O'Reilly's no video game spin zone
by Justin Murray 
{ Nov 19th 2006 at 2:00AM }
Political-types have a love-hate relationship with video games; they love to hate them. The person doing the hating doesn't always have to be in office (Republicans and Democrats equally hate video games, just to stop that argument short), he just has to have enough riding on the political game. Bill O'Reilly, hyper-conservative, is the newest member of the anti-video game crowd, and he has some spin for you.
O'Reilly, best known for his No Spin Zone show on Fox News, has compared video games to hard drugs. O'Reilly was heard on Radio Factor saying that "what [we] have is a large portion of the population, mostly younger people under the age of 45, who don't deal with reality -- ever." We think we've heard that one before, with rock 'n' roll and even books (The Great Gatsby totally messed up society).
Not even the most avid gamer can admit there aren't cases of video game addiction, but that is hardly a reason to rail on them. People are addicted to work; should we ban jobs? We can't be bothered to answer the question, we're too busy rolling up our PS3, 360 and Wii and smoking that wicked doobie. O'Reilly is making us dizzy; no spin zone our knee(s).
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
bp @ Nov 19th 2006 2:06AM
how many people die from video games a year compared to alcohol or cigarettes? O'Reilly is such a douche bag.
Werbal @ Nov 19th 2006 2:13AM
Video games are just an easy target for people who don't "get" them, i.e. people over 50. I wonder if people like O'reilly realize they sound exactly like the curmudgeons who told them when they were kids that listening to Elvis would damn them to hell.
Probably not. It's just easier for him to rail against young people stuff than admit he's an old fart.
Lone Starr @ Nov 19th 2006 2:14AM
"Bill O'Reilly, hyper-conservative"
Not really.
"Not even the most avid gamer can admit there aren't cases of video game addiction, but that is hardly a reason to rail on them."
Now let's apply this reasoning to drugs and alcohol, just for kicks....
Andy @ Nov 19th 2006 2:17AM
I really like Bill O'Reilly and his shows. I applaud him for standing against the crowd and speaking the truth as he sees it (especially concerning stupid politics), but I certainly don't agree with everything he says. I actually heard part of this radio show, and I agree that *some* gamers are like that. Not me, and not any gamers I know... Bill isn't putting a spin on anything here, what he said is true in some cases - why post this article? You have something against Bill? Just wondering.
thunderleg @ Nov 19th 2006 2:21AM
Please stop with the ORLY jokes... I was tired of seeing that roughly last year at around this time. Stupid ORLY owl. The person who came up with that needs a beating.
Anyhow..
So the greasy, slimy windbag finally discovered he can gain ratings from badmouthing yet another thing he will never comprehend.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Markham Carroll @ Nov 19th 2006 2:22AM
Am I dealing with reality when I'm playing Candy Land, then?
Mactor @ Nov 19th 2006 2:40AM
I thought Christopher Grant was at the NYC TRU Wii launch? What happened to him?
Werbal @ Nov 19th 2006 2:40AM
I don't know about you, but I sometimes I think I see Lord Licorice fucking FOLLOWING me.
Grant @ Nov 19th 2006 2:42AM
"Bill isn't putting a spin on anything here, what he said is true in some cases"
You don't think Bill saying "a large portion of our population" is spin? Come on. There is not a large portion of our population that doesn't deal with reality - ever.
Tim @ Nov 19th 2006 2:44AM
If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that Bill isn't a 'hyper-conservative'. I'm a 'hyper-conservative' so I think I'd know. Bill is a traditionalist and often disagrees with Republican stances.
Andy @ Nov 19th 2006 2:52AM
I don't know what Bill meant by "a large portion of our population". But I know it's true for some. And I'm fine with leaving it at that... I'm not gonna get all defensive and sensitive, simply because I know he's not talking about me. We could speculate over what *exactly* he meant so we can decide whether we should be offended or not... but I'll pass.
P4Pancho @ Nov 19th 2006 3:00AM
"'Not even the most avid gamer can admit there aren't cases of video game addiction, but that is hardly a reason to rail on them.'
Now let's apply this reasoning to drugs and alcohol, just for kicks...."
You're missing the point. The simple fact that addiction occurs is not basis enough demonize an entire medium. Justin implied as much when he brought up workaholics. The simple fact is people get addicted to everything. Work, gambling, worship, sex--should we ban sex just because Joe Viagra is "neglecting reality?"
