That was horrifically ignorant. Because people can't see films outside of a cinema! Because you can't get DVDs at your hou-Oh wait we can? Bollocks.
My friend sent this email to them;
To whom it may concern;
My name is Steve James, and that is all you need to know. Clearly The Alan Titchmarsh Show runs on a similar premise? "The name is all you need to know" Because on a recent episode Alan and his guests ripped apart the Video game industry knowing nothing more than the names of a few games. Even those Alan couldn't get right, I'd like to know where the hell "Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare was made, because the real Call of Duty 2 is a world war 2 game, have you been going back in time ITV?
The way Alan and his 2 guests picked apart the poor editor of CVG was pathetic and uncalled for, why he was used as the representor of Videogames is beyond me anyway, he's just a journalist!! And the way the games that were chosen were all in some way related to violence was extremely biased. Games are just like all other media but the way this TV show was made was to destroy and corrupt the minds of the elderly to make them think all games a violent and will ruin children. I am an adult now and have been playing games since I was 6 years old, I have grown up leading a perfectly average life, I haven't killed anyone and I'm not depressed.
It's small minded people like the creators of The Alan Titchmarsh Show, Alan himself and his clearly retarded guests that should not be talking about such a modern media on a TV show aimed at the older population. If I made a TV show on BBC 1 (A far greater channel might I add) slagging off Longjohns and Bing Crosby the entire elderly population would be writing the BBC angry letters. So you see why I'm complaing? I beg that your pathetic TV guests and hosts actually read up on what they're talking about before judging it. You wouldn't accept it for any other media so why for Videogames?
And who the hell is Julie Peasgood? where did you find her? Did you just whisper "videogames" and found the first woman pushing through screaming her opinions over everyone else? When she says she cannot condone violonce of any sort in any media does that mean she won't watch any movies? Even Disney ones where something hits a character? What a boring, biased life she must lead.
In conclusion, ITV; I beg you to think about what to allow to be said on TV in the future and on what show it is allowed to be said because the "Alan Titchmarsh Is Passed It And Tries Desperately To Make Elderly Women Fill Their Colostomy Bags" show, was clearly not the place to make someone who isn't qualified to defend Videogames have a one sided argument about why they're so violent.
Next time I play Call of Duty 4 Dead Warfare Fighter. I'll be thinking how much I want to kill Adam Crozier and the rest of you at ITV, because Games made me such a violent individual.
Watch your backs ITV.
*Winky face*
Simplist question to ask.
"Have you ever played a video game, that isn't GTA4 or MW2?"
Oh man that's great, especially his face.
[IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/21abm6a.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=gmaster;20895103]Brb, just played gta iv, got to go and find a hooker to hire and then violently beat up and steal my money back from.[/QUOTE]
I don't need a game to make me do that...
What a shit audience and a shit show.
You've either got to have balls, or be really stupid, to go on a news program where, literally, everyone in the room is against you.
This guy (I think it was Tim) and Geoff Keighley are my heroes.
When the lady said she doesn't support violence as entertainment I would have immediately mentioned sports - something that promotes REAL violence against REAL people for entertainment.
Sent directly to BBC via official complaint form:
[QUOTE]In this transmission of The Alan Titchmarsh Show, there was a discussion about violent video games, where one man defended not violent gaming, but the system through which games are categorized and restricted based on age category. The other three discussion members, including the host, were clearly against violent video games.
Such claims existed that violent video games are easily accessible by children, a point which was quickly dismissed by the defense. However, the claim continued to be brought back up, regardless of any response. Julie Peasgood continued, saying that video games "are addictive, and promote hatred, racism, sexism, and reward violence". Not only do very few games contain such promotion, but many contain it purposefully as an aid to story telling (Resident Evil 5, in which you defend yourself from African zombies, mostly because you are in Africa) and those that are left tend to contain responsive violence, in which the player could easily choose a nonviolent route if they preferred, (The Grand Theft Auto series, The Postal series.) and rather than reward violence, the game acts more brutally towards violent players.
Peasgood herself cited an example from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Not Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare, as Titchmarsh states at the beginning of the segment) of a level where the player is in an airport, killing defenseless civilians. This is a major inaccuracy, as not only does the player have the option of skipping the level before he or she enters it, but he or she never has to fire the trigger at any point, and the reason the level is there is to both set the scene for the game and show the harsh realities of war, especially the ones that are fought in secret. Despite the counter-points that I have just stated, Peasgood then states that she is categorically against violence for the sake of entertainment, yet implies that violence in movies is not as bad, because it is not interactive, and therefore not addictive.
What is being blatantly ignored in this entire segment by the opposition is that a child is restricted by violence due to the same labels that are applied to movies, and that if a child gains access to a violent video game, it is because the parent didn't do their job by moderating what their child can and cannot play.
