The Conversation Trump Should Have: Addressing Video Game Violence and Its Real-World Implications
President Trump's recent meeting with representatives from the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) has brought to light the ongoing debate surrounding video game violence. Although Trump has the well-known phrase, “the buck stops here,” on his desk, it seems he is simply passing the responsibility to other entities and is not genuinely addressing the issue at hand. This essay explores the significance of this meeting, the broader implications of video game violence, and what actual solutions are available.
The Trump-ESA Meeting and the NRA Concerns
On March 8, President Trump met with members of the Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Software Rating Board, as well as executives from major game companies. This meeting was prompted by the ongoing criticism of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the need to protect it from further scrutiny. However, the meeting raises significant questions about the real responsibility behind such violence and whether it is solely the fault of the video game industry.
Trump's approach involves scapegoating certain entities, such as the video game industry, without thoroughly considering the complexities involved. For instance, he ignores the fact that video games are not unique to the United States, and they are not the only platform where violent content is depicted. This narrow focus on a single industry diverts attention from the broader societal issues that contribute to violence.
Major Players and the Industry's Role
The major players in the video game industry were eventually invited to the meeting. However, the fact that they were not originally included in the initial inviteions raises questions about the preparedness and intention of the administration. Companies such as Take-Two Interactive Software and ZeniMax Media, owned by Bethesda, are involved in making millions from violent games. These companies have their own ratings systems, which are often criticized for not adequately representing the content.
The question remains: what would these companies do if continued distribution of such games were prevented? While placing ratings on games is an important step, it is often insufficient, especially considering the millions of games that have already been sold and the obliviousness of many parents to the content their children are exposed to.
The Broader Context of Violence in Entertainment
Violence in entertainment has been a recurring theme throughout history, extending beyond video games to include sports such as boxing, martial arts, wrestling, and even historical human and animal combat. These forms of entertainment have been a part of our culture for thousands of years. It is important to understand that these forms of entertainment, much like video games, are not directly linked to increased real-world violence.
For example, sports like boxing and wrestling have not been shown to make people more violent. Similarly, the use of animals in combat, while once common, has largely ceased due to animal welfare concerns. The focus on video games and movies leads to an overemphasis on a particular form of media while ignoring the broader context of violence in society.
It is also amusing to consider the hypocrisy in the video game and movie industries being blamed. In reality, the live practice of violence or gladiatorial contests still occurs today, and there is no outcry about the potential for violence among the audience. The focus should be on reducing violence across all forms of media and entertainment, with a long-term strategy to phase out these elements.
Conclusion
President Trump’s meeting with the representatives of the video game industry is a step towards addressing the issue of video game violence. However, it is critical to have a more comprehensive and balanced discussion that includes the broader context of violence in entertainment. By shifting the focus to historical and societal factors, we can have a more productive conversation about how to reduce violence in a meaningful way. The real challenge lies in phasing out violence across all forms of media, rather than scapegoating one particular industry.