WaPo writer talks VT shooter/Counter-Strike connection, removal
When a Washington Post story mentioned that Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung Hui played Counter-Strike in high school, we were intrigued. When the nugget disappeared from an online version of the Post story, we were even more intriguedTo clarify the situation, we caught up with Washington Post Staff Writer David Cho, who was responsible for originally reporting the factoid. Cho said the information was based on talks with some high school acquaintances of Hui's who occasionally saw him playing at an cyber cafe during his high school days.
Cho said there was no solid indication either way whether or not Hui continued to play during three-and-a-half years at college. Hui's college roommates reportedly saw Hui on the computer constantly, but said he was usually writing, not playing games. Cho said a group of Virginia Tech Counter-Strike players he talked to had never heard of Hui, and that Hui hadn't attended a recent Counter-Strike tournament held on campus.
As for the removal, Cho said it was standard practice to replace a rougher online version of a story with the polished print version when it was available. The Counter-Strike connection was removed, Cho said, to make room for more recent, more relevant information. Still, the fact is on file at the Post, Cho said, and it's possible it could make it into a future story.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Rubang B @ Apr 18th 2007 7:19PM
There you have it folks, NOT playing Counterstrike will make you kill people. Writing plays has a similar effect.
icemorebutts @ Apr 18th 2007 7:20PM
Whew, this is good, because everyone knows you lose money for killing hostages. Thats why he got banned after all.
GCNH87 @ Apr 18th 2007 7:22PM
1's half right!
Jake @ Apr 18th 2007 7:29PM
What is sad is often in these cases the innaccurate shocker like, "he played Counterstrike omg!" will get a bunch of coverage. But the later part where they go, oh, I guess he just used a computer once in a while and didn't game much...That part won't get nearly the coverage, and what little coverage there is will be like "well, we can't be certain." Read: we made it up but can't prove otherwise.
I don't know if this is a case of that phenomenon. But often in the media the sensational story gets a bunch of coverage and popularity, but the retraction isn't a good story so appears in some fine print somewhere.
wait in the car @ Apr 18th 2007 7:39PM
Very nice Rubang. Too many depressing stories today...
muppetmeth @ Apr 18th 2007 8:38PM
Jack Thompson insists on checking his room for video games.
james.fletch02 @ Apr 18th 2007 9:38PM
Nice to see they actually checked to see if video games really were involved.
I'll bet Jack Thompson wishes he could have gone and done their "investigating" for them. Then there might be a more concrete link to video games.
WetWired @ Apr 18th 2007 9:56PM
Games don't kill people, MS Word does
Martez @ Apr 18th 2007 10:47PM
If he spent so much time writing, why couldn't he write?
Scott @ Apr 18th 2007 10:57PM
If only Jack Thompson's writings, video, lawsuits, etc could so easily be removed...
Dir @ Apr 18th 2007 11:13PM
It's pretty infuriating that both the room mates are saying he NEVER played any games. Yet we see people like Thompson and other people not believing it. Like there is some magical scapegoat to blame. The dude was just plain nuts. For all we know the latest cover of Rolling Stone made something snap in his brain and just lose it. If you watch his videos, you'll quickly realize this guy was so far gone mentally, that nothing can be blamed. He was a broken human being with little sense or reasoning.
dresam @ Apr 18th 2007 11:21PM
I think we should applaud Joystiq for staying on top of this and contacting the writer. It sounds basic, but having Joystiq contact news agencies about stuff like this reminds them that, should it 'make it into a future story,' the gamers have a voice that's willing and able to call bullshit.
Seriously. I think I speak for the entire gaming community (except Sony fanboys, who have ceased using both language and logic) when I say we can't thank you guys enough.
Will @ Apr 18th 2007 11:27PM
@ dresam
Kudos to using a post on a tragedy to soapbox.
As for press on the gunman himself, maybe it's just me, but I don't want to see his face. The victims deserve more air time than he does. His goofy video and pedantic whining are aired for ratings only. I want to know what Virgina Tech is doing for the families as I think they must share part of the burden of responsibility.
Richard @ Apr 18th 2007 11:57PM
Will, I couldn't agree with you more. I refuse to look at those videos and pics he sent to NBC before the killings, he wanted to be remembered as a legend. Well, we can do our part by not giving him that satisfaction, and instead remembering the victims.
Back to the original point of the article, I hate it when the media jumps to conclusions and already blames violence in games and movies the INSTANT the shootings took place. Kudos for Joystiq's fact-checkers though.
