Channel 5's debate programme The Wright Stuff came under fire last month for generalising the video gaming populace and controversially calling them "brain-dead computer nerds." Today, the broadcaster has defended the show after a complaint from consumer group Gamers' Voice.
"We always make every effort to ensure that discussions on controversial subjects are fair and balanced, and I am happy that we did so on this occasion," wrote the programme's editor, Caroline Davis, in response to the complaint.
"We are, however, an open access current affairs discussion programme and are strongly committed to fostering robust debate and the expression of strongly held opinions. We are the only such programme on British television. We always aim for balance but what we will never do is suppress the expression of legitimate and reasonable opinions simply because we disagree with them.
"Matthew (Wright, the show's host) in fact felt they [video games] were not the cause. So far as the research is concerned, he repeatedly stressed that this is inconclusive."
The episode in question asked the question 'Do shoot 'em up games lead to real violence?,' and saw panellists linking the actions of gun murderer Leon Dunkley with violent video games. Gamers' Voice contested that the show favoured "uninformed statements and sensationalist representation over a balanced look at the issue."
Gamers' Voice chairman Paul Gibson isn't too chuffed with Channel 5's response. "Whilst their response puts great emphasis on the experience and 'credibility' of the panellists by claiming that they are 'intelligent and reasonable people' they do not in any way refer to the inflammatory and quite frankly insulting remarks made regarding gamers in general," he said.
Davis also defended the decision to use a short clip of Modern Warfare 2 to illustrate the debate at 10:30am - an incident that is undergoing investigation by regulator Ofcom. "We did feel it was essential to use a short clip to illustrate the discussion; many of our viewers are not gamers and it may have been meaningless to them otherwise.
"It was editorially necessary, but very short, and as you point out, a game image rather than real violence; indeed, in the light of your comments I do not really follow your objection to its inclusion, but as you have referred this to OfCom we will await their response. I am satisfied it was well within the relevant guidelines."
"We always make every effort to ensure that discussions on controversial subjects are fair and balanced, and I am happy that we did so on this occasion," wrote the programme's editor, Caroline Davis, in response to the complaint.
"We are, however, an open access current affairs discussion programme and are strongly committed to fostering robust debate and the expression of strongly held opinions. We are the only such programme on British television. We always aim for balance but what we will never do is suppress the expression of legitimate and reasonable opinions simply because we disagree with them.
"Matthew (Wright, the show's host) in fact felt they [video games] were not the cause. So far as the research is concerned, he repeatedly stressed that this is inconclusive."
The episode in question asked the question 'Do shoot 'em up games lead to real violence?,' and saw panellists linking the actions of gun murderer Leon Dunkley with violent video games. Gamers' Voice contested that the show favoured "uninformed statements and sensationalist representation over a balanced look at the issue."
Gamers' Voice chairman Paul Gibson isn't too chuffed with Channel 5's response. "Whilst their response puts great emphasis on the experience and 'credibility' of the panellists by claiming that they are 'intelligent and reasonable people' they do not in any way refer to the inflammatory and quite frankly insulting remarks made regarding gamers in general," he said.
Davis also defended the decision to use a short clip of Modern Warfare 2 to illustrate the debate at 10:30am - an incident that is undergoing investigation by regulator Ofcom. "We did feel it was essential to use a short clip to illustrate the discussion; many of our viewers are not gamers and it may have been meaningless to them otherwise.
"It was editorially necessary, but very short, and as you point out, a game image rather than real violence; indeed, in the light of your comments I do not really follow your objection to its inclusion, but as you have referred this to OfCom we will await their response. I am satisfied it was well within the relevant guidelines."
Read More Like This
Comments
Cfan 9 May 2011 15:23
1/1
'Do shoot 'em up games lead to real violence?,'
Let me jump in my Vic Viper and I'll tell you.
Let me jump in my Vic Viper and I'll tell you.