Comparing games and drugs in this respect is asinine. That O'reilly made such a claim does not surprise me--he's an idiot. He doesn't "tell it how it is," he tells it how he thinks it should be: simplistic. What O'reilly spouts is "Reality for Dummies."
But the fact that there are people out there that either agree with or defend what he says blows my mind. How warped does someone have to be to listen to what that man says and think to himself, "Finally! Someone who gets it!"
End of rant. I always try to respect peoples' opinion on everything except Bill O-freakin'-reilly. Ironically enough, that issue is black and white for me.
Oh, and the reason why this was posted here is because this is a videogame blog and--surprise surprise--this is relevant!
Andy @ Nov 19th 2006 3:12AM
Why should it surprise you that people agree with Bill? As a commentator yourself, you should see that some people will agree with some of the things you say, and others will not. Why would anyone be blown away by that? I think you're just a hater when it comes to this guy. And one more comment from me: I don't think Bill is an idiot, reason being, he backs up what he says with arguments. An idiot would just spout out opinions with no basis to his/her thinking. You may not agree, but that doesn't make him an idiot.
Werbal @ Nov 19th 2006 3:30AM
Bill backs up his arguments with vague generalizations, flip dismissals and unsupported sources. He's a poor excuse for a political analyst, and more often uses his show as a platform to assail people that he believes are out to get him. Bottom line, if you EVER made a joke about his sexual harrasment lawsuit, he brands you a radical or an "S-P" and calls you names like "smear merchant." He is a negative influence on rational discourse and he contributes nothing to the marketplace of ideas other than his own poorly-informed opinion and lots and lots of yelling.
Oh my, the yelling.
Special_K @ Nov 19th 2006 4:32AM
This whole anti-video games movement is going to get worse before it gets better. We just have to lock ourselves in our basements and weather the storm, unfortunately. The Economist had a great article last year about the rising storm of controversy, that time focusing around Hot Coffee. They said that there is no conclusive proof that video games are bad for children, and that they could be positively good for them, too. But politicians on both sides choose to ignore these facts in order to push their "families first" agendas. This is the same reason that Democrats oppose gay marriage, and went apeshit over the Dubai Ports World scandal- they want to take the family and security credibility away from Republicans and over to themselves. The same stuff happened with Rock and Roll ("It is an evil influence on the youth of our country"), television, radio, books, the internet, jazz, blues, baroque, christianity, interracialism, and lef-handedness: moral panic is a great way to swing voters to your side. So just batten down the hatches and wait a while, give it two generations and no one will give a s**t about video games. By that time they'll be getting on the case of holograms, or implanted DAPs.
Kysa @ Nov 19th 2006 3:44AM
O'Reilly is a populist and a muckraker. 24 hour cable news needs new 'issues' to cover around the clock, and videogames present an easy target.
Avinash_Tyagi @ Nov 19th 2006 3:50AM
He's the idiot that said TDS viewers are stoned-slackers, only to find out a few weeks later that TDS viewers are more educated than his viewers
enough allready @ Nov 19th 2006 4:05AM
Here we go with the liberal rants on conservatives, sheesh...
It amazes me how when anyone says anything about gaming period, that isn't "positive" about the community they get clowned.
I'm a hardline conservative and a gamer of 23 years, I know my stuff. Allthough I like O'Reilly, I don't allways agree with him. In this case I don't.
It doesn't make since to say we as gamers aren't they way people think when you have people that start trash talking anyone against gaming with childish jokes and smartass answers instead of dealing with the issue. Assanine hypotheticals don't help.
There is some validity in his comments, especially when you look at the Sony fanboy hooligans and the b/s they pulled yesterday, for crying out loud someone got shot for a damn game system.
I believe the problem lies in the attitude of alot of gamers nowadays. The smartass, ignorant youth of today and some young adults. When I see teens and college students running around with Che T-shirts and they have no idea who he is ( yet they hate FOX and Republicans) it makes me sick. Unfortunately, these same people often make up the gaming communtiy, at least the vocal minority and this is what you get.
If your going to start trash talking at least have your facts straight. O'Reilly is a great commentator/political anaylst who isn't allways right, but backs his arguments with documented facts that you can check for yourself. Don't make yourselves look like asses just to insult the man, he doesn't deserve that, especially when we have enough problems gaining respect in society as gamers. Acting childish isn't going to make us look good either.
