GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS

A revoultionary way of presenting news that will most likely never happen...

At a time when suicide rates are on the increase and more and more people are succumbing to the stresses and strains of modern day life, it's surely about time that we looked at how we receive news from the various media forms available to us now.

Regardless of whether we keep up to date via newspapers, websites, radio or TV the headlines invariably consist of abject misery and despair, with a unhealthy mix of scandal and corruption thrown in for good measure. Why do we allow ourselves to be subjected to this trauma on a daily basis? We already know that unemployment levels are at an all time high, we're fully aware of the fact that babies are dying of starvation and illness in Third World countries, we've heard so many tales about the extra curricular activites of Catholic priests in this country that it's almost impossible to be outraged anymore, granted the latest natural disasters occurring throughout the world do offer a limited macabre shock value, and the sordid exploits of whomever has been caught with their hand in their own peculiar brand of cookie jar do titillate somewhat, but surely we deseve better from the people charged with informing us of events worldwide on an daily, nay hourly basis.

At the end of any hourly news bulletin, or sometimes shoehorned into the 24 hours stations, is what the newsreaders like to tell us is the 'feel good' story of the day. This righteous tale usually documents the plucky antics of a local hero who's come good against all odds, or perhaps a miracle birth from a species considered on it's last legs, with requisite shots of the miracle ball of fluff for extra aaahh factor, or even a humourous parable involving a botched crime replete with youtube video and sheepish perpetrator. But why should this all too brief nugget of joy be something that's only added as an afterthought, in an attempt to make us forgot about the 52 minutes of misery that came beforehand and leave us chuckling softly into our mug of tea, why can't we have that warm feeling resident in our bellies for the duration of the news? It's the same when you open a newspaper, with hard hitting headlines coming at you a dizzying pace until you reach the dark recesses of page 27, and there all of a sudden lies a story of a cat that weighs almost as much as it's owner, tee hee. The way internet users access their news is so diverse across all levels that it's almost unfair to criticise how it's presented to us on that particular outlet, but a quick scan of any of the major news corporation websites tells you that the trend continues unabated online.

Of course for some people, and maybe in fact most people, the way the news is delivered to us is pitch tone perfect and they quite frankly wouldn't have it any other way. These are the kind of people who talk exclusively about the aforementioned misery and despair, whether it's happening to poor Mrs Maguire down the road of thousands of helpless children in Pakistan, and have no interest in hearing about anything that may in any way lighten their mood, as that could lead to them being cheerful for a second ot two which would be anathema to their way of living. These people can be left to their own devices and are welcome to swim in a pit of negativity for the rest of their days so long as they keep it to themselves. But what about the rest of us, those of us who turn on the news, get thirty seconds in and think 'Ah fuck this, not more talk about the recession' and swiftly change over to The Simpsons, or those of us who open a newspaper and think ' I don't care who Rooney's rattling, for Christ sakes', what are we to do?

Already news is broken down into segments, I'll have the sports section please, with your Sunday newspaper resembling an intricate puzzle game where the challenge is to find something, anything which may be of interest, Business sections, Culture sections (are the film reviews in that? I dunno, sure check it and see), Media sections (surely the reviews will be in this bit then), World news sections, Property sections (who plans on buying a house on a Sunday?!?) and various other needless, superflous sections which are discarded within seconds of discovery. Woe betide anyone who turns on the news looking for details on a specific story, said story will appear in the headlines and you'll sit there patiently waiting to be informed by the nice lady whom you'd give anything to see away from her desk, as you suspect the posterior she sits upon to be pertness personified. Ten minutes in and still no sign of her attempting to enlighten you, but she's just promised you that as soon as you endure four minutes of adverts you've seen umpteen times she'll tell you all you need to know, we return from the break and it's not even her talking, it's her smarmy smug faced sidekick with his tie that matches her dress, telling you more about the story that they bored you with ten minutes ago! So if the newsgroups are willing to compartmentalise every titbit of info into the most tenuous of categories, why can't they do us a favour and break it down into two solitary types, the good news and the bad news?

