, wonders whether some video games are a form of “liberal fear-mongering” and “indoctrination.” accidentsdirect.com personal injury solicitors
December 17th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
this decline, just that it is happening slower over here (possibly due to the stronger tradition of public broadcasting).
December 18th, 2011 at 2:55 am
I THINK FOX NEWS GETS VIDEO GAMES WRONG.
January 18th, 2012 at 2:44 am
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Must University | Must University | Must University
January 18th, 2012 at 2:44 am
This is my first opportunity to visit this website. I found some interesting things and I will apply to the development of my blog. Thanks for sharing useful information.
Must University | Must University
January 29th, 2012 at 1:27 am
e video games are a form of “liberal fear-mongering” and “indoctrination.”
Web Design Agencies
February 8th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Sending messages to the persons that we need to contact is much easier today. There are so many websites which offers free emailing services in which your receiver could receive your message in just few seconds.