So to conclude my rant, some of you really need to get some life experience and some historical reference before you start with your liberal tirades. Thank God i'm an independant and don't have to rail on people because they have a D or an R in front of there names. Stop sippin the cool-aid sound bites from the alphabet channels (CBS, NBC, CNN etc.,) and find out for yourself. Don't let this boil down to a bunch of ignorant liberal gamer trash talk, confront the issue and deal with it. You think hes wrong, I think hes wrong, lets have a dialogue and stop with all the liberal talking points nonsense. Most of don't even realize that your biggest threat to gaming isn't comming from the right wing of the government.
Tools.
ill trooper @ Nov 19th 2006 4:05AM
He's an idiot anyway; few people take him seriously. If you do, you're never get your opinion swayed by someone here on the internet, but if you ever bother to track down some of his outrageous claims, you'll find that he's often just pulling things out of thin air with little or no facts behind them - maybe he thinks no one ever does fact-checking? He's sometimes caught making things up.
It's often pointed out on sites like www.factcheck.org for those who make the time to question what the media tells us.
"...he backs up what he says with arguments"
- Andy
He sure does! I'll just quote Princess Bride - "I do not think that word means what you think it means"
enough allready @ Nov 19th 2006 4:11AM
18,
You cant be serious. Thats like telling someone if you want to know the truth go to moveon.org, hell maybe even Soros himself will stop by and give you an autograph.
Most of the time as far as his facts go, and I mean at 95%, hes' factually right. You can argue allday about his opinions, but facts are facts.
You know what's funny? How liberals are allways talking about freedom of speech and expanding your mind, yet they seem to be the majority of the 85% the deaf, dumb and the blind with no tolerance for anyone that doesn't believe there bullshit.
Pathetic.
ill trooper @ Nov 19th 2006 4:28AM
"When I see teens and college students running around with Che T-shirts and they have no idea who he is ( yet they hate FOX and Republicans) it makes me sick. "
There is NO way you know the extent of the knowledge people have about Che Guevara unless you are performing tests and interviews with the group in question. Maybe the problem you have with this is that they MIGHT know who he is, and you disagree with those views?
I understand your points, but honestly, you call for fairness and knowledge that your own points don't have either. You're doing the same things you complain about, but for the 'red' team.
"If your going to start trash talking at least have your facts straight. O'Reilly is a great commentator/political anaylst who isn't allways right, but backs his arguments with documented facts that you can check for yourself."
Well, I agree about the 'fact-checking,' and how people should check for themselves.
And I think you forgot to add 'FOX' in your list of 'alphabet channels.'
Ralod @ Nov 19th 2006 4:28AM
"Stop sippin the cool-aid sound bites from the alphabet channels (CBS, NBC, CNN etc.,) and find out for yourself"
At least those channels report the news. Unlike Fox that reports the news with a slant that helps there cause.
And I wonder how you can say find out for yourself, when as a freethinker who does find out for himself I see things 180 degrees from you. Lets face it the Fox news network was formed to pander to a conservative base. Rupert Merdoch didnt create the channel to further the conservative agenda, he did it to beat cnn, and make a tidy profit.
And the way he has done that is to hire people that are willing to skew the news and topics to attract viewers. Mr. falafel is a tool, and you sir for supporting people like this are the real tool.
And FYI Mr. Bill has lied about numerous topics and can't back up the majority of the trash he spouts. I can name a very huge one from just the last week in fact:
"Here's a man many believe did kill those two Americans, Nicole Brown Simpson being mother of his two children. Yet Simpson is participating in a project that is exploiting the murders. Shamefully, the Fox Broadcasting Unit is set to carry the program, which is simply indefensible, and a low point in American culture. For the record, Fox Broadcasting has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel."
"That last part must have come as shocking news to O'Reilly's boss, Fox News Channel chief Roger Ailes, who also chairs Fox Television Stations, the group behind the forthcoming "low point in American culture." The shared "Fox" moniker is no coincidence, either. Fox Broadcasting and the Fox News Channel are both owned by Australian overlord and News Corp. founder and chief Rupert Murdoch. And the Fox Broadcasting Corporation—the people who program prime time for the Fox network—regularly air Fox News-produced programming, from coverage of presidential speeches to O'Reilly's special "documentaries"."
