Barack Obama Linking Video Games With Academic Underachievement?

[DarthWario]

Several video-game enthusiast outlets have been criticizing President Barack Obama for linking games with academic underachievement. During an address to a Joint Session of Congress, Obama said the following during his discussion of education policies:

"In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father who will attend those parent/teacher conferences, or help with homework after dinner, or turn off the TV, put away the video games, and read to their child. I speak to you not just as a president, but as a father when I say that responsibility for our children's education must begin at home."
In this case, I have to disagree with the outlets for dinging Obama on this. I don't see this comment as denouncing video games at all. Rather, he's criticizing parents that allow their children to overindulge in gaming instead of spending time with their kids. There are plenty of cases where elected officials make outlandish statements about "the evil" of video games, but I don't see this as one of them.

Do you see anything wrong with Obama's comment? Is he taking a potshot at games? Or is he telling parents to step it up?

[Eia]

I don't see anything wrong with Obama's statement at all.

The thing happening now is that parents are letting other, inanimate, outlets interact more with their children than they do, making them uninvolved and frankly, uninterested. I think he was just referring to video games as part of what some members of society use as a "babysitter."

(He's telling parents to step up.)

[loveistears]

I think he's telling parents to step it up. As a child of the "Internet era" as some like to call it, I've noticed that we have became very lazy and our will-power isn't the same as it use to be. We'd much rather sit at home, playing videogames, or on the computer, rather than going outside and walking or playing with out friends. This does start at home and is where we get this from. Parent's are our very first role models. They're the ones who teach us to speak, to walk, and our first judgement of life. When you have parents who sit on their asses all day or who dont really care it sticks with us and tends to be how we are in the end. But I will say it's not always true. So don't go saying "well my parents do this but I don't do it." That doesn't matter. My parents say the "N" word and that doesn't mean I go around saying it. They help you form your opinion to whether or not that's right.

[Zairak]

Step it up. While video games most certainly don't engender violence in people, they do have a tendency, as a lot of hobbies do, to become addicting. Further, at least in my own experience, they are a distraction from...well...everything. Except food. I like food. But, yeah. Video game addiction. There's always that next level and oh hey a Challenger is approaching, I have to deal with this now. Homework can wait until later.

So, yeah. He's telling parents to get off their ass and hang out with their kids.

[HolyShadow]

"In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father who will attend those parent/teacher conferences

My parents never once attended a parent-teacher conference and I've turned out just fine.

, or help with homework after dinnerMost teachers say they want parents to help their children, but don't want the parents doing the work. My parents are both high school dropouts, and don't really even understand something as simple as Algebra. Not only is it impossible for them to teach it to me, even if they could, they'd have to be good at teaching to avoid doing it themselves. Not every parent can help, sadly.

, or turn off the TVIt depends on what you watch. Some things are funny, some things are serious, some things are interesting to know. Hell, not watching television can cause social problems with someone. All of your friends could say, "Hey, did you see American Idol last night?" and you'll go, "No, I'm Amish. I don't have electricity." You will be pitied, laughed at, etc..

, put away the video gamesIf I hadn't played nintendo games when I was young, I'd probably be in prison or dead right now. Long story.

, and read to their child.Obama says not to watch tv, but he says to read books? Isn't television just a series of panels played at a high speed with noise? That's not so different than a picture book, and a picture isn't so different than a regular book. All of them have a plot, characters, etc.. While it is important to develop reading and listening skills at a young age, it's better for the kid to read and you to listen, helping them along the way. Otherwise, they'll never learn, and they might feel that you never listen to them, which could bring up even more problems.

I speak to you not just as a president, but as a father when I say that responsibility for our children's education must begin at home."It's not that simple. If a teacher is inexperienced, they will have problems teaching the child. If the child is rebellious (which most are, for one reason or another), then the child could just lie and say, "Oh, I already did my homework" and even just go and play outside. It's not necessarily indoor activities that harm a child's academic performance.

__________________________________________________ ______________

I think that his philosophy is slightly off. Everything should be in moderation or a child will miss important moments for growth. Without proper social interaction, their life will be that much harder.

