Know a parent who seriously needs to be educated about the role of video games in society? Hand them the National Institute for Media and the Family (NIMF)'s 13th Annual Video Game Report Card.
Need a meaningful critique of the video game industry? This year, you'll need to go somewhere else. After spending twelve years as stalwart critic of retailers, rating boards and violent game manufacturers, this year the NIMF uncharacteristically gave the industry a pat on the back. Why? We had no idea -- until GamePolitics reminded us that earlier this year, the organization took a $50,000 donation from the Entertainment Software Association.
But have the NIMF really been co-opted by the industry as GamePolitics suggests? We spoke to NIMF spokesperson Darin Broton to find out why the once-critical report card has changed so drastically... and see what the Institute thinks of their new reputation.
Basic Principles
Throughout the course of a very friendly conversation about the Institute's thirteen-year history, Darin Broton – himself a four year veteran of the non-profit organization – assured me that the NIMF's basic mission, “to maximize the benefits and minimize the harm of media,” hasn't changed since day one... and that despite being labeled the watchdog group of the industry, they've always deemed that games are capable of both the harm and the benefits that statement refers to.
“[The NIMF] has never been an anti-videogame organization,” he told me. "Everything is good in moderation.”
In fact, while the org is best known for their attempts to critique the industry, that “everything” Broton refers to includes all sorts of screen time, not just that spent on video games. Current campaigns at the Institute are structured to tackle childhood obesity and warning parents about online predators, and Broton believes the org may turn its attention to internet addiction early next year.
But yes, Broton admitted, the focus has historically been on games – and when it comes to games, the Institute has certain beliefs:
Games can cause harm.
Violent video games provoke aggression. “I think the prevailing research will tell you that there is a link.”
Self-regulation, rather than legislation. “You can't legislate morality,” said Broton. “You can't legislate values.”
Parents can and should be responsible for their children. “If not parents, then who?”
Parents need tools to understand the new technology that children have already obtained. “Children are always two steps ahead of their parents.”
And despite what we saw in this year's report card, the NIMF also believes that the industry still needs a watchdog. “We're never going to stop putting the retailers or the industry's feet to the fire.”
So what's changed?
The difference this year, according to Broton, is not a change in philosophy – but rather they way they intend to broach certain issues. When I asked specifically about the NIMF's longstanding belief that the Entertainment Software Rating Board should more clearly define the difference between the 17-and-up Mature rating and the 18-and-up Adults Only, Broton told me that the organization had not strayed from this position – but that it was a matter they would discuss privately with the ESRB, rather than take up in their report.
“We've transitioned to making this a report card for parents,” he explained, “We're making a shift from talking about public policy aspects to helping parents.”
Though Broton agreed that some of the NIMF's prior successes might have stemmed from voicing their policy concerns to parents in the first place, he pointed out that this was not always necessary, and that this year their concerns about the downloadable WiiWare Beer Pong, set before the ESRB in private, resulted in the game's name and controversial content being altered before release.
Not all of the NIMF's policy critique will occur in private – “You can rest assured that we'll be talking publicly in 2009 about the issue of gaming addiction,” said Broton – but it seems that the report card may no longer be the place for such discourse.
The Credibility Issue
The big deal, of course, is not that the NIMF has transitioned from policy critique to parental education, but that they've done so right after accepting $50,000 from the Entertainment Software Association, an known game industry advocacy group. Why would they do such a thing?
Well, it's partially because they had a specific project in mind for the money. “We're working on a project to create an online tool for parents to tackle the issues of online predators, cyberbullies, etcetera,” explained Broton, “It's not a blank check. It's for a specific spot on the website.”
And, partially because at the time, they felt it was worth the risk. “Yes, there was hesitation, and if there wasn't hesitation, I don't think any of us would be doing our jobs. But I think the end result of giving a parent another useful thing for them to make better decisions at home with their kids is worthwhile.”
But now that GamePolitics insinuates that the ESA has bought NIMF's silence, does Broton and company feel any differently about their decision? It certainly doesn't seem so:
"I've actually laughed at GamePolitics, because before this, GamePolitics was a frequent critic of NIMF for being too harsh on the industry. It's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too," Broton said.
"I look forward to seeing what GamePolitics has to say in early 2009, and see if they still think we're in the back pocket of the industry."
Broton also told me that that while individuals could possibly jump to conclusions based on this year's single report card, the organization's track record was more important. “You have to look at the document over the course of its thirteen years,” he said.
Rock Revolution?
We lampooned the NIMF last week for recommending games for kids that were certainly family-friendly... but not exactly what you'd call fun. But without a word from me about entertainment value, having simply brought up the topic of the Institute's game recommendations, the first words out of my contact's mouth were “We actually play those games.”
According to Broton, the NIMF actually starts tracking games slated for fall as early as March or April, and rely on coverage and conversations at gaming blogs and websites to determine how popular the games are and what type of content they will provide – then have families actually play them to test that they are suitable and fun. Bronton volunteered that in the cases of Hasbro Family Game Night, LittleBigPlanet and High School Musical, the games were chosen because “those that we had playing the game honestly loved playing them.”
When I brought up the obvious fallacies in recommending Konami's Rock Revolution, however, Broton replied: “Some game recommendations are subject to personal preference.” Oh well. Better luck next year.
The Question
Having read the NIMF's statements, what do you believe?
Did that specific $50,000 donation really compromise twelve years of service? If so, what should they do now to redeem themselves? If not, is the organization right to focus on parental responsibility rather than industry policy in their report card? Are policy issues better handled using the Institute's private clout, rather than its public muscle?
Do you agree with the NIMF's values in the first place?
Leave a Reply