The Political Game: Pax Jack? Don't count on it
Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:
Can Jack Thompson lead the video game industry out of society's doghouse and into a peaceful co-existence with its critics?
Sure, when pigs fly.
Earlier this week, everyone's favorite game-bashing attorney grabbed a few headlines by extending what some news outlets interpreted as an olive branch to video game publishers. In an e-mail to departing ESA boss Doug Lowenstein and ESRB president Patricia Vance, Thompson suggested that the game publishers warn the game retailers not to sell M-rated titles to those under 17. According to Thompson's plan, if retailers failed to comply, the publishers would simply stop shipping games to the offending stores. And then all of this nasty video game legislation would go away.
Brilliant! ... except for those oh-so-annoying realities.
Consider for a moment that the publishers and the retailers have a decade's worth of effort committed to the ESRB system, and it's making great strides. Why would they discard that progress to commit to the JACK system?
As things work currently, it's the responsibility of the publishers to properly report their game content to the ESRB for rating purposes. As far as the retailers are concerned, it's their job to enforce the ratings at point-of-sale. Historically a weak point, retail enforcement has been steadily improving in recent years. In his most recent Annual Video Game Report Card, for example, longtime industry critic Dr. David Walsh of the National Institute on Media and the Family gave major retailers an "A" for ratings enforcement.
It's also important to note that even heavyweight political watchdogs Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman publicly endorsed the ESRB system during the recent holiday shopping season. That was both surprising and significant. So why should the industry listen to Jack Thompson?
They shouldn't. They won't. Here's why not:
First, the idea makes no sense from a business standpoint. Why should it be Activision's job to enforce GameStop's corporate policies? Does Paramount Pictures check up on theater chains to make sure they are not letting kids into R-rated movies? Of course not.
Second, I can't see how Thompson can possibly deliver. His offer presumes a degree of clout extending far beyond his own keyboard, as in, "if the industry does this, I'll make all of its legislative troubles go away." But how would he do that? Where is Jack's coalition?
Third, the video game industry simply won't parley with Jack Thompson. That is largely his own fault. Likening ESA boss Doug Lowenstein to Saddam Hussein is no way to do business, whether your business is selling video games or pushing conservative culture. For an opposite, far more effective strategy, look no further than the aforementioned David Walsh. I'm quite sure the industry finds Walsh and his Institute an annoyance, but through more than a decade of -- as Stephen Colbert might say -- watchdoginess, Walsh has managed not to burn his bridges. As a result, in late 2006, the ESRB actually agreed to participate in Walsh's first-ever Video Game Summit.
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at
Can Jack Thompson lead the video game industry out of society's doghouse and into a peaceful co-existence with its critics?Sure, when pigs fly.
Earlier this week, everyone's favorite game-bashing attorney grabbed a few headlines by extending what some news outlets interpreted as an olive branch to video game publishers. In an e-mail to departing ESA boss Doug Lowenstein and ESRB president Patricia Vance, Thompson suggested that the game publishers warn the game retailers not to sell M-rated titles to those under 17. According to Thompson's plan, if retailers failed to comply, the publishers would simply stop shipping games to the offending stores. And then all of this nasty video game legislation would go away.
Brilliant! ... except for those oh-so-annoying realities.
Consider for a moment that the publishers and the retailers have a decade's worth of effort committed to the ESRB system, and it's making great strides. Why would they discard that progress to commit to the JACK system?
As things work currently, it's the responsibility of the publishers to properly report their game content to the ESRB for rating purposes. As far as the retailers are concerned, it's their job to enforce the ratings at point-of-sale. Historically a weak point, retail enforcement has been steadily improving in recent years. In his most recent Annual Video Game Report Card, for example, longtime industry critic Dr. David Walsh of the National Institute on Media and the Family gave major retailers an "A" for ratings enforcement.
It's also important to note that even heavyweight political watchdogs Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman publicly endorsed the ESRB system during the recent holiday shopping season. That was both surprising and significant. So why should the industry listen to Jack Thompson?