However, as I said, this is in moderation. If social interaction will hurt them more than it will help them (bad crowds and such), then maybe it would be a good idea to moderate that, and it is quite right that parents should be involved with that. However, that is not always the case. Sometimes, you have to let your child do what they want to do. Otherwise, they could end up rebellious or extremely repressed.

[mystra]

First off I have yet to agree with anything that's come out of this man's mouth. Second as a parent I agree with his statement to a certain degree.

We live in an age where parents are too consumed by themselves to bother taking care of their own kids. They put the responsibility off on the state and the teachers. Most kids today have no or very little guidance from their parents after the age of 5 (when they start school). I've seen this plenty of times talking with other parents in my area and online. They complain their kids are out of control, then when asked why they say well his/her school doesn't have enough extracurricular activities or that the kid's hanging out with the wrong friends. In the case where the child's withdrawn again they blame it on the schools for not watching for the "signs" or say they can't afford the medication to help them. That's all a load of bullshit. The fault of this lies with the parents not taking enough time to be interested in their kids lives. There's nothing wrong with some tv and video games but when a childes life entirely circles around those things it's the parents fault.
I let my daughter play video games and watch tv and for the most part do what she wants...but there are things that should and are done first before she's allowed to do those things. If they aren't done either those xtras get taken away or the time she's allowed to do them is decreased. For a parent to not act in such a way teaches a child it's ok to do nothing you're tolde and get away with it. That is what too many parents are doing an what the main problem is. It's got nothing to do with tv, video games or not reading (some kids just don't enjoy it), it's got to do with parents teaching their kids responsibility. Not all will listen but at least you know you did the best you could for the kids.

@HolyShadow - In that case it's a different story. I'm not able to help my daughter with all of her work but I do find someone that can or I look things up. The whole pointe is that I'm still helping her with it, making an attempt and not foisting the problem off on the school making it their fault my kid doesn't learn.
- The whole problem I finde with tv is that kids lose their imagination. I let my daughter watch 2 hours a day (usually it's less but that's the max unless it's a weekend and nasty or a movie she wants to see) and I still thinke that's too much.
- You talked about the kid lying about their homework...If parents bothered to take the time to check these things they'd know why their kids were doing badly in school.

[killshot]

Obama says not to watch tv, but he says to read books? Isn't television just a series of panels played at a high speed with noise? That's not so different than a picture book, and a picture isn't so different than a regular book. All of them have a plot, characters, etc.. While it is important to develop reading and listening skills at a young age, it's better for the kid to read and you to listen, helping them along the way. Otherwise, they'll never learn, and they might feel that you never listen to them, which could bring up even more problems.


If you are trying to compare books to television, the thing to remember is that something can be learned from most books and the same can't be said for television. Sure, there are a number of educational shows that some kids would find interesting, but things like "American Idol" have nothing of value to teach and are purely for entertainment. Its good to watch something entertaining every once in a while, but watching programming with no educational value can be detrimental to intellectual growth.

Books on the other hand help with reading skills, vocabulary, and help improve a child's imagination. Also, small nuggets of information are often packed into novels meant to entertain. Because of the level of detail books can go into, more can be learned from them than watching the movie of the same title.

By the way, I am curious to know how Nintendo saved your life.

[Kochiha]

The whole argument's kind of useless, anyway, because there's nothing to argue about. Chocolate Milk Obama just came up with another way to make himself appealing to people that could never appreciate the values that come with things such as video games in addition to reading books; in the end, it's nothing but politics, and it never will be anything but politics so long as that idiot's in the White House.

[HolyShadow]

If you are trying to compare books to television, the thing to remember is that something can be learned from most books and the same can't be said for television. Sure, there are a number of educational shows that some kids would find interesting, but things like "American Idol" have nothing of value to teach and are purely for entertainment. Its good to watch something entertaining every once in a while, but watching programming with no educational value can be detrimental to intellectual growth.

Books = Entertainment
TV = Entertainment

I'm kinda missing your point. Are you saying that because a fictional story about unicorns is written instead of on television, it somehow gives greater intellectual stimulation?