How it would work is thus, you turn on the six o clock news and are faced with the customary stern faced newsreaders who announce with deathly intonations 'And here's todays bad news', at which point they inform all the bloodthirsty, doom mongers of the stories which will form the basis of all their conversations until whatever time they feel their despair lightening and come back for more. Once all the trauma and horror has been dished out in a manner similar to that of a public flogging, it's time for us more upbeat folk to tune in as it's time for the good news! The good news is immediately differentiated from it's morose predecessor, due to the funky intro music and the sight of it's two presenters casually draped over a couch, dressed in whatever clothes they found on the floor of their bedroom that morning. They announce the feel good stories of the day with an air of people who know they're amongst friends, and the symbiance between presenter and viewer is palpable throughout. This style of reporting could even be applied to staple sections like the sports news and the weather, if your team lost or your star striker has slapped in a transfer request then bah you don't need to hear about it, but if your parasitic owners have finally admitted defeat and are selling up then bring it on baby! Similarly for the weather, if it's due to rain all week then there will be a short announcement at the end of the good news, simply stating 'Unfortunately there will be no weather this week, have a nice day', ignorance would indeed be bliss. Even a trip to your local newsagents would be a different experience as you browse the newstands, guiltily tempted to read all about the escaped prisoner with a penchant for eating mutilated body parts, but instead plumping for the daily edition of your good newspaper of choice, swayed by the front cover consisting of a smiling baby and a remarkably cheerful looking orangutan.

We can all accept that there's terrible atrocities being commited all day long, every day of the year, as it's always been thus, but personally I don't feel the need to be forcefed pictures of terrified people enduring what is effectively hell on earth, and similarly I care not for tales of woe concerning some 'tortured soul' who's only sin was to be human, spare me the details I don't want to hear about it. How often in your daily routine do you hear something that genuinely lightens your mood and makes you marvel at the magnificence of man, a life affirming moment if you will, I'd wager that it's not half enough so just think how marvellous it would be if you could sit down to a solid half an hour of stories of that very nature on a daily basis. Scoff all you like, but personally I shan't be watching the news again until I'm guaranteed something that will lighten the load and restore my faith in humanity.

SAVE THE CHILDREN

CRAZED TEEN GOES ON KILLING SPREE: VIDEO GAMES TO BLAME!!!!!!

BOY RAPES GIRL AFTER PLAYING VIDEO GAME NASTY!!!!

THE END IS NIGH AS DEVELOPER ANNOUNCES SEX SCENE IN GAME!!!

...................................You know it's a slow news week when you see headlines like this appear in some of the more kneejerk media outlets that we're misfortunate enough to be exposed to, is it really any wonder that parents are left wondering about the effects of modern day games on their children when it's reported on in such a manner. For some unknown reason there still appears to be a large proportion of the British media that seem intent on continually deriding the industry and no amount of balanced arguments and logical debates will sway them. As far as they're concerned any game with even a smidgen of violence is likely to turn the most mild mannered, pleasant child into a raging homicidal lunatic within minutes of playing it.

The worst thing about this outright hostility towards the gaming industry is that it's by no means a new thing, it seems that every couple of years the powers that be get together and decide to condemn whichever forthcoming title that they deem to be in bad taste and on more than one occasion this condemnation has resulted in games being banned in some countries most notably with the 'highly controversial' Manhunt in 2004. And yet countless films with some of the most jaw dropping, gory, gratuitous violence commited to celluloid have been released in this time frame with barely a whimper of complaint to be heard from anyone.

So why is it that games seem to bear the brunt of the media outrage time and time again? One obvious factor is that to the uninitiated, gaming is still seen as a child's hobby, so when games are released with objective content the outcry can be heard far and wide. What a lot of people don't realise is that these games are not intended for their eleven year old son and the 18 certificate on the corner of the box is supposed to be adhered to by responsible parents. But one foray into the mosh pit that is GTA IV online will tell you that the majority of people that reside there are anything but 18. Surely it is up to the parents of the children playing these games to monitor what their beloved is getting up to on a nightly basis rather than the developers being forced to tone down their content for fear of corrupting the minds of the little people expected to run things in the years to come.

It's almost like parenting by proxy as time and time again developers find themselves being stifled by regulations that in essence shouldn't really exist. For example when a film with an 18 certificate is released you'll never see a parent visiting their local cinema with two pre-pubescent children in tow, and even if they did there's no way they would be permitted to view said film. Yet the same parents will happily purchase a copy of the latest console release with barely a cursory glance at the rating certificate, somebody needs to be told a few home truths and it's certainly not the people making the games that's for sure.

Even if we take into account the slipshod parenting skills of these uneducated folk, is it not selling our children short by assuming that they don't possess the intelligence to decipher whether their actions in a video game would be most likely frowned upon were they to repeat them in a real life scenario? The kids of today are more street wise and worldly than any of the generations that came before them and are exposed to life's harsher elements at an age when most of us were still playing kiss chase round the school playground. You could argue that video games should be included in these harsher elements which I refer to but leaving that aside for a moment the sheer volume of questionable media sources that children have access to these days means that whether we like it or not they're growing up a helluva lot faster than their predecessors.

