TV ‘supernanny’ Jo Frost returned to UK TV screens in February, with her new show ‘Extreme Parental Guidance’ on Channel 4. The first episode is of interest to us all not because of the young girl who refused to eat nothing but sugary snacks, nor because of the genuinely heartbreaking case of a twelve year old girl who refused to leave the house without piling on make up. Besides these cases, a study by Professor Doug Gentile into the possible link between videogames and violence in children was featured. Several clips of the study itself were shown, and give us a revealing insight into how at least some such studies are conducted.

For the clearest picture of the study’s intentions and conclusions, it is necessary to put it in the context of the show. At the beginning of the show, Frost tells us that one third of UK parents think that they’re doing a ‘really bad job’. She goes on to say that she doesn’t believe this to be the case, and that these parents are “not being honest about the mistakes they’re making” which, she claims, everybody makes. What the viewer is supposed to draw from this of course is not that three thirds of UK parents are doing a bad job (which would arguably be the logical conclusion to her claims), but that no blame for badly behaved children can or should be apportioned to the parents. This way of thinking is at the heart of all ‘games/cartoons/rap music/heavy metal/chips (delete as appropriate for the week) are evil’ soapbox rants. For now however, we shall concentrate on Jo Frost’s show.

So what simple mistakes are these innocent parents making? A survey conducted by the show found that 80% of respondents admitted to bribing their children with sweets. More relevant to us however, is the issue of how long their children spend playing videogames. The times quoted were invariably in the hours, and one mother even resignedly complained that her child spends eight hours a day playing.

What?

Eight hours? That’s bad parenting. Some of us at Critical Gamer are parents, and are or will be more than happy to see our own children play videogames – but we are well aware that eight hours a day is not healthy, not even for an adult. The woman did not say how old her child was, but surely unplugging or confiscating the console/computer is not an unrealistic consideration. It brought to mind a similar story told by a mother interviewed by BBC breakfast, who lamented the fact that her son spent hours a night playing his DS instead of going to sleep. We’re not child psychologists and in all likelihood, neither are you; but the answer to that particular problem seems obvious…

Jo Frost

So the scene has been set. The programme is subtly assuring the audience (a large proportion of whom are likely to be troubled or worried parents) that there is no possibility of the parents of misbehaved children being at fault, and that external forces are instead to blame. Enter Professor Doug Gentile’s study.

The study is presented as an entirely scientific and unbiased one, headed by a qualified professional. Though Professor Gentile’s credentials are never explained, there is certainly no reason to doubt them. The aim of this study, we are told, is to test the possibility of violent videogames desensitising children to violence and dulling their ability to feel empathy.

Forty twelve year old boys were sat down at laptops with headphones and, at a signal, told to start playing the game they had been provided with. Twenty of the boys played a twelve rated ‘violent war game’ (the game footage was blurred so as to make it unidentifiable, but it was clearly an FPS), and twenty of the boys played a non – violent soccer (or, if you live somewhere in the world that isn’t America, football) game. Each boy played for exactly twenty minutes and then, at another signal, stopped playing and closed the laptop.

After this, the boys were then shown violent real – life news footage, which their parents had previously watched and approved. The boys’ heart rates were monitored before and during the footage, the theory being that if the violent game desensitises children to violence, the boys who played it would show little to no heart rate increase whilst watching the violent footage. The results seemed to bear this out; the average heart rate amongst those who played the war game was 86bpm before the footage, and 88bpm during. The averages of those who played the non – violent game however were 91bpm before the footage, and 99bpm during, a significant increase of close to 10%.

Those heart rates are averages, however, and the audience was not privy to the individual results. How many in each group experienced significant heart rate increases? What is the explanation for those who had been playing the non – violent game, and yet experienced only a minor increase? Most importantly, how does this definitively prove that videogames desensitise people – at the least, children – to violence?

Professor Doug Gentile

It was enough for Frost, who declared the results to be “quite shocking”. As the narrator ominously declared, ‘just twenty minutes’ of gaming was enough to desensitise these young boys to violence. The unspoken continuation of that thought, of course, is: imagine what extended play will do to your child.

