Rhetorical Analysis: Does gaming cause violence behavior?

With the advent of Virtual Reality technology, the gaming industry as a whole is undergoing a massive shift of events. More games are being designed to utilize this technology while others are testing to improve the users’ experiences on computer-interfaced games. More work is being poured into giving players the most realistic experience, which is a great thing for the gaming community as a whole, however, it also raises concerns for those who are not familiar with the field. One of the famous issues was whether video games caused violent behavior in people. Following the shooting incident leaving 17 people dead at a high school in Parkland, president Donald Trump gave his thoughts on the matter, targeting at violent games for affecting youngsters’ minds. This stirred the controversy, with many people offended, stating that there was no connection between playing violent games and acting brutal. In the article “For the people in the back: Video games don’t cause violence”, author Jessica Conditt used many rhetorical methods to prove that violence was not a result of video games, yet “the White House wants to talk about ‘em anyways.”

Before jumping into the rhetorical analysis of the article, it is crucial to look into the author’s background and the context of the article. Author Jessica Conditt is “a professional nerd, specializing in independent gaming, eSports”. What is more, she also worked as a senior reporter at Joystiq for four years. Graduating from ASU's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. From an ethos point of view, Jessica proves to have an understanding on the ground and therefore enhances the credibility of her work, especially when the article is directly aiming at readers who have no ground in the gaming field, as stated in the title “For the people in the back”. Furthermore, the article was posted on March 7, 2018 – a day before the meeting between video game industry leaders and president Donald Trump. This shows how the author was paying attention to releasing the article at the appropriate moment, engaging the readers at the appropriate time. This use of the rhetorical method named “kairos” gives the targeted readers a chance to clearly think about the matter at hand and achieve a more thorough understanding on the overall picture.

Throughout the writing, Jessica consistently emphasizes on the primary point “video games do not cause violent behavior” while using many logical, statistical data to back up her claim. Before demonstrating the researched evidence, she states that “the statistical data are simply not bearing out this concern and should not be ignored”, as a way to increase its importance, which can appeal to the audience with more ease, as they are being presented with concrete evidence on the matter. Reviews from the US Secret Service in 2004 showed that 12 percent of the studied attacks, which was 5 cases out of 41, actually “expressed an interest on violent video games”. This number, compared to that of the national average, with 85% boys aged 15 to 18 reported playing violent games in 2010, was substantially lower. From there, the author gives a supporting point, stating that “videos games are tied to a decrease in actual violence” as opposed to games being the cause of increased violence. An economic study in 2016 proved a decrease in crime rate during the weeks after the publish of major games. At this point, one would argue that there were also researches that showed otherwise. The author, having anticipated this counterargument, demonstrated an example of a research and immediately pointed out its flaws to refute this argument. In 2013, the American Psychological Association “noted a link between violent video games and short-term spikes in aggressive behavior”. This was called out by many experts, to the extent that “more than 230 psychologists, media scholars and criminologists signed an open letter arguing the APA used faulty methodology and relied on bias to reach its conclusion”. In 2011, the US Supreme course abolished a California law that banned violent games being sold to younger audience. The majority opinion came from Justice Antonin Scalia, an immense figure on the bench, who also stated there was no proof that exposure to violent games “causes minors to act aggressively”. In 2015, a study by the Pew Research Center showed an astounding 53 percent of participants who disagreed with the statement, “people who play violent games are more likely to be violent themselves.” These numerical data heavily contribute to the author’s point from a logos perspective. It is also noteworthy that all of these researches came from organizations unrelated to the gaming industry in any ways, guaranteeing unbiased and authentic information, which further emphasizes the Jessica’s main point and increases the persuasiveness of her argument.

Another major point the author makes in the article is the fact that politicians are putting the blame on games instead of faulty gun control policies. Unlike her previous point, she approaches this one with an appeal to pathos. Florida congressman Brian Mast was recorded on National Public Radio, stating that gun laws “were not the answer” to shooting incidents, even though students survivors voiced out for such legislations. What is more, Brian Matt openly targeted the video game market as “the highest pusher of violence”. This seems to also be the view point of many other leaders. After a shooting in 2012 that resulted the death of 20 children and six faculty members at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the president of the National Riffle Association Wayne La was quoted saying “There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against its own people.” The fact that he was targeting the video game industry while saying that rages those readers involved, or more particularly, gamers. They feel more connected to the whole incident as a whole, thus finding themselves more likely to agree with the author’s point. This fury is further fueled by the fact that president Donald Trump himself floated the unscientific theory of video games causing real-world violence, distracting attention from the more crucial topics such as gun legislation. However, the author reassures the readers by the fact that it’s highly unlikely that a there will be “new federal regulations for the video game industry”, as the Entertainment Software Organization has “plenty of experience defending the reputation of the video game industry” with the back up of decades of scientific research. This mental approach to the readers help them to engage to the story, therefore persuading them emotionally.

To sum up, the author Jessica Conditt rhetorical used method of logos, ethos, pathos and kairos to persuade her primary audiences, who were those that are both familiar and unfamiliar to the gaming industry. She effectively uses evidence, researches, quotes, etc. cited from a variety of source, which stands out very appealing to the readers. However, towards the end of the article, she seems to have dived to deep into the matter and gets personal, calling out Trump’s claims to be “unscientific, largely disproven” as well as asserting the victory for the ESA. If she remains a more neutral attitude towards the whole issue, the article would sound more unbiased and persuasive for the readers.

Works cited

Jessica Conditt, “For the people in the back: Video games don’t cause violence” Engadget.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/07/video-game-violence-trump-meeting-esa-nra/?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWNvc2lhLm9yZy8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAB_ugDDu6s1_LXtpZB0xPy-VK8p5Jx7A1B84Tjs_V2WTL224L0uvQia73JixNf-XWUgMDFHYxdHj6b4mYBRx3W64bvu67GB865OFkXnSAIwYSB4PIrlJ_ZYsxmU_o-dCkmrOLYYKlHVnC41uBUS1cBBa1zggYaJ9mRRufHE_zVXC

https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/jessica-conditt

Reflection

Ever since the start of the whole “gaming causes violence controversy” controversy, I never really paid much attention to it, even though I am quite the intense player. It seemed like another dumb thing that people who didn’t game would say, and it didn’t bother me at all by then. That is until I read Jessica Conditt’s article on this matter and had to do a rhetorical analysis of it.

I had fun digging out and examining the rhetorical methods in Conditt’s article. It felt like the more I did, the more I understood why the article was so convincing to me. That is why I’m rather confident in pointing out how the author implemented these rhetorical methods and why the readers found it persuasive.

However, it was hard for me to not get lost in summarizing the article and stay on point. Sometimes I felt like I was going on for too long about the author’s view and not pointing out exactly how it persuaded the readers.