Critics of video games -- and there are plenty -- frequently accuse current hits like "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" of promoting youth violence. To that, Dr. Henry Jenkins says, "Hogwash!" Jenkins (pictured at right) is the director of comparative media studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the author of the essay "Eight Myths About Videogames Debunked," and a long-time gamer. In a chat with columnist Paul Hyman, Professor Jenkins talks about why the video games industry is a convenient scapegoat, what publishers and developers need to do to change public opinion, and the advice he would give the games industry.

The Hollywood Reporter: You've consulted for the Entertainment Software Association, testified before the Senate after Columbine on youth culture and violence, and written the book, "From Barbie To Mortal Kombat -- Gender And Computer Games." What makes you defend gaming when everyone else is criticizing it?
Henry Jenkins: I'm always very careful to say that I'm a defender of games as a medium and not a defender of the games industry per se. Most of today's criticism goes back to the Columbine shootings ... and what worries me most is that much of the backlash is not against the games industry but against gamers. What I saw was that schools across the country were starting to do things like profile kids based on their cultural preferences. Kids who played games were thought to be more at risk or more of a threat to the schools. So while the Senate was going after the industry -- or claiming to go after the industry -- it was pretty clear that it was never really going to regulate the games industry. But that was giving moral cover to principals, to teachers, to parents who were going after the gamers.

THR: Why was that not appropriate?
Jenkins: Because even if we take the most generous read of the so-called media effects research, it doesn't lead you to the conclusion that playing games turns normal kids into psycho-killers. What it says is that games could be another risk factor for kids already at risk ... one more thing that might push them over the edge. But that's not the way it's presented when we hear it in the public discussion. Everyone is acting like our kids are violent today because they play games. They're not saying that kids are violent today because there is a growing phenomena of kids going on and off of psychiatric drugs. Or that we have kids at risk because there are histories of parental abuse. Or because of poverty. Or because kids are growing up in communities that are ridden with crime. Or because the kids don't have any adult supervision.

THR: And yet video games continue to get the brunt of the criticism.
Jenkins: Yes. Our culture is so confused about video games ... and that's partly because it's a relatively new medium. Whenever you have anything that's so central to the life of kids but wasn't part of the childhood of their parents, there's going to be a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of anxiety. Unless parents grew up with video games, they may have the misconception that they're exclusively for kids. So they are confused when they buy something like "Grand Theft Auto" and see how violent it is. They aren't aware of how frequently adults are now consuming games.

THR: Why does the government seem so anti-video game? Every time you turn around, another politician is proposing legislation that is anti-games.
Jenkins: Well, you've heard the joke about the drunk who is looking for his car keys and he's groping around under a street light? Someone comes along, wants to help him, and asks, "So you're sure you lost your car keys here?" To which the drunk responds, "No, I lost them in that dark alley but the light's better here." That's really the way the government is playing it. It's a whole lot easier to publicly posture against the entertainment industry than it is to go after the actual roots of crime. The Surgeon General's report says that video games aren't a major factor in promoting crime. Yet we periodically create moral panics -- which is when you stop asking questions and start assuming you know the answers. Particularly when people start saying that we should do something even if it's wrong. After events like Columbine, there was enormous pressure to do something. And the easiest thing to do is to start taking a whack at video game violence. The hardest thing to do is to go after poverty, after mental illness, after child abuse, after drugs, after gangs, after the very factors that do contribute to the rise of violence.

THR: Then gaming is just a convenient scapegoat for politicians?
Jenkins: Well, the choice is that, gee, we can either anger the National Rifle Association or we can anger the National Joystick Association. Which one are we going to go after? Which one has the more powerful lobby? Which one has more money? Which one has a larger base of support? Which one has members that are older and are more likely to vote?

THR: What is your best advice to the games industry?
Jenkins: First of all, I'd say listen to Peter Molyneux [the game designer who built "Theme Park" and "Populous" among others]. He is one of the people who has thought deeply about the ethical dimensions of gaming and has pushed games toward doing new things besides just blowing peoples' heads off. I'd listen to people like Will Wright who had a huge success with "The Sims" which didn't have violence as a central element. I think exploring a broader range of things the industry can do is the most powerful advice I can give.