Following this, random samples of each group were taken to be interviewed by Professor Gentile, one at a time. This was to be a test for empathy. The child would sit opposite Gentile and, on the desk between them, was a pot of pens. Gentile would ask the child about their gaming habits and, at an unexpected moment, ‘accidentally’ knock the pen pot off the desk, spilling its contents across the floor. The theory here was that those who had played the non – violent game would feel empathy for Gentile and his situation, and would help pick up the pens. Those who had been playing the violent game on the other hand, would feel no empathy; and therefore show no signs of being willing to lend Gentile a hand.

It was at this point of the study that the author’s prejudices became clear. The first child was taken from the non – violent gaming group. When the pens were knocked to the floor, Gentile stopped talking and, when the boy looked unsure about what to do, started to get up from his chair – which acted as a visual cue for the boy to get off his chair and help. Frost noticed this but, rather than question the impartiality of Gentile and his study, she simply put the boy’s decision to help down to a polite nature.

It is important to note that Gentile did not repeat this action for any other child; at least, not in any of the footage that followed. Though most other children shown decided to help, leave or ignore the pens without Gentile’s interference, there was one significant exception. One of the boys from the violent gaming group looked down at the pens as soon as they fell on the floor, and seemed set to help tidy them up. Seeing this, Professor Gentile immediately distracted him with hurried words and hand gestures, in order to draw attention away from the pens and continue the conversation. In not one instance shown in the TV programme did Gentile try to distract a subject from the non – violent group in such a way. Incidentally, there was a mix of hesitation and immediacy in the reactions from this group.

The study found that while only 40% of the violent gamers helped pick up the pens, 80% of the non – violent gamers helped. The narrator described it as “a simple and revealing test with shocking results”. We agree; but for rather different reasons. At best, it proved to be an unprofessional study; and at worst, a deliberately prejudiced one.

A powerful tool in psychoanalysis?

It should also be asked, is a pot of pens falling off a desk really the best way to test a child’s sense of empathy? Especially if the interviewer shows little to no signs of concern himself. A better event, which would not have been much more difficult to set up convincingly, would have been to have the interviewer fall off his chair and show hesitation and difficulty in getting back up. Perhaps Gentile feared that such an event would result in the overwhelming majority of both groups going to help?

Furthermore it should not have been Gentile, the author of the study with access to all the facts and expectations, who interviewed the test subjects. The interviews should have been conducted in a double blind manner; that is, not only should the children not have known what was going to happen and what reaction was expected of them, but the interviewer should have been somebody with no knowledge of the associated study (and strict instructions not to encourage or discourage the child’s help). It would be foolish to presume that all similar studies with negative conclusions make the same mistakes, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It would be equally foolish, however, to presume that none of these studies are prejudiced in this way.

When the study is over, Gentile dispels any lingering doubts about his views on the link between videogames and violence by laying his cards on the table. He mentions “other studies” which have apparently shown that those who play violent videogames are “more likely to hurt than help another kid”. He fails to mention what these studies were, how many of them there were, who conducted them, when, and how and why children were able to ‘hurt’ one another. The audience of Extreme Parental Guidance are unlikely to question such matters; after all it isn’t Doug Gentile telling them this, but Professor Doug Gentile (who also goes on to say that there is never just one cause of a child’s bad behaviour and attitude, but videogames are one and “not a small one”).

Frost herself gave some Jerry Springer style thought for the day – esque advice at the end of the section. Parents must set time limits for their children’s gaming, and pay attention to the age rating on the box. Well, um… isn’t that just common sense? Besides which, the industry has been saying exactly that to governments and the media for decades. Still, a certain type of person is more likely to listen to Jo Frost than develop some common sense, and perhaps that programme helped some children.

Channel 4 failed to respond to our request to get in contact with Frost and/or Gentile.

Just a few weeks later, the BBC’s Newsround (a regular news programme made especially for children) published the results of a survey it had commissioned. The survey regarding sleeping patterns had been sent out to various schools, and covered one thousand children aged 9 – 11. Most respondents said that they went to bed at 21:30, with approximately 25% saying that their bedtime was 22:00 or later. 50% of those questioned said that they weren’t getting enough sleep, and wanted more.

Various reasons were listed for the late bedtimes, including TV and mobile phones… but with a sad inevitability, the BBC reporting put the emphasis on videogames. Nowhere, oddly, was lax parenting mentioned as a possible reason for children not going to bed early enough. As a brief aside, we’d like to question the reliability of 50% of the children saying they wanted more sleep. Indeed, if they’re going to bed so late, it’s highly likely that at least half of them would want more sleep. Bear in mind, however, that the children received the survey at (or via) their school. Were some of them perhaps hoping that if they said they wanted more sleep, the school day would start later?