In addition, regardless of what is and isn't said, there still lies the problem that the discussion is being held between one gamer, and three people who have never held a controller in their lives. It's the same as the adults of the sixties calling the Beatles a corrupting influence; they don't have the mindset nor do they have the experience necessary to have a discussion that leaves the realm of their time.
I think it would be of great benefit to this discussion if there was less bias and more experience and variety in both parties.[/QUOTE]
There was a field in earlier in the complaint form to indicate show and transmission time, which is why the beginning of the complaint may make no sense.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;20910569]When the lady said she doesn't support violence as entertainment I would have immediately mentioned sports - something that promotes REAL violence against REAL people for entertainment.[/QUOTE]
'Specially rugby.
[QUOTE=Cael;20912752]Sent directly to BBC via official complaint form:
There was a field in earlier in the complaint form to indicate show and transmission time, which is why the beginning of the complaint may make no sense.[/QUOTE]
It was on ITV - not BBC.
There's nothing wrong in my opinion with mass murdering people in an airport in a video game.
As long as you can tell the difference between video games and reality.
Of course though a non gamer like that women seeing things from a outside prospective wouldn't really understand.
[QUOTE=Dr Bob;20912874]It was on ITV - not BBC.[/QUOTE]
Ofcom sent me to the BBC complaint site.
3 on 1, including the audience. How biased.
[QUOTE=Cael;20912752]Sent directly to BBC via official complaint form:
There was a field in earlier in the complaint form to indicate show and transmission time, which is why the beginning of the complaint may make no sense.[/QUOTE]
It was broadcasted on ITV numbnuts...
ahh the trolling...
it's slightly getting to me
VIOLENCE AS ENTERTAINMENT IS WRONG.
But violence in movies is fine.
Sorry to bump this thread, but I got my reply from Ofcom:
[quote=Reply]Dear [Subject Name Here]
[B]The Alan Titchmarsh Show, ITV1,
19/03/2010, 17:00[/B]
Thank you for contacting us. We have noted your complaint about the perceived bias during a discussion regarding violent video games in the above programme. Whilst we are sorry this concerned you, having viewed this particular segment, I can now advise that we do not consider there are grounds to intervene.
Rule 5.5 of the Broadcasting Code states that "Due impartiality on matter of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved." Discussions of such subject in a programme (or a series as a whole) should therefore include a range of views. However, broadcasters do not have to apportion equal airtime to each perspective in order to achieve "due impartiality". After all, participants in programmes will inevitably have varying levels of ability in expressing their point of view which may have an effect on the overall impression given.
As you identify, the discussion centred around the production of violent video games and their potential influence on children. We acknowledge that panellist Julie Peasgood was perhaps over-zealous when claiming that she was "[I]categorically against violence for entertainment[/I]" but also note that editor of ComputerandVideogames.com Tim Ingham had ample opportunity to defend his position, which he did with equal vigour. Indeed, he had the chance to speak fist and responded articulately to Ms Peasgood's challenges by emphasising that the game she identified was not in any way designed for children and that its BBFC "18" rating meant that it had the same legal restriction as an "18" film or DVD. Kelvin Mackenzie supported this argument (albeit inadvertently) by saying that the average age of a gamer was 33.
Further, Mr Ingham named several games aimed at general use and added that letting children play violent video games that were wholly not intended for them is a matter for parents.
We appreciate your strong objection and recognise that Mr Ingham was outnumbered in this instance, but in view of Mr Ingham's considered responses, we do not believe audiences would generally perceive the programme itself to advocate the prohibition of violent video games. Therefore we do not feel regulatory action is warranted.
Thank you for taking the trouble to contact us. It is important for us to know what the audience thinks, even though on this occasion we have not upheld your complaint.
Yours Sincerely
[SIGNATURE]
Steve Turner
Ofcom Broadcasting Team[/quote]
Just got a letter back from Ofcom:
[IMG]http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j130/jamilahmed1994/Facepunched%20Forums/001.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j130/jamilahmed1994/Facepunched%20Forums/002.jpg[/IMG]
I got a response from the BBC.
[quote]
Dear Mr <MY LAST NAME>
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'The Alan Titchmarsh Show'.
I understand you believe that the recent discussion on violent video games was biased against video games, and I note you think that some contributors were poorly informaed on the subject. I note you feel the discussion could have benefited from having contributors with greater video gaming experience.
I'd like to take a moment to assure you that your comments have been registered on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers. It's also published on our intranet site, so it's available for all staff to view. In addition to this, we regularly compile tailored audience feedback reports for specific programmes so they can have an overview of all contacts received about their series. If a report's compiled relating to this issue, then your comments will also appear here.
Thanks for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.
Regards
<HIS NAME>
BBC Complaints
[/quote]
Holy fuck that old bitch was fucking ridiculous.
I raged.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
