So all those political muckety-mucks might have shipped off to Annapolis for negotiations, but just because I don't get free flights off public coffers doesn't mean I can't help make peace, too. Thanks to Pennsylvania-based Impact Games, I can "Play the News. Solve the Puzzle" with its interactive CD release, PeaceMaker. In conjunction with the summit, the company and the Peres Center for Peace sent 100,000 free copies to subscribers of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Unfortunately, I didn't get one, probably because I subscribe to the English-language edition, and there's already been enough worthless American and British intervention in many people's eyes. Luckily, one of my students brought the video game to school. This, my friends, is what educators call a teachable moment, otherwise known as "I'd rather not do my actual lesson plan," so I spent the first half of my first class installing and testing out the simulation.
Here's the setup: You can pick to be the Palestinian President or the Israeli Prime Minister (or let the game choose for you) in a calm, tense, or violent scenario level. You enter into a virtual Israel, where real incidents from the past reoccur, as shown through newspaper articles and television footage, but you get the option to try a different reaction. The main responses are political or security. One option under security was assassinating an opposition leader; one under political was giving a speech to the international media. As you react, you get input from public opinion polls, both in and out of the country, and from advisers, called The Hawk and The Dove. You win the game if you respond appropriately to achieve a "two-state solution."
It's this "solution" that I take issue with, not the typical criticism that this is oversimplifying a complicated issue. Indeed, a simplification could just be the ticket to a solution. But how does one come up with the way to win the game when the simulated outcome has never occurred in reality? In truth, you win the game if you figure out how the makers presume that peace could be established. Their presumption rests on a few assumptions about human nature, all listed on the game's Web site, www.peacemakergame.com: 1) "You can make a difference," 2) "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the possible," and 3) "The other side wants peace too." The real humans involved might be contrary to these assumptions: 1) They do not care to make a difference, 2) They are unable or unwilling to compromise, and 3) They do not want a solution. These variables, I think, would be more apt as level choices instead of those based on external conflict factors; they could be labeled apathetic, resolute, and antagonistic.
As a teacher, I do see this as a great conversation starter, a way to reveal some assumptions we ourselves make about the peace process. In fact, researchers at Carnegie Mellon are examining how prior vs. deeper knowledge impacts players' decisions. But until these human influences are taken into account, this game should never be examined as a way to solve the actual Mideast peace puzzle. The good news is, Impact Games says one of its next ventures will be to take the game online, so people from all over the world -- and from all perspectives, apathetic, resolute, antagonistic and beyond -- can play the fantasy football version of foreign relations. Now that's the kind of negotiations I can see President Bush getting into, even after office.
Until then, if you have access to this game in any way, please tell me if and how you manage to "beat" it. And I don't mean with any of those silly codes you find in gaming magazines. If there were a secret passage to ultimate peace, like getting three levels ahead in Mario Brothers, I would hope we would have found -- and taken -- it already. I don't believe this is a game where there is any pride or accomplishment in taking the longest path to rack up the most points.
28 November, 2007
12 November, 2007
O Israel, your prophets have been like foxes among ruins (Ezekiel 13:4)
I spoke too soon. One of my first posts on this blog was a rail against the CNN effect. This effect is nothing compared to Fox News fallout. Recently, my cable provider, HOT (yes, you actually have a choice here), took CNN off the air because the company rejected a hike in the news channel's subscription fee. At first, I was happy, cheering HOT on as it stuck it to the international "man." But that was before the the cable provider elected to replace CNN with Fox News.
If CNN gave a skewed perspective of global situations, Fox News gives a perverted one. Two of the first stories I saw gave proof for the assertions in "Outfoxed," the movie detailing the network's questionable journalistic practices. First, there was Fox News's version of "Fear Factor," in which anchors report the slightest inkling of a terrorist threat with a banner of something like "Malls targeted for attack" and a small disclaimer of "report says." This was a week ago, and I'm not aware of any suicide bombings at Sears. Next, there was the channel's version of "Rob & Big," except it was the "George & Dick" show, labeling even the most mundane appearances in the president's schedule "breaking news." The one I saw was Bush urging soldiers at an American military base to continue to "stay the course" in Iraq; obviously, such a speech had not been given in at least a month so it must garner full attention.