The world suffers under a culture of ‘it’s not my fault’, and the flak videogames often get from media and governments is just one symptom of it. How many times have you heard a story of an American toddler accidentally killing themselves or a sibling with their parent’s gun, or a disaffected teenager going on a killing spree with his parent’s gun… or one he bought over the counter? How and why do these things happen? It has absolutely nothing to do with the cheap, legal, and widespread availability of firearms in America – or so entirely neutral bodies such as the NRA would have you believe. I have my gun, I want my gun, I like having my gun. It’s not my fault if some bozo can’t keep his gun locked up. It’s not my fault if some kid plays too many games and listens to too much Marilyn Manson, and shoots up his school or holds up a liquor store. It’s not my fault, it’s somebody else’s.

It’s not my fault.

So we now see, after reading part one, that interactivity being used as a justification for the study concentrating on games falls apart on close examination of the study itself. Which begs the question: why did TRIAL and Pro Juventute choose to concentrate on games? One possibility, is that these organisations – previously almost unheard of outside of their native Switzerland – wanted more visibility on the international stage. As certain politicians and bland daytime TV ‘celebrities’ know well, video games remain an easy populist target for criticism (though much less than they were ten years ago). But there is another, wholly more admirable possibility, suggested by another paragraph from the introduction:

“The link with reality is in fact so direct that nowadays several armies rely on video games both as a recruiting and as a training tool. Military from some states put video games on their websites to give the viewers a virtual experience of what being a soldier is like. Such games allow them to virtually participate in trainings, be deployed on missions, fire weapons, take decisions in unexpected battlefield situations, etc. Military also use video games, or “simulations” more and more often as a training tool in addition to “on the field” training. This demonstrates the impact of video games on the players and their behaviour in reality.”

The basic idea of tighter regulation on war games, from the viewpoint of them being used as military recruitment tools, is sound. However, this study seems very uninformed and confused when it comes to what, exactly, it sees and does. For starters, it seems that the authors have great difficulty in distinguishing between military combat simulators and commercially available video games – which is a huge and important difference. They also mention video games being made available to play on army websites – but you’re not going to get Operation Flashpoint or Modern Warfare 2 as a free – to – play flash game on any army’s site. Most army games nowadays have military or ex – military advisers involved during development, which is worth bearing in mind. But rather than pretending all soldiers across the planet play by the rules, perhaps a better suggestion would be to stop perpetuating the myth that armed combat is all about riding in helicopters and high – fiving your buddies; and walking away from battles with barely a scratch. It would also be worth, just every now and again, pointing out the fact that the enemy think they’re doing the right thing every last bit as much as ‘our boys’ do. And how about reminding people that sometimes, people like the Brits and Yanks, you know… actually start wars? And that when it’s Them that started the trouble, it’s often Us (usually the American government) that put Them into power in the first place? Saddam Hussein, ever heard of him? But I digress.

The point is, every person or organisation that calls for a game to be censored or banned has some kind of personal motive. Often, as I have already mentioned, it’s a glory hunting politician or lawyer, frustrated at the fact that they’ve been out of the public eye for 48 hours. Can be a vote winner, too (but in a few generations, that’s going to change completely). As I’ve previously posited, it is fear of video games that leads to irrational criticism of them.

By and large, it is personal gain of some description that is the engine driving ludicrous machines of hate aimed at the games industry. More votes, more viewers, more papers sold, more airtime…for me, me, me. It’s nice to see this attitude backfire which, on rare occasions, it does.

Manhunt 2 encountered problems getting rated across the world, but was eventually released in almost all significant territories. It encountered a lot of trouble in the UK, when the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) initially refused to rate it at all. Rockstar offered them a watered down version – but again, it was refused a classification, making it illegal to sell in the UK. So Rockstar went to the Video Appeals Committee, who overturned the decision, and forced the BBFC to award Manhunt 2 an 18 certificate. The BBFC fought the decision, but lost; and with much gritting of teeth, allowed the game to be released. When declaring their intention to fight the appeal decision, the BBFC’s statement included this interesting paragraph:

“The VAC judgement, if allowed to stand, would have fundamental implications with regard to all the Board’s decisions, including those turning upon questions of unacceptable levels of violence.”