Books on the other hand help with reading skills, vocabulary, and help improve a child's imagination. Also, small nuggets of information are often packed into novels meant to entertain. Because of the level of detail books can go into, more can be learned from them than watching the movie of the same title.Anime and video games have vastly increased the range of my imagination. Meanwhile, I would read books in middle school and got several items tossed at me because of their jealousy and violent nature. It's fine and dandy if everyone reads books, but not all children read books and not all parents will listen to this.

By the way, I am curious to know how Nintendo saved your life.They implemented different ideals and values into me, so I wasn't affected
by the people around me. In a place like where I used to live, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that I may have gotten into crime if I had different values. However, since I moved, I find that it would be better if I would watch more popular things on television. However, pride or something doesn't allow me to.

__________________________________________________ ______________


@HolyShadow - In that case it's a different story. I'm not able to help my daughter with all of her work but I do find someone that can or I look things up. The whole pointe is that I'm still helping her with it, making an attempt and not foisting the problem off on the school making it their fault my kid doesn't learn.
- The whole problem I finde with tv is that kids lose their imagination. I let my daughter watch 2 hours a day (usually it's less but that's the max unless it's a weekend and nasty or a movie she wants to see) and I still thinke that's too much.
- You talked about the kid lying about their homework...If parents bothered to take the time to check these things they'd know why their kids were doing badly in school.

First, there are indeed four parts to a child's education: The parents, the school, the other students, and the child themselves. Acting like a child's lack of education isn't the schools fault is definitely honorable, but it may not always be the case. A poor educational system can indeed completely override the efforts of a parent.

Television doesn't hurt imagination. Seeing a wide variety of stories quickly provided in such a ready source will expose them to a wide experience of culture. This wide experience of culture can actually stimulate imagination because they have something to base their thoughts on. It makes them more applicable to the current generation.

Personally, I believe homework is rubbish some of the time. It shows that plowing through massive amounts of work is more important than actually learning the material. Instead of making it so easy to cheat on the homework by copying friends or looking at the back of the book, the point should be to make it a supplement so that they'll do well on tests, which are more representative of actual knowledge. It's very possible that someone knows all of the material but doesn't want to do homework because it's pointless.

However, it's all very variable. I don't think the role of parents is to control every aspect of a child's life, but rather keep them going in the right direction. Some control is necessary. However, simply labeling television and such as detrimental is not always the correct thing to do.

The whole argument's kind of useless, anyway, because there's nothing to argue about. Chocolate Milk Obama just came up with another way to make himself appealing to people that could never appreciate the values that come with things such as video games in addition to reading books; in the end, it's nothing but politics, and it never will be anything but politics so long as that idiot's in the White House.

Regardless of Barack Obama's intelligence, he is in fact America's leader of sorts, so America should respect him whether we like him or not. Simply hating someone because they're not who you liked or you don't agree with them is rather childish if I may say so. However, this is beside the point.

[killshot]

Books = Entertainment
TV = Entertainment

I'm kinda missing your point. Are you saying that because a fictional story about unicorns is written instead of on television, it somehow gives greater intellectual stimulation?

The vast majority of television is absolute garbage with nothing of value to offer. Even children's books have some sort of intellectual merit, such as morels, parables, etc. Just because books and television are both forms of entertainment doesn't make them interchangeable. What if I said, "college and elementary school are both forms of education and are therefore equal to each other."

[BarkVon]

Turning off the video game is "bad" to video game enthusiasts now? What do all video game enthusiasts have no life? Oh wait.

[HolyShadow]

The vast majority of television is absolute garbage with nothing of value to offer. Even children's books have some sort of intellectual merit, such as morels, parables, etc. Just because books and television are both forms of entertainment doesn't make them interchangeable. What if I said, "college and elementary school are both forms of education and are therefore equal to each other."
You're assuming that television is elementary school in that situation. I could go read My Immortal. It's text, and therefore better than watching an episode of... oh, I don't know. The Simpsons, maybe?

Your logic is flawed. Just because some television is bad doesn't mean all of it is. Hell, even some popular television is more well put-together than popular text.

[onidragon]

I'm a huge gamer and follower of GamePolitics, the guys who more or less started the whole "video games are being used by Obama as a target for academic underacheviment".
HOWEVER: It's not that, he's saying it's time to stop using tv as a babysitter, and sit down with your child, and talk to them. It's not that hard, once you're in the swing of things.