Murray @ Apr 19th 2007 12:32AM
If it bleeds it leads: Motto of todays news networks. Tragedy sells and it's unfortunate. I agree that we shouldn't give a rats ass aboutk this guy, nobody should care what his family is like or what his hobbies were... not now anyway, this is a time of greiving for the loved ones of those slain, I'm sure they last thing they want to see is this guys face on every station they turn to. Also I've read some of the stuff he wrote in the letter and... yeah total crazy/emo/douchebag
Andrew @ Apr 19th 2007 2:03AM
This is a minor point, especially in the face of the tragedy in Virginia and the overall point of this post, but I just wanted to clear something up about the names used in this post.
Unless I'm mistaken, "Cho" is Cho Seung Hui's last name, and not "Hui". In East Asian languages, the family/last name of an individual comes before their "first" name. In other words, "John Smith" would be "Smith John".
This is probably even more confusing because WaPo writer's last name appears to be "Cho" as well. I apologize if the Hui / Cho mixup was done intentionally to distinguish between the two, as there's probably no easy way to do say save spelling out the full name each time.
Flunk @ Apr 19th 2007 4:44AM
His roommates only saw him write on his computer. Its obvious what must be done. The English language must be banned to prevent this from happening again!
Timothy Vance @ Apr 20th 2007 5:51PM
Decreased Brain Activity
The lead study was directed by Dr. Vincent Mathews of the University of Indiana, and presented at the 88th Scientific Sessions and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago in December of this year. Dr. Mathews' team conducted brain scans, called functional MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), of 38 teenagers, ages 13-17. The teens were divided into two groups. One group of 19 had been diagnosed as having behavior problems (Disruptive Mental Disorders), and the other 19 were "normal." Both groups were given two video games to play. One game was a non-violent car-racing game, and the other was a violent James Bond-type shoot-'em-up. Both groups played the games while having their brains scanned by MRI. According to Dr. Mathews, the MRI scans measured brain activity by increased blood flow in the scanned areas.
The results showed that both groups had decreased brain activity when regularly playing the violent video game. Brain changes were most apparent in those teens who were "heavy users"—"those who played several hours a day," said Dr. Mathews. Though he did not issue any blanket condemnation of violent video games, Mathews did say, "I think this information gives credence to what has become a growing concern about what is perceived as increased violence among adolescents."
Carol Rumack, a doctor of radiology and pediatrics at the University of Colorado, said that the Indiana study suggests that repeated exposure to violent video games is "desensitizing the brain.... The result is that the child can no longer understand the real effects of violence." These conclusions were also confirmed in a discussion with John P. Murray, professor of developmental psychology at Kansas State University. Professor Murray has conducted his own studies of violence using MRI (see interview).
There have been other less elaborate studies which back up Dr. Mathews' work. A story in the October 2002 issue of Computer Game magazine reported that in Japan, Akio Mori, a professor of neurology at Nihon University, said that children are at risk of developing "Video-Game Brain," a permanent suppression of certain brain functions. He examined 240 people between the ages of 6 and 29. Mori studied brain wave activity over a six-month period. The subjects showed a decline in beta wave activity "associated with emotional functions, planning and self-control.... Those who spent 2-7 hours a day playing showed little activity at all."
Training Killers
Another experimental test, done at the urging of Colonel Grossman, confirmed that video games serve as training devices which teach children how to kill. In the Summer of 2000 in Indiana, a study was conducted by a parents' group called the Center for Successful Parenting (CSP), together with a national police group called "Dogs Against Drugs." The results appeared in a report entitled "Video-Game Violent Skills Study," by Tom Stougton. This experiment involved: "forty boys ages 12 to 18, none of whom had ever fired a firearm of any kind. The participants were split into two groups of 20. The control group consisted of the youths who had limited experience with 'first person shooter' video games. The experimental group was made up of boys who claimed, in contrast, to being avid players of these games. The boys in the latter category were required to demonstrate their proficiency by actually playing a 'first person shooter' video game while being observed by local law enforcement police officers from Madison County, Indiana, who are firearm instructors."
The report continues: "After two hours of rigorous safety instruction, each group fired two, ten-shot courses of fire with a .9mm automatic pistol at a human silhouette target located at a distance of 15 yards. The first ten shots were not scored, and were intended merely to familiarize the boys with the feel of the weapon. The second ten shots were recorded and compared. The results were astounding. The control group; i.e., those boys with limited exposure to 'first person shooter' video games, hit the paper target on an average of 85% of their shots, and hit 'vital' areas of the silhouette 75% of the time. Their shot 'groups' were large and dispersed across the entire face of the target. The experimental group, however, struck the target with 99% accuracy and placed 97% of their shots in the vital areas. Their shot 'groups' were as tight as those of highly qualified marksmen."