Two other phenomena emerged as I watched coverage from abroad. First, my boyfriend pointed out that a lot of the short spots called "Fox Spotlights" and "Fox Features" are actually underhanded attempts to make liberal segments of the population look foolish. The two topics I saw: people who stare at the sun to gain energy and a man who donated teddy bears to be distributed to child victims of traffic accidents. The weight of these acts was presented so straight-forwardly that they became sardonic. The channel's priorities obviously are out of whack, making the serious seem silly and the silly seem serious. Second, because I usually watch the news in the morning, the broadcast is what is on during the middle of the night in the States. This time slot includes a show called "Red Eye," which is basically "Inside Edition" and "eXtra" combined with a host conceited enough to call his online blog a "Greg-a-logue." Problem is, on the show, entertainment fluff stories about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are presented in the same format as regular news. Not only does America come off paranoid of terrorist attacks but also servile to superficial celebrities.
I can only imagine what the overseas audience thinks of America when this late-night trash presents a panel discussion on Steven Colbert's presidential bid in South Carolina, on presumably the morning news. Don't we already have enough of a rep as a country with a puppet president? (Not that I think Colbert would be any more of a puppet than Bush; at least he's pulling his own strings along with our legs.) CNN, on the other hand, presented the same issue on its version of "The Daily Show." I know, I know, I criticized CNN for blurring the line between news and comedy before, but at least Jon Stewart's commentary was backed by obvious audience laughter.
In the end, I am, of course, just as hypocritical as Fox News. I don't like CNN, but I don't like the alternative, either. I'm whinier than Sean Hannity after a Clinton stump speech. But at least my criticism of the two channels is "fair and balanced": They both suck.
If CNN gave a skewed perspective of global situations, Fox News gives a perverted one. Two of the first stories I saw gave proof for the assertions in "Outfoxed," the movie detailing the network's questionable journalistic practices. First, there was Fox News's version of "Fear Factor," in which anchors report the slightest inkling of a terrorist threat with a banner of something like "Malls targeted for attack" and a small disclaimer of "report says." This was a week ago, and I'm not aware of any suicide bombings at Sears. Next, there was the channel's version of "Rob & Big," except it was the "George & Dick" show, labeling even the most mundane appearances in the president's schedule "breaking news." The one I saw was Bush urging soldiers at an American military base to continue to "stay the course" in Iraq; obviously, such a speech had not been given in at least a month so it must garner full attention.
Two other phenomena emerged as I watched coverage from abroad. First, my boyfriend pointed out that a lot of the short spots called "Fox Spotlights" and "Fox Features" are actually underhanded attempts to make liberal segments of the population look foolish. The two topics I saw: people who stare at the sun to gain energy and a man who donated teddy bears to be distributed to child victims of traffic accidents. The weight of these acts was presented so straight-forwardly that they became sardonic. The channel's priorities obviously are out of whack, making the serious seem silly and the silly seem serious. Second, because I usually watch the news in the morning, the broadcast is what is on during the middle of the night in the States. This time slot includes a show called "Red Eye," which is basically "Inside Edition" and "eXtra" combined with a host conceited enough to call his online blog a "Greg-a-logue." Problem is, on the show, entertainment fluff stories about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are presented in the same format as regular news. Not only does America come off paranoid of terrorist attacks but also servile to superficial celebrities.
I can only imagine what the overseas audience thinks of America when this late-night trash presents a panel discussion on Steven Colbert's presidential bid in South Carolina, on presumably the morning news. Don't we already have enough of a rep as a country with a puppet president? (Not that I think Colbert would be any more of a puppet than Bush; at least he's pulling his own strings along with our legs.) CNN, on the other hand, presented the same issue on its version of "The Daily Show." I know, I know, I criticized CNN for blurring the line between news and comedy before, but at least Jon Stewart's commentary was backed by obvious audience laughter.
In the end, I am, of course, just as hypocritical as Fox News. I don't like CNN, but I don't like the alternative, either. I'm whinier than Sean Hannity after a Clinton stump speech. But at least my criticism of the two channels is "fair and balanced": They both suck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
