You might be aware that recently, on The Alan Titchmarsh Show, there was a ‘debate’ about video games. As usual, it was discussing if games are too violent, what effect they have on kids, etc. If you haven’t seen it already, watch it here – ideally before reading the rest of this post (otherwise it won’t make much sense).

The first time I watched it, it filled me with rage. The second time I watched it, the same happened, so this time I decided to send an email to ITV about it. Below is that email.

Dear Sir/Madam,

After seeing the ‘debate’ about video games on the Alan Titchmarsh show, 19th March 2010, I feel the need to complain to you. When having a discussion such as this, usually, those related to the area in question are asked to speak on it. Obviously, this was not the case as the program fielded Julie Peasgood, who as far as I am aware has little to do with video games, either for or against. I understand that it is not always practical to have a full panel of experts, but the guests should at least have some idea of what they speak about. She clearly did not – her points were uninformed, and regularly wrong. Some examples of this include her mentioning of some research conducted in America, but then she failed to indicate who had conducted this research; she then claimed this was a proven link, i.e. a fact. In addition, she failed to provide any examples of the games that she wildly brandished to ‘promote hatred, racism, sexism, and they reward violence’. Instead she stated that ‘video games are addictive, they promote hatred, sexism, and they reward violence’, which as far as I can see infers all games under this banner – I can safely say that she is fundamentally and completely wrong. The games that she describes form a small section of all games released, see, for example, the game ‘Singstar’, as mentioned in the debate – this fits under none of those headers.

At this point, I have to also add my displeasure at the host into this – there was an element of bias presented by him, and I believe that as a host of a debate, you must endeavour to remain impartial. I do not, however, think that this bias was intentional, but instead a product of a lack of research. He was not aware that games are rated using exactly the same system as films are, and that these ratings are reinforced in retail outlets. This is basic knowledge, and this should have been considered before the show was filmed. This meant that he repeatedly put points forward on issues which were irrelevant, such as the point about stopping children acquiring games for adults. Following on from the point made previously about the unnamed research, the host referred to this as fact – a single piece of research, even when it exists and is cited properly, rarely indicates ‘proven facts’ especially in the fields of social science where facts are made up of many pieces of research considered together. The host did not seem to pick up on this, and made an ill-advised vocabulary choice due to this. When Tim Ingham, the editor of CVG, responded with fully cited and relevant research, he was booed by the audience.

Following on, I understand that everyone is entitled to their views, and I absolutely and whole-heartedly support this notion, but to boo and shout at someone whilst they are talking is disgusting and outrageous behaviour – this type of thing should have been stopped by the studio crew. Of course, you don’t want a silent, non-reactive audience, but common decency should dictate not to be abusive towards people when in a debate – just because people have opposing views does not mean that it is okay to interrupt them. There is a line that was crossed; the booing was on this line, but the interruption, mocking laughter and similar was beyond.

To conclude, I would like to say again that I agree with free speech and the idea of everyone being allowed their own opinions. I do not, however, think that it is acceptable to skew debates as this programme did by constantly forcing Ingham onto the defensive and taking questionable points as fact. I strongly recommend that in future, when debates on this programme are undertaken, an effort to avoid bias toward a certain viewpoint is made, and also, guests selected have some idea about what they are debating. In this debate, opinions were voiced as fact, which undermines the quality of the discussion. As a final point, it would be worth the host doing research on unfamiliar topics in future, as this also is detriment to the debate – in this instance, his ignorance to the situation forced him to bias.

Regards,

Matt Smith

I sent this earlier today. A few minutes before starting this blog post, I received this reply:

Dear Matt

Thank you for your recent email regarding The Alan Titchmarsh Show which has been forwarded to Channel Television.

Channel Television is the Channel 3 broadcast licensee appointed by ITV Network to be responsible for the compliance of this particular programme.  Should you wish to contact them, you may do so by email at the following address:-

feedback@channeltvlondon.co.uk or by telephone on 0207 633 9902 during normal office hours.

Regards

ITV Viewer Services – TT

Lets see if they respond, and what they have to say if they do. I really hope they decide to, it would be interesting to see what they have to say.