Counter-Point: Are Rupert Murdoch and Big Business Good for Gaming?

I have to wonder about two things. One, what does it matter if it is Rupert Murdoch that made the decision to buy into the game industry? According to Wikipedia, Time Warner bought Atari in 1993. I wonder if Rob fretted half as much when that happened as he is about Rupert Murdoch. In short, Rob is not objective or reasonable and is just a biased liberal based merely on his objection to this JUST BECAUSE he doesn't agree with Rupert Murdochs politics. Otherwise, if Rupert Murdoch wasn't conservative, this wouldn't be an issue with Rob and this article wouldn't exist. But all of a sudden it is. So it is perfectly okay for liberals to make a profit and buy into the gaming industry, but not Conservatives because that, by definition, means it is evil.

Second, Rob doesn't have the slightest clue whether Rupert Murdoch has been playing games or whether he knows any gamers. Again, just because Rupert is a conservative, he assumes the worst. And how does he know that Rupert won't keep the current head of the gaming company he buys, who is doing a great job with the company and will continue heading the company and Fox to success in the gaming industry. But of course not, according to Rob. Liberal companies don't have bean counters, and they aren't concerned with profit like the evil conservative companies are. No, of course not, according to Rob. In reality he ought to be GLAD a conservative company is buying into the gaming industry. Be glad that a CONSERVATIVE company that is concerned about evil profit is buying into the industry. He ought to be glad they are interested in profit because what is more profitable than a well developed hit game. However, often a liberal media company will merely use a game to make a political statement, which they often do with movies, and don't care how lousy the movie is. Same for games, they won't care how lousy the game is as long as they get their liberal message out. Have you considered that Rob?

Unlike Conservative media companies, liberal media companies frequently spin reports as was very evident with Dan Rather's supposedly objective attack on George Bush during the 2004 United States presidential elections, or the AP and UPI reporting terrorists as "freedom fighters" and illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers" or "immigrant workers" (conveniently leaving out the word ILLEGAL). No, the other side of the aisle from Rupert are perfectly objective, fair, and are full of good and right intentions according to Rob. And what the liberal media calls biased is when Fox news DOESN'T use politically correct terms such as "migrant worker" versus "illegal immigrant" or actually calls a terrorist a terrorist instead of "freedom fighter". That is what the liberal media considers to be bias.

In short, let's be objective and don't pollute the basically non-political issue of gaming with political bias and wild unsubstantiated claims. Save criticism for if or when they come out with a game you like or don't like, even because of political reasons. Don't assume because a company is of a particular political orientation that it will produce bad games.

Ok, now we have two examples of media mogul companies buying game companies. Atari created The Matrix MMORPG "The Matrix The Path of Neo". It certainly didn't look very compelling to me. It apparently isn't doing too well and Atari is on the financial ropes last I read. Apparently Time Warner purchasing it didn't exactly revive the company or keep it doing well; whether Time Warner still owns it or has sold it. So, either liberal OR conservative, it could be generally bad that a media mogul company gets into the gaming industry.

A thought...

FOX Television and news is IMHO the sleaziest that there is. Their news is slanted and their programming disgusting. The fact that FOX has a news channel, MySpace, Radio, and other media properties and now attempting to buy into the Video Game sector is disturbing at the least. How much is too much for FOX? How much should they be allowed to peer into our lives? Did anyone stop to think that FOX uses MySpace information (Your Age, Sex, Ethnicity, FAV SHOWS, FAV MUSIC) to program and think for you. You can call me paranoid if you want, but I'm being a more of a realist and pointing out the obvious. Cheers