As for the comments on gamming, there just rantings of an ignorant man. He has no idea what he is talking about, and he never will.
Mark @ Nov 19th 2006 4:34AM
I'm so glad someone finally said it, "The Great Gatsby" did screw up society.
BC @ Nov 19th 2006 4:41AM
"what [we] have is a large portion of the population, mostly younger people under the age of 45, who don't deal with reality -- ever."
And if there's one thing that Bill O'Reilly knows about, it's avoiding reality.
ill trooper @ Nov 19th 2006 4:42AM
Oh, I'm back reading your comment! Fun!
We now know that as well as sloppy spelling, you have terrible debating skills.
Factcheck.org is not like telling someone to go to MoveOn, although I support that site's views as well.
Factcheck.org is a non-profit that tracks claims in the press; it's not liberal or conservative, but conservatives do often get flustered when people start digging up the flimsy points people like O'Reilly throw out.
Flustered like this:
"You know what's funny? How liberals are allways talking about freedom of speech and expanding your mind, yet they seem to be the majority of the 85% the deaf, dumb and the blind with no tolerance for anyone that doesn't believe there bullshit."
What kind of anger are you harboring to type something like that? Replace 'Liberal' with 'Conservative' and itwould be the same irrational judgement of conservatives, which makes it simple opinion. NO FACTS. "85%?"
Walk it out, man. I gotta go to sleep. 'Meet the Press' comes on in a few hours...
enough allready @ Nov 19th 2006 4:51AM
Here we go with the FOX isn't fair b/s.
For years we've been forced to listen to liberal talking points, one sided, bisased and as usual wrong. Whatever happened to just reporting the news?
You hate FOX because FOX offers a differnt point of view. How is it fair to have almost every media outlet be liberal and yet you jump on FOX for offering a different point of view.
Case and point, look at talk radio. Air
America can't compete in the free market and they are going of the air, bankrupt because of it. The succes of talk radio is because people are tired of hearing one side of everything. From Hollywood to your evening news, all you hear are liberal taking points.
And as far as the Che "poll" goes, I have indeed asked some of them if they knew who he was and what he did and they didn't know. It amazes me that peole who have no clue of historical refrence, politicas (national and global) get to vote and screw things up because they are uninformed.
When you've been raised on the alphabet channels of course your going to think that's they way it is, but your wrong. Case and point CNN recently showed a video of terrorists sniping American soldiers, and did nothing to help out, not only that they aired the footage and had the nerve to defend it.
Yeah, keep drinking the cool-aid, and one day you'll wake up to a civil war because a bunch of dumb asses decided to get us all killed all for the sake of trying to live out this eutopian idea of society. I'm an independant, I can't stand democrats/liberals and Reopublicans make me sick (not all, but most especially the vocal ones) not because of who they are or what letter they have in front of there name but because your going to get us all killed.
Refusing to see the threats in front of us all in an effort to be the next socialists on the block next to Europe is what is killing us and no one is doing anything about it. Yet i'm talking politics by and large with people who don't know what they are talking about and want to clown O'Reilly because he disapproves of our favorite passtime, our way of life in some cases.
Everyone has opinons and If I disrespected anyone then I apologize. But when I see the typical "FOX is one sided etc, it makes me sick. More often than not the person(s) spouting such rhetoric have no clue what the hell they are talking about and because of that one day we won't have to worry about violence in games, because we will be living it. Enjoy gaming while you can.
enough allready @ Nov 19th 2006 5:01AM
illtrooper,
I apologize for the typos, I didn't know the spelling police were in town, sheesh.
Maybe you should go to bed because you sound like and ass and i'm tired of reading your shit. When you say that you support moveon, that's all I need to know, thanks for fucking things up for the rest of us!
And one more thing, the anger I harbor is the fact that I have to raise my son and take care of my wife while a bunch of idiots run the country into the ground and another bunch of ideas gets to vote the other idiots into power. Having served my country and having a wife that still serves, I know what's at stake, and were it not for love of country and humanity in general I would lose my mind knowing that all this is for nothing. A socity that doesn't have a grip on anything yet they expect everything, sometimes you think to yourself, "why the hell do I do this".
Thanks for proving my point for me, say hi to George Soros for me.
