2 A Rhetorical Analysis of Video Games and Gun Violence – Seth Rivera

In a New York Times opinion article, investigative journalist and author Kevin Draper discusses his stance on the unfounded typically republican political sentiment that video games are the root cause for mass violent acts. The article in question for analysis is “Video Games Aren’t Why Shootings Happen. Politicians Still Blame Them.” This article claims the notion that video games being responsible for mass violence are absurd and unfounded, despite that being the common sentiment amongst right leaning political officials. This is illustrated by one of the few moments of charged language in the article, as the opening states: “After two mass shootings over the weekend that killed 31 people and wounded dozens more, powerful Republicans, including the president, blamed an old bogeyman: video games.” (Draper, 2019) This of course is not a standalone incident, as in the past Fox news featured a comment from Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick who echoed similar sentiment.

The immediate introduction of the article draws to attention the target audience being those invested in the truth behind the debate of video games being a cause for mass shootings or violent crimes. Throughout the article, every opposing viewpoint brought up with a source is debunked with a counterargument and strong evidence to support Draper’s claims in many regards. Without much charged or strong language and no prominent fallacy to note, the ideas and arguments presented in the article are quite established and supported by fact and research. There is a strong balance of ethos, logos, and pathos presented in the target article making it an easy to digest and informative read throughout. Overall, the article is effective and concise in its goals, all while portraying the ideas introduced in an engaging manner.

Beginning with an appeal to ethos, the article itself contains sources from NPR. NPR has a history of unbiased journalism having won six Edward R. Murrow Awards of outstanding and ethical journalism in 2022 and other years prior. (Edward R. Murrow awards – radio television digital news association.) The expert testimony in the New York Times holds a sound foundation in citing statements from professionals in the field of psychology like Dr. Chris Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson University. It also has statements from the American Psychological Association (APA). According to a policy statement from the media psychology division of the APA, “Scant evidence has emerged that makes any causal or correlational connection between playing violent video games and actually committing violent activities.” (Draper, Video games aren’t why shootings happen. politicians still blame them. 2019) Another of the sources pulled from With such strong grounds for ethical appeal, the authority of the article does not fall into question.

Moving into the article’s strongest rhetorical appeal, the facts presented for each counterargument are on point and address the flaws in the initial statement advocating against video games. There is plenty of hard evidence portrayed by statistics researched by New zoo, a leading data and statistics research company on gaming regarding how people interact with games that is compliant with the New York Times ethical standpoint on bias in information reporting. Another field expert statement that solidifies the argument against video games being a leading cause of violence from Dr. James Ivory, who studies media and video games at Virginia Tech. The statement being “It is very similar to saying the perpetrator wears shoes.” “They do, but so do their peers in the general population.” (Draper, Video games aren’t why shootings happen. politicians still blame them. 2019) This illustrates a major confound/misattribution to the notion that video games cause violence, with the expert opinion to back it. Previous arguments made for video games as a cause of violence in the article make mention of claims without the qualified sourcing to back them: “We’ve watched from studies, shown before, what it does to individuals, and you look at these photos of how it took place, you can see the actions within video games and others,” added Mr. McCarthy on a different Fox show.” (Draper, Video games aren’t why shootings happen. politicians still blame them. 2019) There is also citation of Supreme Court rulings that repealed a California state law regulating violent video games as being unfounded.

Regarding studies saying video games cause violence, Draper presents “’These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively,’ Antonin Scalia wrote in the majorityopinion. He added: ‘They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and minuscule real-world effects, such as children’s feeling more aggressive or making louder noises in the few minutes after playing a violent game than after playing a nonviolent game.’” Antonin Scalia was a supreme court justice at the time of this issues attention.

Last but certainly not least is the application of pathos to the core message of this article. The author does not use strong or charged language to excite the audience into an agreement or disagreement with the opinion and information presented outside of the initial statement as a hook of interest. There is easy to read and understand language, direct references to support information provided that is also engaging and humorous. An example of how this article uses a humor-based approach to pathos is on full display with Dr. Chris Ferguson’s statement “’The data on bananas causing suicide is about as conclusive. Literally. The numbers work out about the same.’” (Draper, Video games aren’t why shootings happen. politicians still blame them. 2019) This is a lighthearted way to present that the inherent opposing argument that video games causing violence is a statement not only unfounded by research, but one bordering on an absurdist claim.

The source information for checking the credibility of this article stems from statistics from Vox media on video game consuming countries and the ratio to violent crimes as well as NPR for further backing to the statistical evidence. These sources both have strong codes of ethics and passed a bias check on mediabiasfactcheck.org. The peer reviewed academic article used to further divulge into this analysis is an academic journal titled “Video Games and Violent Crime” by Scott Cunningham, Benjamin Engelstätter, and Michael R. Ward. This article goes in depth discussing information analyzed from VGChartz to track game sales and information on how violent games are according to the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) and how they relate to crime rates increasing or decreasing on a weekly basis over the course of time using data from the UCR (Uniform Crime Report) and the NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System.) This scholarly article supports the New York Times article by showing a -0.02 decrease in crime rates regarding violent media release and crime rates throughout times of day.

All in all, regarding the strength of this article’s message and narrative it holds well against rhetorical inspection. There is a solid foundation of research and expert testimony, strong organization and clarity, and a heightened level of class in being unbiased in its provided information despite it being an opinion piece.