They shouldn't. They won't. Here's why not:
First, the idea makes no sense from a business standpoint. Why should it be Activision's job to enforce GameStop's corporate policies? Does Paramount Pictures check up on theater chains to make sure they are not letting kids into R-rated movies? Of course not.
Second, I can't see how Thompson can possibly deliver. His offer presumes a degree of clout extending far beyond his own keyboard, as in, "if the industry does this, I'll make all of its legislative troubles go away." But how would he do that? Where is Jack's coalition?
Third, the video game industry simply won't parley with Jack Thompson. That is largely his own fault. Likening ESA boss Doug Lowenstein to Saddam Hussein is no way to do business, whether your business is selling video games or pushing conservative culture. For an opposite, far more effective strategy, look no further than the aforementioned David Walsh. I'm quite sure the industry finds Walsh and his Institute an annoyance, but through more than a decade of -- as Stephen Colbert might say -- watchdoginess, Walsh has managed not to burn his bridges. As a result, in late 2006, the ESRB actually agreed to participate in Walsh's first-ever Video Game Summit.
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
William @ Jan 15th 2007 12:22PM
Jack's just trying implement random ideas like FDR did with his New Deal 1. Unfortunately for Jack, no one wants to back him haha.
Mr. Khan @ Jan 15th 2007 12:23PM
Its actually a pretty sensical plan
But it'll never work... ($)
Cheese Hasselberger @ Jan 15th 2007 12:42PM
How is it "sensical"? Did you read the article or just the blurb? What gives you the idea that even if he had the power to stop games legislation a pathological loon like Thompson would stick to it? He regularly attacks his own partners, what would make you think he wouldn't turn around and bite the industry at his earliest opportunity? Better to keep Jack as loony gadfly then legitimate opponent.
Aeris130 @ Jan 15th 2007 12:47PM
Thompson aside, the idea sounds pretty neat, save for the money the publishers would lose out on the sales. And where would games like GTA be today, be it not for the cool kids (emphasion on kids) playing the game?
*Flameshield: check. *
Keymaster @ Jan 15th 2007 1:03PM
Why waste your effort rebutting anything coming from JT? He has no common sense and is obviously the pawn of some other organization's agenda (My money is on the marketing department for Take Two given Bully's sales figures).
All that needs to be said about his latest insane proposal is that it is textbook extortion.
MouthlessScreamer @ Jan 15th 2007 7:59PM
This isn't very practical and would be the equivalent of film studios not letting certain theaters get reels of their film if they sold tickets to minor. All it does is pass the buck even further back which is exactly the opposite of what's needed. What next, developers being forced to avoid certain publishers that deliver to said retailers?
Not to mention that the feasibility of relying on publishers to regulate this would be a nightmare when taking into account financial predictions/forecasts, shipment allocations and budgets, etc.
The responsibility needs to be passed to the parents, not further down the chain. Just my 2 cents.
trent @ Jan 15th 2007 2:54PM
the idea is great, and the fact that it comes from good ol jack is no deterrant. the implementation is where it would fail. youd need a new branch of government to enforce this. Alochol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Video Game division?
WedgeTalon @ Jan 15th 2007 1:51PM
Screw all the points that have been mentioned about the JACK system so far, what about ME?
Under the system, if, say, EBGames, had titles pulled, then I'm no longer able to buy my Grand Theft Auto 128 from them just because a handful of kids SOMEhow are able to go to the store and buy an M rated game with Mom and Dad's money, without them knowing. That's a number likely so small that it would typically be called a statistical error.
Think for a moment, M is supposed to be inappropriate for those *under* 17. Kids can drive a car by themselves at 16. That gives them one year where they're able to drive to the store (or a job, for that matter) without permission from parents. So can someone please tell me how all of these 10-year-olds are getting to the store without parental supervision? Biking? Maybe a very, Very small minority. Walking? I doubt it. Mom & Dad driving them and then not caring what the f* they do at the store? Yes.
[/rant]
Shad Genki @ Jan 15th 2007 2:06PM
DOWN WITH JACK THOMPSON ARTICLES! Please do not feed the trolls!