Basically, the BBFC (who classified the first game without such a fight) made a last – ditch attempt to save face – and failed miserably. Whether or not this played a part in video games being taken away from them in the UK the year after the game’s release (all games in the UK are now rated by PEGI) is something we’ll never know for sure.

Censorship, or calls for it, in games can sometimes be down to the erroneous belief that they are played almost exclusively by children. Indeed, at one point, the human rights study I have been talking about says that the games they are concerned about are played by “thousands of children and young people”. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt however, as the age certification for each game is stated, and therefore acknowledged, throughout the study. There can be no doubt how the Australian censors feel about video games, however.

The OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification) in Australia is stricter than most other similar bodies elsewhere in the world, but is unforgiving when it comes to video games. Incredibly, there exists no R18+ certificate for video games in Australia. This is why games rated ’18′ or ‘R’ elsewhere in the world are heavily censored in Australia, or fail to be released in the territory at all. This attitude seems to make it clear that the official stance in Australia is that video games are for kids; but there is a growing movement to push for an R18+ certification for video games.

There are some people who call for an end to censorship altogether; allow anything and everything to be released and, so long as it has the appropriate age rating, allow people to decide what they find acceptable for themselves. This is lazy thinking, however. Concentrating on games for the purpose of this article, some degree of censorship and regulation is not only desirable, but also necessary for a strong and respected gaming industry. I’m not talking about stamping out rude words, and removing blood and gore from violent games. See how we don’t have child molestation simulators, gay and black extermination FPS games, and war games with FMV of real executions on shop shelves? That’s censorship and regulation, and it’s a good thing.

Do you think that nobody would make those games if they were allowed to? Really? Definitely not respectable publishers and developers; but the world is an ugly place, and the sad truth is that each of those games would have a market for two – bit companies to exploit.

Overzealous censorship is the problem. Next time you hear about an individual or organisation calling for a game to be banned or censored, ask yourself: why? What’s in it for them? You’ll find that they’re very rarely concerned about other people…

Playing By The Rules

MCV: BBFC Applies For Official Judicial Review On Manhunt 2 Ruling

OFLC Wikipedia Page

Censorship in games is hardly a new issue, and it can vary wildly from country to country. However, two Swiss human rights organisations – Pro Juventute and TRIAL – recently produced a study entitled Playing By The Rules: Applying International Humanitarian Law to Video and Computer Games. The introduction claims that “The goal is not to prohibit the games, to make them less violent or to turn them into IHL [International Humanitarian Law] or IHRL [International Human Rights Law] training tools”, and that “We have chosen video and computer games as the object of our analysis because, unlike literature, films and television, where the viewer has a passive role, in shooter games, the

I’d like to say before anything else, that this is not going to be a blind, venomous attack on the study – or, indeed, the organisations who produced it. In fact, I’d like to start off by quoting some positive conclusions drawn by the study. Part of the conclusion reads: “In general, we believe and we have seen, in the course of playing different games, that punishing illegal conduct in video and computer games can be done and is, in fact, already done in some of the most popular games”. Unfortunately, that handful of words is just about the only sensible sentence directly referring to games in the whole 46 – page study. I’m not one of those loons who see human rights as a bad thing – I’m a member of Amnesty International, and intend to be so till my dying day – but trying to apply them to algorithms, pixels, wireframes and renders is preposterous.

The idea of human rights applying to on – screen fictional characters who are nothing more than data on a disc (or hard drive) is so ludicrous, I don’t feel the need to explain any further. I must be fair, however; the study’s main concern (ostensibly, at any rate) was that players of certain games are able to virtually commit war crimes, or other breaches of human rights. And yes, games were actually played. TRIAL and Pro Juventute paid gamers to play through a selection of games, while lawyers watched and noted any on – screen human rights and/or Geneva Convention abuses. They took the time to actually pile hours into researching games themselves – you have to give them credit for that. So first of all, let’s take a look at some of the games tested for the study, and the human rights violations allegedly contained therein.