If you were to dig even further into the myriad of problematic issues facing children today it wouldn't be long before you were pondering the dual threats of drugs and underage sex with more and more cases of addicted youths and underage mums being reported on a daily basis, and yet despite all this damning evidence the media would still have us believe that gaming is responsible for all the worlds ails. It all begs the question, was Jack the Ripper a gamer? I think not. What I mean by that is that the world has always spawned maniacal killers from as far back as one would care to remember and even the most civilised societies will produce wrong uns' no matter how sanitised the world they inhabit is. The question of nature versus nurture is one for another day but there's a strong case for the argument that the likes of mass murderers, sadistic torturers and all those other charming folk are born, rather than created by the enviroment they reside in.

Moving away from the whole violence in video games debate another major concern amongst the patrons of the non gaming community is that by gaming all day our children are not only allowing their bodies to rot but also their minds. Now when it comes to the argument that sitting in all day gaming is detrimental to a childs physical health then I couldn't agree more. As I write this article the time is approximately 7.30pm on a fine summers evening and all I can hear coming through my window is the occasional burst of song from a bird and the steady hum of traffic from afar, but what I can't hear no matter how hard I strain my ears is the familiar thwack of a football or the excited screams of children engaging in one of the various games that involve running at full pelt in whatever direction they like. Obesity amongst children is increasing at an alarming rate and there can be no doubt that gaming, whilst not entirely to blame, has to shoulder some of the responsibilty. 

But once more I'm afraid that it has to come back to the parents, I appreciate that it's a lot easier for a concerned mother to have her pride and joy cooped up indoors where she knows he or she is safe from the all to real dangers that confront kids on a daily basis and I can also understand just how hard it must be to practically force an apathetic teen to 'go out and play' when all they want to do is continue their killstreak on Halo, but allowing a child to game for hours on end day in day out is in the long run going to have a serious impact on that childs health as any spell of inactivity is prone to do. Despite the fact that the Nintendo Wii is generally derided by any serious gamer the Japanese giant has to be commended for attempting to address this problem by introducing games where the focus is on staying active whilst still retaining the fun element of gaming, the fact that this is a marketing ploy that is manna from heaven is, in this case, beside the point.

When it comes to the issue of whether excessive gaming can have a detrimental effect on a childs mental wellbeing then the waters become slightly more muddied. As I've stated already marathon gaming sessions spent slumped in a chair will always greatly increase the chances of a child obtaining a physique far removed from the characters they usually contorl on the screen but what kind of effects does this prolonged exposure to gaming have on someones mind. It's been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that gaming greatly improves a persons hand eye coordination and that much can never be disputed but what effect does staring at a screen full of vivid colours and flashing lights for hours on end really have on the brain.

David James famously blamed gaming for his inept performances in Liverpool's goal during the 90's but given the fact that he's continued to make goalkeeping howlers throughout his career I think we can safely say that his regular cock ups have little or nothing to do with his extra curricular activities. We're forever being forewarned about the dangers of photosensitive epilepsy and due to the amount of cases of this condition being linked to videogames all developers are now legally bound to include a warning of the dangers of PSE in every release. But PSE apart I don't think there is any great risk of long term damage from partaking in epic nights of gaming from time to time, in fact I'd say that the difference between staring at a PC screen and a console game is negligible. Yet if you complained about your child being subjected to hours of staring at a PC in their school you'd be quickly dismissed with the retort 'Yes but that's educational'!! Which brings me to my next point.

For so long games have been dismissed as the most shallow of the arts with little or nothing to be gleaned from them. However as major advances have been made in the industry so the subject matter has strayed from the usual derivative type of game and onto more dare I say it educational topics. Games like Assassin's Creed 2 give the player a chance to immerse themselves in 15^th century Italy and whether they realise it or not learn all about the buildings and architecture of that time not to mention getting the chance to befriend Leonardo de Vinci (wherein you discover his 'tendencies' which I for one was hitherto unaware of). Then of course there is the spate of games which focus on brain training and increasing your mental agility in one way or another, as things stand these type of games have limited appeal given their quite basic structure and despite tentative efforts to incorporate this type of element into more visceral titles it still in my opinion remains an untapped market. 

The ideal scenario would be to somehow make a game which enables you to merge the physical and mental stimulation hinted at by some current gen titles and produce a title which in essence gave the player ample opportunity to exercise their body and mind whilst somehow retaining a level of complexity and depth which would assuage the hardcore gamer. When you consider this almost impossible balancing act faced by games developers these days is it really too much to ask for that they not be blamed for turning children into bloodthirsty savages aswell.