Why does the media target certain game series for violent and sexual themes

[StBishop]

And why are they allowed to outright lie in certain cases

They aren't allowed to lie and pass it off as news, they're allowed to pass it off as "entertainment", they only really have to have a small withdrawal somewhere if they fuck up.

You see this with both TV news shows (like CNN and Fox) and newspapers (British tabloids like the Sun and Daily mirrior) where series like Manhunt, Mortal Kombat, Call Of Duty, GTA, Halo... always shit on by the media, blamed for psychologically affecting children and training them for terrorist acts. And when a real life murder is carried out by a teenager, its almost gareenteed that someone will link it to games, but why does it always have to be halo or GTA, is it because they are popular?

Yes. It's because people find it easier to hate GTA because it has brand recognition for both being a good game, being well received, being persecuted, being "evil" and a number of other things.
There's no point in them picking at Limbo, no one's grandma has heard of it, but if it's got publicity, it's a target.

Do they run these stories because the unwitting masses might of heard of Call of Duty over games like inFAMOUS or Prototype, when they are equally, or sometime much more violent and sexual?

Again, yes.
You've answered your own question there.

I would really like to hear some views and opinions on why the media acts this way towards games, when they usually don't towards movies and tv shows, is it the interactablity?

No, it's because it's new, an easy target, and people are happy to believe it. There's a quote somewhere which goes to the line of:

"It's rotting the minds of out youth in a way not thought possible in previous generations."
It's by some ancient greek (not sure which one) discussing written word. People find it easy to fear and demonise new technology.

Or do they ignorantly think that games are toys that people with no social skills play in their basements by themselves, and that gaming hasn't evolved past tetris and pong?

This too.
Trust me, we're making headway on that one, this is why Farmville and the shovel-ware your grandma plays on her Wii are actually doing 5,000 time the good for the industry that all of the modern AAA FPS titles are doing combined. They're letting non-gamers become "one of us" (sue chanting) and see for themselves that gaming isn't evil.

 

[Xirath]

Because games are still, mostly, targeted towards children. And any media that is targeted towards children will be under higher scrutiny from moral guardians.

*cue horde of people telling me I'm wrong*

If you know you're wrong then why post it?

OT: video games are just the current target. Most media has gone through this stage with people blaming it for the world's woes. Rock and or Roll, violent television.
If moral guardians didn't have anything they could blame then they would be out of a job.

Because I'm not. Also, I know this forum's...disposition.

You realize that you make no effort to support your previous claim and simply state that you are right again, right? For the record your statement is blatantly false as well and here's some proof: this information comes from the ESA's 2011 Sales, Demographic And Usage Data report.

The average age gamers breaks down as: 18% under 18 years, 53% 18-49 years, and 29% 50+ years with the average age of 37. from this alone we would have to assume that you believe that most of these companies, think it would be most profitable to target their games to only 18% of the total gaming market. This makes no sense whatsoever, on top of this, there have been laws and store policies in place for some time that limits the sale of violent and other video games that carry the ESRB's M (Mature) rating to people under 18 years old.

From this I can only assume that you have never actually chosen to look up demographic data or chosen to actually apply common sense to this before putting your unfounded opinions out there for others. All I ask is that if you are going to make a statement that you feel people will disagree with, site your sources or use facts.

The full report where I found this information can be found online at http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Because games are still, mostly, targeted towards children. And any media that is targeted towards children will be under higher scrutiny from moral guardians.

*cue horde of people telling me I'm wrong*

If you know you're wrong then why post it?

OT: video games are just the current target. Most media has gone through this stage with people blaming it for the world's woes. Rock and or Roll, violent television.
If moral guardians didn't have anything they could blame then they would be out of a job.

Because I'm not. Also, I know this forum's...disposition.

You realize that you make no effort to support your previous claim and simply state that you are right again, right? For the record your statement is blatantly false as well and here's some proof: this information comes from the ESA's 2011 Sales, Demographic And Usage Data report.

The average age gamers breaks down as: 18% under 18 years, 53% 18-49 years, and 29% 50+ years with the average age of 37. from this alone we would have to assume that you believe that most of these companies, think it would be most profitable to target their games to only 18% of the total gaming market. This makes no sense whatsoever, on top of this, there have been laws and store policies in place for some time that limits the sale of violent and other video games that carry the ESRB's M (Mature) rating to people under 18 years old.

From this I can only assume that you have never actually chosen to look up demographic data or chosen to actually apply common sense to this before putting your unfounded opinions out there for others. All I ask is that if you are going to make a statement that you feel people will disagree with, site your sources or use facts.

The full report where I found this information can be found online at http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf

Oh yes, I certainly do know this forum's disposition. So much so that someone would make a brand new account just to do way to much research trying to refute me. Predictability, thy name is The Escapist!

Does it bother you that your hobby, OUR hobby, is still considered a toy? I'll assume it does. Well, tough noogies. That's life, and it's just one of those things we'll have to live with until people find something new to get riled up about. However, getting mad and throwing a (admittedly exhaustively researched) rant at people won't change their minds. It'll just confirm what they already think.

 

[Xirath]

ok hows this, A. this is not a new acct, i simply dont post on the forums, as the "Joined: 9 Nov 2006" clearly shows; B. That "way too much" and "exhaustive" research took me all of 2 min to find from searching "video game demographics" on google; and finally 3rd times the charm, you still give no evidence to support any of your inane comments.

I am rather concerned about your labeling my previous post as a rant though because this clearly means that any academic paper, or really anything that someone puts any thought or effort into by supporting their own arguments, is in your eyes, a rant.

 

[Michael Hirst]

Ever seen those age ratings? You know the legally binding ones that get stores shut for violating them. Believe it or not those should be a good measure for parents to judge a game for their child. They should also be actively invovled in the childs gaming experience, seeing what he's playing and understanding what he gets from gaming.

All things said and done, film had to go through similar motions at one point but videogames are stuck there but then it's true that some games don't exactly make the medium look good to the public eye, Mortal Kombat is just one example of a game that's extremely violent without a reason other than for the sake of violence, mass media tends to find singlular extreme examples and present them as the norm.