Revo @ Jan 15th 2007 2:28PM
Though impractical, this is the best idea Thompson's ever had. But then again, that's not saying much, is it?
chimchim @ Jan 15th 2007 3:52PM
The big problem I see with this plan is that any system of measuring success is completely arbitrary. What sort of success rate is considered exceptable? Is he honestly saying that if one single game is sold to a minor the whole store be cut off? or is it the whole chain of stores? If a walmart in florida screws up should washington stores suffer? This seems like a situation where if they tried to impliment a remotely reasonable version of this Jack would say "noooo, 99% isn't good enough, because that means 1% of our children are raging psychotic killers!" and then continue to be as loud and belligerent as usual.
PlayItBogart @ Jan 15th 2007 5:13PM
I like kicking a man when he's down, too.
This just looks like another "bandaid" approach to the problems in today's culture. You're not going to effect change by just going after games.
Let's say, as an IT Professional, I devise a "quick fix" solution to a symptom a computer is having. A week later, I have to reimplement this "quick fix". Is this impractical or what?
Buzzsaw @ Jan 15th 2007 5:35PM
This is just another case of Thompson flexing his imaginary muscle. He has the power to make the legislation go away? Please. Only an egomaniac like him would think he has that much stroke. Besides, we all know he's a pathological liar and would go back on his word whenever it suits him. Everything this man does is motivated by his ego and desire for attention, one way or another.
Cecil475 @ Jan 15th 2007 5:46PM
Or stroking his imaginary ego. He's eventually going to post on this one. The article is all about him and he posts to all of those.
- Warren Lewis
Xlorep DarkHelm @ Jan 15th 2007 5:49PM
This is just another example of Jack being Jack, knowing JACK, and talking out of his [Jack]a**. The real sad thing is how the media jumped on it and referred to it as an Olive Branch. I'd expect nothing more from Jackie-boy, but I really wish the media would actually, I dunno, research their stories a bit more. Oh well.
Cecil475 @ Jan 15th 2007 5:56PM
I forgot to add.
Thompson makes it seem like that if everyone does what he says HE WILL make all the legislation go away.
For starters he acts like he has all that power. The only thing I can see thet will keep them from trying ro pass legislation is fail trying to pass it and have their state cough up the dough to cover the industries legal fees. Then after that will they realise it's pointless and expensive and stop. Other than that Thompson can't do anything but run his mouth and make promises he cannot keep.
- Warren Lewis
calvinball @ Jan 15th 2007 7:52PM
At the above who think this idea has merit of any kind. Since you didn't read the whole article I'll remind you.
IT IS NOT THE STUDIO'S JOB TO MONITOR THE POINT OF SALE.
By Jack's (lack of) logic Ford is accountable for all auto accidents involving their cars. So Ford should pull all their cars from the market. Wild Turkey should pull their liquor from any store that an alcoholic has purchased their product from.
If you don't get it by now you never will.
Dan Seitz @ Jan 15th 2007 11:33PM
This is just Jack laying the groundwork to bash the industry again. Of course they're not going to take him up on it, for a wide variety of reasons. But once they don't, he'll be able to convince suckers HE'S the reasonable one.
GhaleonQ @ Jan 15th 2007 11:22PM
Though I have little respect for Mr. McCauley or his various analyses, he's correct here. Cross-company regulation makes no sense, especially when the best form of censorship (self-censorship/self-protection) is already gladly carried out in the United States.
GamePolitics @ Jan 16th 2007 5:01AM
@GhaleonQ
Hmmm... which of my various analyses do you take issue with?
Phantom @ Jan 16th 2007 12:58PM
The one point that Dennis left out is that internal audit records can be requested by an attorney in the case of a civil suit. Implementing Jack's plan would be like handing him a blank check, and could be used as proof of fault during a trial. It's a Trojan horse plan by Jack, so that he wins no matter what. If the industry refuses, he can continue to paint them as a bad guy who only care about their own interest. If they comply, he can use their own records against them in his next exploitation case for his own personal profits.
Cecil475 @ Jan 16th 2007 5:29PM
It would ba a win-win situation for Jack
- Warren Lewis