Army of Two was one of the games included in the study. Amusingly, the only thing that seemed to trouble them about this game was the fact that the Two are mercenaries, and therefore not actually ‘allowed’ to participate in hostilities. This is the kind of thing that stops me from taking the study seriously: “As mentioned above, mercenaries are considered to be civilians and as such, they have no right to participate in the hostilities. However, in the game, the members of “Army of Two” are participating in hostilities, so they lose protection awarded to civilians under IHL and may be tried for their mere participation in hostilities by the authorities of the states involved”. Though how, exactly, is controlling a virtual mercenary in any danger of violating anybody’s human rights? At the worst, you’re pretending to do a rather stupid thing that could get you killed or arrested.

Battlefield: Bad Company is told off for allowing the player to blow walls in houses and take gold from buildings (ie ‘pillaging’).

The Call of Duty games, predictably, come in for some flak. Modern Warfare (the first one) gets lots of attention, primarily it seems for allowing the player to attack buildings and statues without punishment, with the exception of the church when you’re gunning with thermal vision.

The notoriously anti – war Metal Gear games, which encourage and reward the avoidance of combat, would be safe from this study – right? Nope. Metal Gear Solid 4 (or, as the study calls it, ‘Metal Gear Soldier 4′) was criticised too. One of the two criticisms however, relied on – wait for it – a walkthrough they found, which they took to mean that the player is required to kill unarmed or wounded enemies. Walkthroughs found on the internet of course are privately written by fans of the games, and are not written by, or in any way endorsed by, the developers.

Several other games are included, and you can read the study, in full, for yourself via the link at the bottom of the page. Many games do require or allow the player to breach human rights or ignore the Geneva Convention. As well as the examples I’ve mentioned, the study points out that some of the games allow the player to kill civilians, torture captives, kill unarmed or surrendering enemies, and more. But that still begs the question: Why have this study at all? None of these games contain any actual humans. As I quoted at the beginning, the study claims that the interactive rather than passive nature of games was a concern, and yet they have no intention of changing games so that they feature less violence and all teach players about human rights laws. Now, however: the truth. Read the following paragraph, taken from the section detailing the ‘violations’ found in Rainbow Six Vegas:

“Another scene portrays soldiers executing civilians. The characters are far away, thus it is difficult to see the action very clearly. Seemingly however, the civilians are tied up. The soldiers shoot them in the back. As explained above, attacking civilians is a violation of IHL and both IHL and IHRL prohibit summary executions. If these acts are performed by law enforcement officials, outside the context of an armed conflict, they would thus constitute a violation of the right to life. Even though it is seemingly not the player who is committing the violation, it would be recommendable to avoid putting these kinds of scenes in video games as they could mislead players in terms of what is allowed to be done.” Italicising mine. I’d just like to say that if you’re old enough to read and understand this article, and you still don’t understand that murder and torture are wrong, you never will.

So as can be seen, the study is calling for censorship and for all games featuring armed conflict to feature nothing but content that complies 100% with IHL and IHRL – essentially, the exact ‘training tools’ the introduction promised they were not seeking. Several similar paragraphs can be found littering the study. Furthermore, the content in question is viewed passively.

If the issue of interactivity were the study’s true concern, then it would have been much better served to concentrate on movies, theatre and TV. Think about it. Actors and actresses act out murder and torture on other human beings every single day, across the world. And of course, every single scene must be rehearsed and filmed again, and again, and again, and again. You don’t get any more ‘interactive’ than that without carrying out the human rights violations for real. In addition to this, it is likely that the same people will act out similar violations in many different projects. So am I suggesting that no TV programmes, plays or films are made that feature IHL and IHRL – violating content? Of course not. I’m merely pointing out that a much stronger case could be applied to passive mediums, and yet it is still patently absurd.

Playing By The Rules

What causes violence? If you are a fan of George Lucas then you know that ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, and anger to violence. I ask this as currently we are going through the yearly attack on gaming, largely caused by Modern Warfare 2; but most probably an attack which would have attached itself to another game had MW2 not been released. It’s the time of year when everyone wants a game and hence gaming is big. It used to be films which were attacked at this time of year, but hey, compared to games they are so small fry.

It's the fault of these guys. If only they had gone by Easyjet and left the guns at home. Stag parties are getting too complicated these days.

Now whenever I see a news report discussing evidence of how games might make a player violent, I see quotes relating to how those who play games demonstrate increased adrenalin and hence are ‘pumped up’. I can accept that. I can also accept that the same symptom might be displayed by those watching or taking part in football, rugby, boxing, X-Factor, Crufts, ballroom dancing, viewing the news, horse racing, motor sports and, for those who get a kick out of it, fishing.