The ZeroCorpse @ Nov 19th 2006 5:11AM
I love it. By O'Reilly's standards I'm some young punk, even though I'm approaching 36 years. When I'm 45, and he's even older, he'll be calling us "those younger, deluded people under the age of 60." He's the type of person who goes around saying "Back in my day..." and complaining how worthless anyone under his age is. He probably has an onion tied to his belt.
Idiot. The only person who is more consistently wrong about his facts is Rush Limbaugh, and I accept it from him because he's just an entertainer; Its not Rush's fault people actually BELIEVE what he says on his show.
Ralod @ Nov 19th 2006 5:05AM
"For years we've been forced to listen to liberal talking points, one sided, bisased and as usual wrong. Whatever happened to just reporting the news?
You hate FOX because FOX offers a differnt point of view. How is it fair to have almost every media outlet be liberal and yet you jump on FOX for offering a different point of view."
Well see here is where you are wrong. The other news channels are not liberal. There non partisan. Fox on the other hand is partisan. There not offering another POV, there pandering to a group of people telling them what they want to hear. Most other channels go out of there way to present the news in a non partisan fashion. They do air editorial programs with both liberal and conservative pov's(take for example msnbc, Countdown on one hand and Tucker Carlson and Joe scarborough on the other). However Fox airs conservative slanted news 24 hours a day.
Other channels report the news, Fox news reports what they think there base wants to hear.
And as for that video you speak of. Do you think the American people are better off being ignorant? Do you think there better off not knowing what is going in Vietnam 2.0? I guess you really do live the old saying that Ignorance is bliss.
EdFanMH @ Nov 19th 2006 5:05AM
O'reilly's the reason that CNN is gonna get phone call raided.
enough allready @ Nov 19th 2006 5:06AM
Illtrooper,
I figured you wouldn't understand the 85% comment as it isn't a direct reference to a fact, it's from something called the Mathematics, check it sometime, you might learn something.
The 85% is a reference to the deaf, dumb and the blind or in otherwords, society in general. I wouldn't expect you to know this as the mathematics is philosphy on life, an idea of why things are the way they are.
Ralod @ Nov 19th 2006 5:15AM
Yeah I give up, after seeing your last 4 posts it is clear this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
You have no clue what you are talking about. And if 50% of this country really do think like you do then I agree we are in trouble.
Your the one who really has no idea what is going on, and is blinded by your sheer intolerance. I hope you enjoy reveling in your blind ignorance.
enough allready @ Nov 19th 2006 5:17AM
Ralod,
The other channels report the news, are you serious? They aren't liberal? Whatever, your a lost cause.
And as far as CNN goes showing the footage, the American public is ignorant, stupid actually (for the most part) this isn't Vietnam 2.0, where did you get that corny shit? That's as bad as Cronkite saying that we lost the war after the Tet offensive, you really need to check your history.
My old unit is in Iraq right now, and I can tell you that had I been there and found out that my buddy got hit and it could've been stopped but some euro scum bag reporter got him killed, i'd beat his ass.
Once again thanks for being an idiot and fuckin up the country (and the world) for the rest of us. I'm done arguing with you narrow minded hippy scum.
See you on the frontlines.
Ralod @ Nov 19th 2006 5:25AM
enough allready,
Where do I get my ideas? Hmm well lets see I read unbiased news, and info. I talk with people I know and people I don't know. I take in all the info I can on a subject. Then I think with the big squishy thing that's in my skull. I go over and over the issues and then *GASP* I form my own opinions!
I know this is shocking to you, but you really should try it sometime. It really is quite freeing to actually form your own thoughts on things instead of towing the brainwashed lines you have been fed.
Have a nice life, Tool.
icelandman @ Nov 19th 2006 6:04AM
I really, really wanted to come up with a witty well worded way to bash Bill, but you know what? I can't hold it back... It should be called the trash bin zone, because everything he says is garbage. There, I said it.
~PEACE
-Icelandman
Sidepocket @ Nov 19th 2006 6:07AM
Oh god, the moron crew is out on Comment 26.
News is not supose to take sides in anything. That is the problem with news today, expecaly Fox. They do not present multable points of view, actualy informing people. Instead they tell everyone what they want to hear and not what things really are.
Man, why do people have to stick there politics into everything? I agree with Lewis Black, there has to be a point were we can watch a stiuation and agree as human beings that unfortunatly that is what reality is.