[Tatterdemalion]

Books = Entertainment
TV = Entertainment

I'm kinda missing your point. Are you saying that because a fictional story about unicorns is written instead of on television, it somehow gives greater intellectual stimulation?

Books aren't a form of entertainment, books are a form of art. And on top of which, the key differences between reading and watching television are that the more you read, the more adept you become at it, the more your vocabulary grows, the more your familiarity with syntax and ability to recognize linguistic patterns develop, the more the speed at which you read increases, and, perhaps most importantly, the more you can develop critical reading skills, which in turn develops your ability to analyze and interpret a text.

The more you read, the more you're able to read. And the more you're able to read the better you are able to speak, write, analyze and understand. If you read starting at a young age, and read often, the benefits are immensurable.

Television, on the other hand, is just there. A small percentage of it is worth your time, the rest of it is utter crap designed to distract you, and use constant repetition of familiar colorful images to wear away your resistance and sell you soda. Not the same thing. Not even close.

So yeah, I'd disagree with President Obama there. Don't read to your kids. Read with your kids. Or better yet, make them read to you. That'll do them some good.

I'm kinda missing your point. Are you saying that because a fictional story about unicorns is written instead of on television, it somehow gives greater intellectual stimulation?


Most children's books aren't the best, I'll give you that. But if you don't start with the unicorns, you're never going to read Moby Dick. And trust me, there's not a show on television that can compare with a book like Moby Dick. Or most of the classics, to be honest. Don't get me wrong, there are some great television shows, which I can enjoy and appreciate, but if you're trying to say that the greatest works distributed through the televisual medium are on equal footing with the greatest works of Western and World Literature, I can only assume you don't read much. Or you're just not paying attention.

[Tatterdemalion]

Also

Most teachers say they want parents to help their children, but don't want the parents doing the work. My parents are both high school dropouts, and don't really even understand something as simple as Algebra. Not only is it impossible for them to teach it to me, even if they could, they'd have to be good at teaching to avoid doing it themselves. Not every parent can help, sadly.

I think that the fact that Obama says "read to their child" in the same sentence, he's referring more to younger kids. Which would mean something a bit more elementary than algebra. I mean, sure, there are probably some parents who don't even know basic arithmetic, grammar and speling, but at the same time I think Obama's comments make the assumption that most parents aren't completely uneducated, illiterate and incompetent. Not that there aren't some who are, but clearly this is geared towards those who managed to pass the 4th grade.

[Tatterdemalion]

Television doesn't hurt imagination.

Sure it does, if it's used right. That is, your whole notion of exposing children to a wide variety of cultures is nice, but at they same time you're ignoring the fact that most television does the opposite, subjecting viewers to cultural stereotypes and prefabricated cultural ideals. In addition to this, television generally satisfies a person's desire for amusement by delivering them instant gratification by appealing to their most base instincts, not by constantly chalenging their preconceptions of the world, exposing them to new and unfamiliar ideas. If anything, through repetition television encourages unoriginal formulaic thinking, and through a bombardment of stimuli weakens a person's resistance, establishing brand loyalty in the process, and promoting consumeristic thought and behavior in the process.

[Fat1Fared]

Tatter has sumed up what I would say

however I don't think he is having go at TV or Games, but at parents who do not control amount of time wasted on them

[berober04]

Listen, pal. You can try to take over my company. You can kidnap my little brother. You can even try to kill me. But when you [bleep] around with video games, you've gone too far.
[too easy]

[HolyShadow]

While television may not be equal to literature such as macbeth and such, you're looking at current television. Television does include movies, after all, and movies such as ET can indeed challenge literature such as that to some extent in terms of delivering of information as well as impact on lives.

Television and movies are pictures moved in quick succession, basically. In this case, it isn't a stretch to say that comics are the same as movies. Can you honestly say that every superhero, every mickey mouse, and every bugs bunny can't compare to written ideas simply because the written ideas are on paper?

You'd have to compare current literature with current television, and I really have to say that I'd rather watch an episode of the simpsons than read Twilight, because one: It's more entertaining, and two: It's better written.

