Here in the UK there's a spate of TV nanny's gadding about the country telling parents how to train their kids to do what they're told. Seeing as everything has to be prefixed with the word "celebrity" these days, these shows have spawned the "celebrity" nanny.
They're not celebrities, they're just on TV, but that is apparently enough. Now, I'm not adverse to a bit of child psychology as part of a cheap programming schedule, but not content with just nannying, these new media concoctions are wading into the games and violence debate. No surprise there then, as games are put on the naughty step, once again.
Anyway, the first of the UK's TV nannies was Tanya Byron, who has degrees and diplomas, which gave her an "and this is the science bit" type of respect. Of course it wasn't long before she tackled the problem of kids and gaming. She wasn't the first and this week proves that she won't be the last, as another celebrity childminder wades into the games and violence issue.
Tanya Byron was the woman behind the eponymous Byron Review, a government commissioned investigation of the risks children face from the internet and videogames. Of course, the UK industry flew into a panic, just waiting for the men in white coats to take us all away for being depraved lunatics hell bent on warping children's minds. In the end, she merely made a series of recommendations to improve game classifications and raise consumer awareness of the issue.
Ms Byron seems to have dipped under the radar of late. Maybe she's in a lab somewhere proving her boffin status – who knows. But, never fear, another celebrity nanny has stepped into the breach. Her name is Jo Frost and she's known as Super Nanny, no less. The opening episode of her latest show, Jo Frost: Extreme Parental Guidance isn't content with just teaching parenting skills. No, she's stepping up to the plate and tackling the big issues facing our kids.
Episode one and of course videogames were up for discussion. Apparently, a number of parents had told the show that their children played too many games and they were worried about the impact.
Another "scientist" was called in to set up test conditions. A sample of boys was taken and divided into two groups. Group A played a violent (unnamed, but probably CoD MW2) first-person shooter, while Group B played a non-violent football (soccer outside Europe) game.
After 20 minutes of play both groups were shown some news footage involving a violent riot. Their heartbeat was measured as a sign of response to the violent material. Group A (the violent gamers) showed almost no increase in heart rate, while Group B responded to the violent images, in what could be a called a normal way. The conclusion was that violent games desensitise children.
Hmmm. Okay, so this test clearly shows that violent games are more exciting than football games – no news there then. If you're in a heightened state already, then surely it follows that you will react differently to violent images shown shortly after. At no point did they indicate how long the kids are desensitised for. Instead it was stressed that it only took 20 minutes for your child's empathy to drop.
Test two involved individual interviews with one of the people running the experiment. During the interview with one of the boys the interviewer would accidentally knock over a cup of pens. The study showed that only 40% of the "violent" gamers helped him pick up the pens, compared to 80% of the football gamers. Once again this was taken to signify a drop in empathy.
However, all the boys chosen for the experiment were surely gamers, as they were being interviewed about the type of games they played. I'm sure just as many of the boys in the non-violent group had actually played 18 certified games at home, but the test showed them to be more empathetic. Surely, the test falls apart on this basis.
It's a question of short-term versus long-term impact, which is something the show didn't delve into. All the boys have played violent games at some point, but the evidence shown by Group B (the nice, football playing, pen tidiers) is that there are no long-term effects on their empathy levels. Or am I missing a trick here?
However, as I watched the show, I have to admit that for a moment I reacted as your average non-game playing parent would – with a gasp of concern. But then common sense kicked in and the flaws in the test became apparent.
I also have to commend Nanny Frost on her closing comment, which put the onus on parents to check game certification and control what their children are playing. There was no one-sided interview with a game publisher, asking why these games were being made and why they didn't feel any sense of responsibility. So while the latest incarnation of TV nanny is still beating the same drum as her predecessors, she is at least pointing the finger back towards parents.
Meanwhile, at least I have scientific proof to back up the following statement: Sports sims – dull as dishwater, action shooter – wins every time.
Most played: Star Trek Online
Most wanted: A PS3 so I can play Heavy Rain