The National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) has issued its 2007 MediaWise Video Game Report Card.

For those of you not familiar with the role of video games in United States politics, video games have increasingly been a “safe” issue for U.S. politicians. Some politicians have decried violence in video games or even introduced laws to stop the sale of games with violent content, arguing that such games might fall into the hands of children. While the U.S. legal system has universally struck down such laws as censorship, many politicians continue to push video game violence as an issue, in part because it allows them to avoid facing divisive issues such as international affairs and reproductive rights. Criticizing games lets politicians appear to be “pro-family” without engaging substantive issues.

NIMF is an organization, with the support of politicians like Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Amy Klobuchar, that claims it exists “to maximize the benefits and minimize the harm of media on the health and development of children and families.” In truth, NIMF takes a very conservative approach to media (video games, film, music and television), wanting to restrict or even censor such media to “protect children.” To that end, every year, for twelve years, NIMF has released Report Cards on the U.S. media.

Last year’s MediaWise Video Game Report Card actually seemed positive, noting that retailers seemed to be enforcing the ratings from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) at least as well as for other media and urging parents to take a greater role in watching what their children play.

The 2007 MediaWise Video Game Report Card is a radical reversal, criticizing retailers, parents and particularly, the ESRB, demanding an overhaul of the rating system for games.

Every year, NIMF has children attempt to purchase games rated “M” (intended for gamers age 17 and older) from a variety of stores. This year, NIMF had children attempt to purchase “M”-rated games from 58 stores in the U.S. NIMF found that overall, 55% of children were prevented from purchasing “M”-rated games. Specialty stores (chains like EB Games) had the best performance, stopping 80% of sales and earning a “B.” National retail chains stopped 54% of sales, earning a “D,” while rental chains only stopped 17% of sales, earning a “F.” It won’t surprise anyone to hear that most of the eight-year-olds involved in the “sting” couldn’t purchase “M”-rated games, while teenagers were more likely to be able to purchase games.

NIMF was also concerned with the degree of parental involvement in children’s gaming, giving parents a “C” for their behavior. Most of this data came from a poll of 1,360 children, 1,158 of whom were between eight and 16 years old, performed by Harris Interactive. The survey found that 78% of teens and 49% of younger games had played an “M”-rated game at least once. The study also found that roughly two-thirds of parents had played video games with their children. Still, NIMF feels that parents need to be more involved in deciding which games their children play, and it’s easy to agree with that point.

The poll had a lot of questions concerning whether children had argued with their parents over video games. As one would expect, most children have disagreed with their parents over when, how long or what type of video games they play. NIMF draws from these rather ordinary and expected poll results that video games are causing friction among families. As any parent knows, children will disagree with them on something. If it isn’t video games, it will be how much ice cream they can eat, or why they don’t need a bath, or how much television to watch. This conclusion on the part of NIMF seems spurious.

NIMF gave the ESRB, stores and the game industry a B- for their efforts at education concerning ratings. NIMF argues that the “OK to Play” campaign from the ESRB is rarely seen (although many gamers disagree) and claims that 27% of retailers make no effort to educate customers concerning ratings. It’s difficult to address this claim specifically without a large survey of stores, except to say that anecdotally, every store selling games that I’ve ever entered has prominent signs educating consumers.

NIMF’s biggest criticism was of the ESRB itself. This criticism largely centered around the recent rating of Manhunt 2. To recap, Manhunt 2 was originally rated “AO” (Adults Only – for persons 18 and older) by the ESRB. Take-Two Interactive, the publisher, changed the game, blurring content or making content inaccessible to players, and the ESRB rated the new version of the game as “M.” NIMF argues that the game should still be rated “AO” because children might hack or recompile the code to view the inappropriate content. Essentially, NIMF is giving the ESRB a “C+” because it does not sufficiently “discourage hackers.” To most gamers, the initial “AO” rating of Manhunt 2 seems to support the robust quality of ESRB ratings.

The ESRB responded to these accusations, pointing out that an early report by the Federal Trade Commission, a governmental organization, found that parents are largely satisfied with the ESRB ratings. That survey of over 1,300 parents found that nearly nine out of ten parents are satisfied, with 59% not letting their children play “M”-rated games. That statistic emphasizes that the decision to allow a child to play an “M”-rated game belongs to the parent.

Video gamers, particularly those in the U.S. should keep apprised of this debate because if NIMF is successful in its agenda, it could prevent the sale of “M” rated games in stores. While this outcome is unlikely, given the number of U.S. court cases that have determined that the sale of “M”-rated games can not be restricted by unconstitutional regulations, if it were successful, publishers would likely stop making such games. That would hurt parents and children everywhere by limiting expression.