Anyhow, this whole O'BS thing is a joke. Yea, I am sure the billions of people who belive in Christian and Islamic God, Saints, Deamonds, Mohhamad, Giant Floods, Jeasus and all the rest are very fine tuned in reality. Infact in terms of cause of violence, entertainment cannot hold a candle to religion. Period. No contest. Religious Violence > Political Violence >>>>>>>>>>> News Media Violence. Its a fact.
Infact, I wonder how they think people come up with the violence acts seen in media in the first place? Grand Theft Auto would not have existed if those sorts of elict activity was not already in our socity.
the_game_master @ Nov 19th 2006 7:04AM
Old Bill'O is a idiot, I given up on watching FAUX NEWS they really are they poltical mouth of the GOP.
You want to see good reporting then watch the show that's beating O'Reilly in ratings on the same time slot.
Countdown with Keith Olberman on MSNBC.
Ginnal @ Nov 19th 2006 7:12AM
O'reilly watchers explain this to me.
As I said before I think he's at best a pathological liar, so two nights ago I was up watching TV and couldn't sleep.
I was going through the channels and ran across this faggot O'reilly.
Rather than yell at the TV while changing the channels as I normally would I decided I would give the man a chance.
He was talking about OJs new book and the interview he's doing.
Rather than just take it for what it is, a pychopath exploiting the death of people for money and morbid curiousity leading to public, this cockswilling douchebad homo decides he's going to frame it as a part of the "culture war"
When I heard this I thought man, this guy is retarded but didnt change the channel, maybe I was just being narrow minded and I should hear him out.
I tried really I did, but at one point he's lecturing OJs lawyer, with a clip of the interview running in the background and he says, i shit you not "This is just a case of the liberal media" ... blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda, his point was that somehow this Intertiew and book was the work of liberal media who through their callousness and hatred of life managed to foist this travesty onto the american people.
I almost shit myself.
This dumb faggot has a fucking video clip running in the background with "FOX" clearly written on it.
The interview was done on Fox, the book is being printed by harper collins.
This is precious two organisations( unde the same imprint) whose stated intent is to bring a conservative perspective to the fore as labelled by O'reilly as the liberal media.
So he's proposing a boycott against these conglomerates.
Apparently noone told O'reilly that he works for fox or that Harper-Collins is a sister corporations all owned by the same man that owns Newsmax, Fox, the Nypost, and about 2/3rds of the media content on the fucking planet.
Now this was retarded, but apparently he hasnt dropped the charade of being indepedant, he's distanced himself from the word since Al franken outed him as a registered republican. So what does this douchebag faggot choose to call himself? a traditionalist. All through the program I'm thinking what does that mean It sounds about the same as conservative but he's still yapping about being fair and balanced.
so I looked it up.
The result can only be described as appropriate.
Traditionalist.
adj : stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded [syn: hidebound] n : one who adheres to traditional views [syn: diehard]
Traditionalist indeed.
__________________
Eric @ Nov 19th 2006 7:49AM
God, I miss netiquitte.
jron @ Nov 19th 2006 7:57AM
When did O' Reilly deal with reality -- ever? The guy is a 7 foot tall perpetual joke machine.
Doom @ Nov 19th 2006 7:59AM
So is O'Reilly going to hawk 'Video Games rot the mind' crap next to his 'War on Christmas' crap on his Online Factor store (he's not doing it for money - he's doing it for the folks!)?
Moogle @ Nov 19th 2006 8:06AM
"There is some validity in his comments, especially when you look at the Sony fanboy hooligans and the b/s they pulled yesterday, for crying out loud someone got shot for a damn game system."
I think there's sufficient evidence at this point that people were waiting in line for 3 days for several hundred dollars, not to get a PS3 to play. Nothing to do with the quality of that system, but those rioters weren't dedicated gamers.
More specifically, someone got shot when people with guns demanded money that people waiting were going to use to buy PS3s. (Unless there's another news story I'm missing.) The shooters did not want a PS3.
I'll stay out of the rest of the argument but for one point - "the public is stupid", while very likely true, is not a valid defense for any position.
is @ Nov 19th 2006 8:45AM
God, are people still pushing this 'liberal media' fallacy? Open your eyes, you morons.
I also love how people are here backing this guy up, when anyone who reads this blog has already been critisised by him as a distant soul comparable to a drug addict in their denial of reality.