Helping your children become smarter and more diligent is indeed a good thing, but that's not the only form of education. Knowing how to read is nice, but knowing what to write in order to cause people to read your book later on is honestly much more important.

[Tatterdemalion]

You'd have to compare current literature with current television, and I really have to say that I'd rather watch an episode of the simpsons than read Twilight, because one: It's more entertaining, and two: It's better written.

There's a difference between "current" and "popular." That is to say, popular literature is essentially intended to appeak to a wide audience by giving them something cheap, generally of poor quality, yet which is at the same time tittilating enough to get them to be drawn in and spend lots of money on it. Needless to say, this isn't what I'm talking about when I refer to writing.

If you think that books like the Twilight series are representative of contemporary Western literature, then you're sadly mistaken. Series like twilight are representative of trashy mass media drivel that people somehow mistakenly read as opposed to using them for their original purpose, that of toilet paper (if I'm offending anyone here, keep in mind I'm being rather hyperbolic).

I'm sure you'd rather watch The Simpsons than read something like Twilight. So would I. But at the same time you're comparing one of the better shows on television with one of the worst books, making it hardly a fair comparison.

In Shakespeare's time, entertainment could be found in things like bawdy poetry and burlesque shows. Arguably they're technically the same medium as Shakespeare, theater and poetry. At the same time, we don't hold them to anything resembling equal standards, as one is serious artistic endeavor, whereas the other is cheap entertainment. Not that Shakespeare can't be bawdy, but the two are still not even close to being the same.

Also, keep in mind you don't have to compare contemporary television with contemporary literature. Literature isn't something that gets outdated. SO while most of what you can watch on television is recent, you have the ability to read anything over the past several thousand years. So if we're comparing two different media, it would make more sense to compare the past half a century or so of television with the past several thousand years of human literature. Then it's a fair comparison.

Television and movies are pictures moved in quick succession, basically. In this case, it isn't a stretch to say that comics are the same as movies. Can you honestly say that every superhero, every mickey mouse, and every bugs bunny can't compare to written ideas simply because the written ideas are on paper?

I'm not saying that they can't, I'm saying that they don't. A book isn't just a story, it's a work of art. And while cinema is indeed an artistic medium as well, the vast majority of movies are indeed simplistic entertainment designed to appeal to large audiences looking for something to amuse them.

And yes, there is a difference in the media used, as literature is language, this beautiful, complex device, in which words, nothing more, can be strung together to express the most complex of ideas, through which slight variations in language or syntax can make tremendous changes in the way we perceive a scene, or image, or concept. We're talking about a medium that makes up the very fabric of our existence, words, which cause the mind not to take a backseat and observe, but to actually take an active part in the journey, and to experience.

Don't think of me as being unappreciative of cinema, or trying to dismiss cinema as an artless medium, I am not doing that at all. I do genuinely appreciate a well crafted film, however rare they may be. But at the same time, the richness, the depth, the poetry, the complexity and the intensity with which literature communicates, not simply by telling a story, but through the use of language itself, simply does not compare.

[HolyShadow]

It's also not about using unnecessarily complex language. Language should be understood by many. If language is too difficult for someone to understand, then that person can't appreciate the art. Now, that's not to say that I don't understand the language used in most literature.

However, if you were to write an incredibly complex story that was well put-together and keeps people interested the entire way through, then it would be much better if you were to use language that most people understand. Simplifying things gets your point across easier to people.

Also, the way you're talking about this, it seems that you think because writing has the handicap of only using words, it's instantly great. I don't really agree with that for obvious reasons.

One can't simply say that literature is better than television or movies. You have to take each individual piece and compare them. Unfortunately, that would take far too much time.

[Tatterdemalion]

It's also not about using unnecessarily complex language. Language should be understood by many. If language is too difficult for someone to understand, then that person can't appreciate the art. Now, that's not to say that I don't understand the language used in most literature.

There's a difference between understanding complex language and understanding unnecessarily complex language. Complex syntax and vocabulary aren't necessary to communicate an idea, no, but at the same time they are often necessary to communicate an idea effectively, persuasively, or artistically. And complex language is often involved in order to strengthen and enhance writing, to make it expressive, powerful, effective, and aesthetically satisfying. You can take the Gettysburg Address and summarize it in the language of a third grader. That doesn't mean that the two are equally powerful pieces of writing. There is a time and a place for simple language and there is a time and a place for complex language, and the two, in their proper contexts, are both just as necessary.