Are we suggesting we ban those? Of course those commentators who are either stupid or just set out to be, might argue that their point is that only games have you committing acts of violence. I would point out that the violence though has to be triggered through some kind of condition or state of mind. Adrenalin is an indicator normally associated with such a situation. There is little evidence out there of players actually going to commit violence having just played a game. The research instead relies on indicators which might lead to violence, such as adrenaline. Well doesn’t that mean many activities have the potential to turn quiet, peace loving individuals into maniacs?!

In a month where six pupils at a school almost poisoned themselves for copying a plot line from the the pre-watershed BBC drama Waterloo Road, it’s amazing that the industry that got attacked was gaming! Now Waterloo Road is popular, but in the big scheme of things many more millions of young and old people are gaming than watching Waterloo Road. I would suggest that perhaps gaming is less dangerous compared to other activities such as watching EastEnders, Coronation Street, or possibly Countdown. It’s certainly worth examining on that level – i.e. looking at its effect on behaviour proportionally to the amount of gaming content consumed.

What is even more amazing is that the media have no problem with allowing lies about games being circulated. They seem to feel that it is fair game to drop all journalistic training and principles when it comes to attacking gaming. Hence, we see repeated quotes about how MW2 allows you to play as a terrorist – most shockingly played out on Fox TV. For those that have not played the game I have something to say. No you cannot!! You play a CIA operative embedded into a terrorist cell. You witness an attack and, if you feel it’s part of the character, can take part in a massacre; but ultimately you are a bystander to such an attack with limited control over the game at that point. It is crucial to the plot and at the end (spoiler alert) you yourself are then shot dead. It’s dramatic and has been seen in countless movies before. So why the problem now? You even get the choice to skip the scene – ever been offered that by a TV show or movie?

Now this isn't potentially violent at all? He is actually a member of the National Association of Local Butchers

Perhaps it’s because we call them games? Games are meant to be fun, and for children – right? That’s another lie the media propagate of course. They continually allow commentators to remind us that most people buying or playing the games are children. For sure, some are – but most people playing these games are 18 or above, and many are 25 years plus.

In the USA we hear people say that even if a game is bought by and for an adult, if there is a child in the house then they are sure to gain access and play it. Perhaps they are right. However, if they are, perhaps they should start by not keeping handguns in their house! I’m thinking (and correct me if you feel I’m missing something here) that this may be a more immediate and dangerous problem. And you know, you can even lock out your kids from your console very, very easily if you choose to.

I’m not saying there are not games out there with bad taste, nor am I suggesting there should not be age limits or even some games banned. If you can ban a film, then you should be able to ban a game. However, there should be parity between the art forms. In the UK the BBFC initially banned Manhunt 2 and fought to try to stop it being released. Why?

Now, apart from the pictures of men in masks holding guns AND this picture of a fist, what actually IS there on the packaging to alert parents to the fact that some games might contain shooting and violence?

Their own research concluded that players do not think that events in a game are real. We no more think we are really scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup than we think that we too have three heads and live on the planet Zog whilst playing a fantasy game. Indeed, they found that the fact they are interactive and we have to push buttons often brings us out of the drama and narrative, reminding us they are only games. This is something movies cannot do, and we can get lost in them and become ‘pumped up’ in a sustained way without having a release until the end of the film. So, why oh why, when it comes to violent games, suddenly all that research goes out of the window? What is the logic and reasoning for this? When films like SAW and Hostel are released, why then fight to ban Manhunt? Are the individuals in charge of these organisations stupid?

"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb!"

I don’t think they are. Well, I hope they aren’t anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are running scared. Those that are in the industry and those that are associated with it, such as the BBFC, still lack the self confidence to describe and communicate what gaming is to those that do not yet play them, as we do. This is a huge problem as it allows the issue to be hijacked by the Keith Vazs of this world. There are people, often important and influential people, who latch onto these issues without first thinking them through. People who, fuelled by their own ignorance, let their own emotions get carried away, eating away at their fear until they explode violently against an industry, artform and past-time which contributes greatly, in a positive way, to millions of people’s lives.

Maybe George Lucas had it right all along.