Second, don't abandon the child consumers. A legitimate argument is that there are fewer and fewer games being made for younger children and more and more being targeted at people over 18 which is where the center of the market is. There are good business reasons why they should be making more games for first-and second-graders -- that space is under-served. And that leaves parents thinking that, although they'd like to buy games for their kids, the only ones they can find are the ones they constantly believe to be inappropriate.

Lastly, I'd recommend that the industry focus on advertising even more than they've done already. There's been dramatic progress made on ad content, but some companies are still targeting young people on games that some people feel are inappropriate for that age range. And when I go to Senate hearings and there are blowups of game ads all around the room that are really hard to ignore -- with bathtubs full of blood and slogans like "more fun than killing your grandmother" -- that sort of thing does more damage than it does good in terms of sales.

THR: It's exactly the same on the video game awards shows we see on TV. When you see the clips they choose that supposedly represent the current games, it doesn't give a good picture of what gaming is all about.

Jenkins: Yes, there are certainly communicating issues. One night I did the Donahue Show after "Grand Theft Auto" had received someone's game of the year award. And I understand why it won -- it's an enormously innovative game. But after winning such an award, it's very difficult to explain that it's really not representative of the game industry's content overall. I mean, Hollywood is much more cautious about that sort of thing, even if it sometimes means not recognizing the most accomplished work that came out that year.

THR: Are you saying that the games industry should be cautious about pointing to a game like "GTA" as one of the better products that it makes?
Jenkins: That is a very tough call. The way I feel about "GTA" is the way I feel about "Birth Of A Nation." I almost have to teach "Birth Of A Nation" because it transformed the American film culture so dramatically. At the same time, to teach it is to teach about a film that celebrates the Ku Klux Klan. "GTA" is a game that is technically transformative. It is one of the most significant games to come out in the last decade in terms of what it does for games as a medium. And it's hard not to recognize its accomplishments on that level. At the same time, its anti-social messages are infantile and are there mainly for their shock value. It's understandable why a lot of groups were upset by that game -- groups who are opposed to violence against women, parents groups who are concerned about the game's overall anti-social messages, and Haitians who are angered by dialogue within the game that urges players to "kill all the Haitians." Those are legitimate criticisms.

THR: But "GTA" has become so popular and has made so much money that its publisher, Rockstar, is most certainly going to come out with another sequel. And other developers will be making their own copycat versions. Won't the situation snowball and make things even worse for the games industry?
Jenkins: It's a high risk situation. I go back to the fact that games have to be thoughtful in their use of violence ... and they have to be defensible in their use of violence.

THR: And "GTA" isn't?
Jenkins: No, I don't think "GTA" is defensible in the way that a violent Martin Scorsese movie is defensible in its use of violence. Or "The Sopranos." If half the amount of time was put into thinking about meaning as was thought about technical innovation in "GTA," we would have a game that would hold its own against any film or TV series that's ever been made. But that's not where they put the money or the thought or the effort.

THR: Regardless, games like" GTA" will continue to sell well?
Jenkins: [Laughs] Absolutely. Because the more shock value they generate, the more backlash ... and the more backlash, the more publicity and the more sales. It's a system that works very well. And there's not a strong economic incentive to break out of it other than market saturation.

THR: Meaning that when there are too many violent games, people will get tired of them and look for something else to play?
Jenkins: If you look at the Top 10 best-selling games at any point in time, only two or three are really violent. The others are sports games or fantasy games or "The Sims." Relatively few of the shooters have made any significant amounts of money. Overall, it's not a very lucrative space, unless you happen to be a Rockstar and hit with the right title.

THR: If you had to make a prediction about the games industry in 2005, what do you see in terms of quality?
Jenkins: I think we're probably overdue for another creative spurt. Unfortunately, there's a lot of conservatism out there and people want to repeat last year's hits. It's criminal, for example, that Will Wright -- one of the greatest game designers ever -- is being forced to supervise one expansion pack of "The Sims" after another instead of creating something entirely new. But my guess is that we're going to see more experimentation in the next year or two because, if we don't, sales will fall off if the industry keeps trying to harvest over and over again the same franchises.

Paul "The Game Master" Hyman was the editor-in-chief of CMP Media's GamePower. He's covered the games industry for over a dozen years. His columns for The Reporter run exclusively on the Web site.