What you have to appreciate is what I'm saying, that the language itself, not just the story, is what makes it art. Look at someone like Nathaniel Hawthorne. His writing is among the most syntactically complex in all of American literature. And if you're not terribly familiar with it, or you don't read much, it may seem difficult. Hell, even if you do read much it's difficult. But at the same time to change the language he uses, to abridge or edit it in order to make it more simple, even if the story remains the same, is to take away most of what makes his writing distinctive, unique, and artistically significant.

Stories are pretty much the same. Most stories follow recognizeable patterns, and repeat themselves throughout the world's oral and literary traditions. Now, I'm not saying stories are meaningless, as they tell us a great deal about our own culture, and the way we see ourselves, and at the same time are able to express commentary on our society as well. They are indeed important. But at the same time, if you look at what's at the heart of great literature, it's not the story. It's the way that the story is told. SHakespeare never had an original idea in his life. Virtually all of his plays are based directly on existing stories, or legends, or plays. At the same time, Shakespeare's works stand out as great works of literature, not necessarily because of the stories his plays tell, but through the language, characters, structure and poetry through which they are told.

Also, keep in mind that understanding complex syntax and vocabulary not only makes it easier to use complex language when necessary, but also can make it possible to use simple language more effectively. Indeed, some of the greatest literature uses simple language. At the same time, much of it doesn't. In order to be able to understand, appreciate and learn from literature as a whole, you truly have to master both.

However, if you were to write an incredibly complex story that was well put-together and keeps people interested the entire way through, then it would be much better if you were to use language that most people understand. Simplifying things gets your point across easier to people.

There is truth in this, yes. But at the same time, more ornate or fanciful language may be appropriate for the piece that you're writing. And if it is indeed appropriate, then there's no sense in oversimplifying just to reach a greater number of people. Then again, it would be foolish to write something using language so complex and extravagant that no one can actually read it. There is necessary complexity and unnecessary complexity, just as there is necessary simplicity and unnecessary simplicity. Part of being a great writer is understanding when each is appropriate, and being able to find a happy medium between the two.

Also, the way you're talking about this, it seems that you think because writing has the handicap of only using words, it's instantly great. I don't really agree with that for obvious reasons.

Using words alone isn't a handicap. Keep in mind that most artistic media do indeed use a single medium for communication. That's why they're called media.

I'm not trying to say that anything that uses words alone is somehow better than something else. There's plenty of writing that's complete and utter crap. But at the same time, the potential that language has to be used artistically, its malleability, and the way it can be shaped and molded every which way, to express concepts ranging from the most complex of ideas to the simplest, and the depth and richness that comes from such use of language is something that does indeed deserve recognition.

If anything, having more than one medium at once is a handicap. A writer can devote his entire life to studying words and language, and while he may never master it, he can at least become adept and skilled, with still the potential to do great things with it.

A great filmmaker, on the other hand, would have to master not only each individual component medium he is using in making a film, but would have to be able to create a perfectly balanced synthesis of all of these. And most film makers don't actually do this, with different parts of the film made by different people, some of whom never even meet, then edited together by even more people who have never met the other people, many of whom can't even be called artists, and all of whom are working at the behedst of a film studio that seeks to do little more than push something that will keep people happy for a few hours and make lots of money. That's not art. That's consumerism.

One can't simply say that literature is better than television or movies. You have to take each individual piece and compare them. Unfortunately, that would take far too much time.

I can make a very good argument that most literature, classical and some contemporary, is better than the vast majority of film and television. Again, I'm not trying to say that film is an inferior artistic medium, I myself don't think it would be wise to try to compare them, just as one wouldn't try to say literature is better or worse than music, or painting, or photography. All I'm saying is that while there is an enormous canon of great literature in existence, which is among the most, if not the single most significant bodies of work ever produced by man, most movies and television shows are mass market crap.

I can appreciate a great film, yes, just as I can appreciate a great book. But to say that collectively the bodies of works that make up each respective medium's canon are on equal footing is ridiculous.