Not to be dense, but I think that publication agrees with my point. The abstract advocates the responsible use of media, not its abolition, and about midway th

Not to be dense, but I think that publication agrees with my point. The abstract advocates the responsible use of media, not its abolition, and about midway through the piece draws this distinction: It is not violence itself but the context in which it is portrayed that can make the difference between learning about violence and learning to be violent. Serious explorations of violence in plays like Macbeth and films like Saving Private Ryan treat violence as what it is—a human behavior that causes suffering, loss, and sadness to victims and perpetrators. In this context, viewers learn the danger and harm of violence by vicariously experiencing its outcomes. . . . which is more or less what I was saying. It's not the medium, it's the message. Certainly, it makes the point that taken as a whole, media like television and video games don't treat violence well, and hence if you track how much kids are watching without being concerned about what, you see negative consequences. And I'd certainly agree with that. But I don't think such an average figure merits demonization of the medium as a whole. I still think the crucial point is whether you're writing about and exploring life; whether you're doing philosophical teaching -- in a word, whether you're consuming literature -- or whether it's just entertainment. I hold that the vast majority of works in any medium are just entertainment, but that there are worthwhile ones, even in video games.