Grossman, author of two books on the effects of violent entertainment and video games on children, said that the CSP study demonstrates that strong shooting skills do indeed transfer from video games to actual firearms. He also noted, of the Indiana University study: "Basically, this research demonstrates, with brain scan research of large numbers of kids, that violent media causes violent behavior. This is vital information for law enforcement ... and a major nail in the coffin for the media violence industry."
Joe @ Apr 21st 2007 11:16PM
Don't make fun! This is a serious tragedy. He got 31 kills. +32 for the kills, -1 for teh suicide.
Mark B @ Apr 23rd 2007 3:21AM
#16 is right
It's 100% wrong to refer to this guy as "Hui".
The American press had written his name in the traditional Korean style, which is surname first (Cho) followed by his individual name (Seung-Hui). He should therefore be referred to as "Cho" rather than as "Hui".
Same with Kim Jong Il - he's Mr. Kim.
While we're at it, whoever did the initial phonetic translation of Cho's name for the press did a bad job. It should be pronounced Cho Sung HEE, not Sung WEE as everyone is using.
진짜 짜증 난단말야.
Tomtom @ May 9th 2007 6:48AM
@Timothy Vance
"Basically, this research demonstrates, with brain scan research of large numbers of kids, that violent media causes violent behavior. This is vital information for law enforcement ... and a major nail in the coffin for the media violence industry."
Obviously this author is wrong. He's basing his argument on the CSP study, and The fact that you're able to shoot with higher accuracy does NOT make you violent. The study has not proven such a connection nor has it tested such a connection.
And the author goes on making wrong connections. The fact that ego shooter players are able to aim with higher accuracy also applies to all other persons who follow activities that involve shooting (and probably any type of projectile aiming, including basketball). The ability to aim at vital points comes with a number of activities too, hunting for example. and unlike hunting, most ego shooters do not reward for hitting vital zones. any zone will do, even the tip of a rifle protruding from behind cover.
I have not seen the study details, but if it was suggestive in any way regarding where the people aim within the silhouette, the data about hitting vital spots has to be discarded. Were there rings on the silhouettes marking "better areas"? Did the policemen or any other persons present give a positive feedback for more lethal aiming? Did the instructions suggest that they had to incapacitate the portayed person (e.g. leg shot would do), or did the instructions impy that they were supposed to hit the person as hard as they can? It has even be shown that in such studies the examinators' expectations change the results, unless they are extremely careful.
From the data supplied I'd assume that there is no evidence whatsoever that gamers are more violent or more ready to shoot to kill (as opposed to just wounding). The gamers were simply a lot better at aiming and possibly at adapting to the weapon / test setup. If the non-gamers can't aim good enough to place their shots, how can there possibly be any conclusion that they were trying to make their shots any less lethal than the gamers did?
Now the decreased brain activity studies are actually ofsome interest to me. There have been studies which suggest exactly the opposite, that ego shooter players are less likely to react violently in emotional situations. Maybe it was the very same studies. There are a lot of seemingly sound psochological studies, sometimes even with a large number of test subjects (1000 and more), which are plain wrong. What happens there is some biased group with enough funding finding a biased scientist (or, more often, the other way round), and (s)he gets them the results they want. It's not even very hard to make such studies hold under close inspectation. The only way to really discharge such a study is to do your own study and find out whether the studied effect really does exist.
If you're looking for examples of how studies say exactly what the funder wants, take the studies conducted in the USA saying there is no (strong) connection between health problems and smoking. And psychological studies are far easier to bend and misinterpret than physical health studies
**************************************************
**************************************************
**************************************************
A common mistake in such studies is to claim they have found an effect (A causes B), when all they really tested for was a correlation (A and B occur together) which may well mean that C causes A and B, or that B causes A. You will notice that ALL the studies you're citing do get this wrong. they ALL examine people which already have traits A (ego shooter player) and B (changed brain pattern during play, or generally changed brain pattern). And they never suggest that emotionally handicapped people may simply have a higher likeliness to pick up gaming, and in particular ego shooters, as a pass-time. Which would lead to exactly the same test results. And since when is a radiology and pediatrics guy the person to go to to analyze brain patterns
The MRT examinations may even be unprofessional. If I do something a lot, I train it. The brain pattern changes. Now let's assume we have an activity that is competitive. How does almost EVERY human react to losing repeatedly in a competitive situation? Yep, agression. Also known as "frustration causes agression" amongst psychologists. Now let's assume I train something that can be frustrating and therefore induce agression, and where I know an aggressive reaction will make me perform less well. Yep, in such a setting my brain will be trained to suppress the automatic aggressive reaction. Which is exactly the effect described in your first few cited studies. Now let's draw a different conclusion : Playing egoshooters makes me better at keeping my agression under control ...