News

Nothing makes me happier to be Canadian than a sustained dose of U.S. politics.

Somewhere along the line -- I would say around 2000, when George W. Bush was given the presidency by those activist judges -- the practice of throwing out enormous falsehoods to begin a debate became standard operating procedure in the United States. Apparently, if you begin a discourse in a fantasy land of your own devising, you force the other side to come in after you, thus drawing them away from niggling concerns like reality and the truth.

Sadly, I'm not talking about anything all that important given the news this week, from the usual madness in the Middle East to worrying reports about Ethiopian troops entering Somalia. No, my dose of U.S.-style politics came courtesy of another fantasy-heavy sphere: video games.

Each month seems to bring new laws being passed by state legislatures seeking to restrict the sale and distribution of games, laws that are often quickly overturned by courts because they contravene the U.S. Constitution's free-speech clause.

Minnesota is one of the latest jurisdictions to go down this path, and comments from its Attorney-General (and gubernatorial candidate), Mike Hatch, were featured this week on the website GamePolitics.com, which gamely tracks these developments. In support of the bill, Hatch countered the free-speech argument with this inspired burst of rhetoric: "There may be few, if any, other forms of speech, even though protected, that are of any lesser societal value than repulsive video games depicting the bloody slaughter of babies and animals, urination and defecation, rape, decapitation, dismemberment and disembowelment."

As usual, there are no titles -- or any factual substantiation -- to go along with this list of virtual horrors. And I have seen the same list, almost word for word, repeated time and again. I can only assume there is a memo of talking points making the rounds.

It is true that a portion of video games (a huge swath of entertainment products and creations, by the way, of all shapes and kinds) do trade in violence. The form demands some sort of kinetic action, movement that often involves virtual objects and characters colliding. It can be disturbing and it should be taken seriously, but that brand of scare tactic -- slaughtering babies? rape? -- does not invite thoughtful conversation. In fact, it begins the debate at such a remove from the actual issues in play that most sensible people, gamers or not, will be turned off.

That may be the point, to restrict politics to an ever-narrowing ribbon of society, but to me it seems like a form of speech with "lesser societal value" than any fictional work.

Canadian-style controversy

Here's an idea: Actually play some games and then talk about their shortcomings. A student at the University of British Columbia, Robert Parungao, found himself in international news reports this week for doing just that. For his honours thesis in sociology, he spent 100 hours playing four games -- Shadow Warrior, Grand Theft Auto III, Warcraft III and Kung Fu -- and kept track of what he termed racist depictions of Asians. UBC's public-relations department sent out a release and the thesis has caused a stir, generating headlines along the lines of "Games are racist: study."

I have a few questions about Parungao's methodology -- four games seems like a small sample size and they were not exactly randomly chosen -- but this may be jealousy speaking, since my postsecondary research never (officially) involved a controller. At least this is criticism of the constructive sort. Characters in games are often thinly drawn sketches that rely on simple stereotypes, of Asians and just about every group of people. Developers may take note of the reaction to Parungao's findings and then hopefully add some depth to these characterizations in the future.

Virtual world watchers wanted

It would take more than 100 hours to keep track of just one week's happenings in all the various virtual worlds and on-line games out there. Dynamic creations such as World of Warcraft, Second Life and the Habbo Hotel are changing how people interact on-line, and more of them are appearing each month as the business models find favour among developers.

To help us cover such developments, we are looking for people with intimate knowledge of these massively multiplayer games and on-line worlds to send in updates and reports. Submissions, which may be published in the paper or on The Globe's website, should be around 250 words, and they can take many forms, from travelogues with your personal experiences to explanatory essays about the news of the day.

For example, a virtual world correspondent -- feel free to use that title on a résumé if you get chosen, despite the lack of remuneration involved -- could explain why the World of Warcraft community is in a tizzy this week over shamans and paladins switching sides in the next expansion pack. What does that mean?

Feel free to post this request in the forums for whatever virtual spaces you frequent so we can cast a wide net, and send your dispatches to the address below.

pluggedin@globeandmail.com