Just cause it happend WHILE playing or related to a game cause people to get more worked up about it then if it was over madogging someone or anyhting similar

this is an example of media attention creating the wrong conclusions for the sake of sensationalism, I see no mention of a recent incident where a unvercity student stabbed another student during a fight at a pub why ? CAUSE IT HAPPENS LOTS its not news and it's not sensational , so an online game is brought in and blamed (or done in such a way so as to involve the game) NOT SO, the persons involved two males, property stolen or sold, and a fight, one dies. What did the game do, what did the admins of the game do , what did the game developer do NOTHING !! it's not their fault. but the media would have us create our own image through biased reporting methods

Read the article again and notice the game itself is never named, if it were the Media involved would have such a nightmare of Litigation that Chapter 11 would be their only protection.

an unstable person is just that, and a community of people cannot be punished or ostrasized for the actions of just a few, this sort of sensationalist reporting is bad for everybody, not just gamers, and it reflects on our society as a whole,
which is why politicians and big business try to manipulate the media to their own ends how else can we explain some of our elected officials and the scandals
we elect them beased on media presentation

The media should be held accountable for views they create and should those views created buy them lead to harm wether physical or financial, they should be liable in civil and or crimminal court, maybe this would clean up some of the "Sensationalism"



Whether you spectate or participate, Life Happens

The game was named:

---

The sword, which Mr Qiu had lent to Mr Zhu, was won in the popular online game Legend of Mir 3.

---

This is the funny dilemma: Society becomes the product of the media, but media is a product of society. Which alters which? It is a circle. Therefore, the media involved can't be held accountable for the views they propagate; it is a joint effort of the culture and the media, feeding into each other.

One must really also look at the person's life in whole, not in part. We can't be hypocritical victims of the Fundamental Attribution Error; his life situation and pent up stress may well have been the cause of this sudden attack. To rush to blame his actions on his disposition and character is wrong. We should face it: we don't know the entire situation OR his personality, so we can't judge him.

It's horrible that this happened, however, and I'm not condoning it in the least.

Edited by - Wilde on 6/9/2005 12:57:41 PM

---

One must really also look at the person's life in whole, not in part. We can't be hypocritical victims of the Fundamental Attribution Error; his life situation and pent up stress may well have been the cause of this sudden attack. To rush to blame his actions on his disposition and character is wrong. We should face it: we don't know the entire situation OR his personality, so we can't judge him.

---

That's little more than a detail, really. You do seem to agree with the premise that the game wasn't the cause. Whatever was the cause is, in the context of this discussion, secondary.

I do agree with you though, which is precisely why I called him crazy as opposed to evil or whatnot.

This is the funny dilemma: Society becomes the product of the media, but media is a product of society. Which alters which? It is a circle. Therefore, the media involved can't be held accountable for the views they propagate; it is a joint effort of the culture and the media, feeding into each other.

(sry, I don't know how to quote)

Not nessicerily, you assume that the media is actually a part of society. Most of society is not in any way a good representation of the rest of us.

I doubt that the media really has much to do with the way that many poeple think.

Media is just a glimpse into the view of certain people. There is a study out, I know we can't trust em to be that accurate, that says that only 7% of the media is conservative, yet Mr. Bush is my president.

And yet by your reading this, your actions are making me a part of the media.

Evan--to quote, put "quote" in square brackets at the beginning and "/quote" in square brackets at the end of the quote.

Let me explain. We are inundated with media every day--newspapers, television, etc.--that sculpt our views however unconciously. But the media is a part of our culture and our society simultaneously, so their own words are a direct output of the society. They aren't therefore creating views, merely propagating and steadily altering them, but by doing that they are changing the shape of the political landscape, due to this inundation.

Edited by - Wilde on 6/10/2005 4:59:37 AM

Shameful behaviour- a true Otaku would've challenged him to a duel.

___Corsair~MMV
Reasons I'm better than you: #78468- I have squiggly lines in my name.

Again you think the media is a part of society. Don't you know, they have been infested with nomads years ago.

Really though, Most affluent and famous people are born into it, meaning that they did not take part in the world that all of the rest fo us do. Sorry to any affluent and famous poeple I may have been offeneded by.

Fine, but think about some random shmuck writing in the NY times; many media-involved are not born into the elite levels of society, but still are involved in the inundation of the rest of us.

Is random shmuck really intelligent enough to deserve the right to to write in front of many people.

i dont know evan, you tell me.