Grow minds? Yes.
juicebytim @ Nov 19th 2006 8:37AM
On a similar note, Sean Hannity (seanhannity.com) was offering to buy somebodys Playstation 3 (including the additional eBay premium) on Thursday. He actually had good things to say about video games and I would consider him more of a conservatie than Bill O'Riley.
There's also a local Republican talk show host in my city who was praising them as well. So not all political guys hae the same view on Video Games, probably most of them though, just like most people over the age of 50 do anyway.
Korova @ Nov 19th 2006 8:49AM
"what [we] have is a large portion of the population, mostly younger people under the age of 45, who don't deal with reality -- ever."
Somehow we get through our lives without the help of Bill's "reality" glasses. Bill's just afraid people arent listening to HIM.
Cultural conservatism, which is what anti-gamer politics is, is fear that comes from ignorance. A large portion of any population is usually pretty ignorant and cannot afford continuous education required to adjust to social change. To be fair they shouldn't have to but they shouldn't block it if there is no harm from it.
This is where Bill goes wrong and random. I propose that Golf causes more harm than videogames. It wastes environmental resources and makes people ignore their families. It should be controlled through legislation and taxes.
I imagine Bill would say that mostly older people play golf and they know what they are doing, as opposed to the young ones who play video games. But then he would just sound like a cranky old cracker he really is.
That's enough dealing with reality for today. Now back to Wii delight #002. ONLY 2 delights still!!!
Insomnia Bob @ Nov 19th 2006 9:18AM
If Bill O'Reiley exists in a 'no spin zone', then why is it every time I see him I feel like vomiting? This man is a SPIN MONGER, pure and simple. I doubt he even believes half the silly crap he says, it's all about ratings.
Anyone who considers themselves a true republican should abhore people like O'Reily. Remember when being a republican was about wanting smaller government, wanthing less interference in our lives? Once the party got into power, all these morons forgot that bit, and now we've got the biggest government we've ever had, with the power to spy on it's own citizens and imprison us indefinatly as long as someone says 'terrorist'.
Our government has jumped the tracks, and guys like Billy boy here are wearing a conductor's hat, and telling us how great everything is.
FOX @ Nov 19th 2006 9:17AM
Good call on the Doobie.
For when you really want to play games in 4D.
SuperChuck @ Nov 19th 2006 12:37PM
"mostly younger people under the age of 45"
That seems like a rather large demographic to me...
NoHitHair @ Nov 19th 2006 9:36AM
Joystiq.com:
When, or if, you ever read the comments that are attached to your articles, do you ever suddenly feel a hot sensation in your faces, followed by a touch of anxiety and confusion? That's called "embarassment" and it's an emotion that often chokes individuals with at least average intellect by discovering that these comments are crafted by those of their same species.
I have a cure for this illness - it's called "banning" and it reaffirms your right to us all that this is your private domain and you can keep or kick whoever you want. No more constant "facts" without any form of evidence or sources (see all posts by 'enough allready'). No more belief that any form of media whatsoever can declare itself unbiased (see posts 28 and 35). No more arrogant self-righteous claimed omniscience of any subject (see posts 3 and 10 [i.e., their infallible and infinite knowledge of what a "hyper-conservative is"]). No more Napoleonic demand for acknolwedgment (again, see all posts by 'enough allready'), no more placing sole blame on anything inevitably bad that happens on the public (PS3 riots) and no more threads of worthless comments.
This is your house, Joystiq - you should at least spray away the scum and mildew.
otakucode @ Nov 19th 2006 11:06AM
Tim: Republican != conservative. Conservative MEANS traditionalist. It means social conservatism. Censorship, behavior control, and church/state integration. And O'Reilly is all about that.
O'Reilly is just a windbag who will attack anything a housewife in Salt Lake City thinks might taint her kids. A couple weeks ago he was railing like a complete moron about Saw 3 and horror movies. He claimed 10 years ago Saw 3 couldn't even have been made. Apparently he's never seen "Braindead" or "I Spit on Your Grave" or the thousand other horror movies over 10 years old that make Saw 3 look like something from Disney.
NoHitHair: Re-read your comment. Critically. Don't you think that if Joystiq were to take your suggestions, you would be the first to be banned for being presumptuous of their desires for the discussions on the site, to say nothing of the desires of their readership?