I just came across a CNN article titled “Violent video games linked to child aggression” which presents the results of a study which concludes, again, that compared to kids who were not involved with violent video games, those who were had “more aggressive behavior months later.”  This is a 2008 study.

A 2010 study which I found more informative was able to make the following conclusions:

Over the past half century the mass media, including video games, have become important socializers of children. [Certain models] explain that what a child observes in any venue has both short-term and long-term influences on the child’s behaviors and cognitions. C. A. Anderson et al.’s (2010) extensive meta-analysis of the effects of violent video games confirms what these theories predict and what prior research about other violent mass media has found: that violent video games stimulate aggression in the players in the short run and increase the risk for aggressive behaviors by the players later in life… Yet the results of meta-analyses are unlikely to change the critics’ views or the public’s perception that the issue is undecided because some studies have yielded null effects, because many people are concerned that the implications of the research threaten freedom of expression, and because many people have their identities or self-interests closely tied to violent video games.

That violent media and games affects children’s behavior is not a new finding.  For years, controlled, scientific research has proven that violent games and media cause both short and long-term behavior problems in young people.

This finding is not new.  For years, controlled, scientific research has proven that violent games and media cause both short and long-term behavior problems in young people.
This topic is not murky or controversial.  The studies are clear.  What is contested in court are laws restricting the sale of media to an older audience.  Companies and people who don’t want sales of games and media restricted are, not surprisingly, media companies concerned about losing sales.
Your article, especially in the Family Health section of your website, should remove the legal contests of media companies from an otherwise great and informative article about an important research finding, and conclusion, that is an important concern to parents.
To rephrase my advice differently, if a research study intending to find an association between violent media and behavior problems in young people conducted in a manner accepted by the scientific community concludes something important that can inform parents, then do not deliberately create a mixed that message for parents in your article by incorporating opinions from someone who is an advocate for the media industry and quote things that are based on no study at all.  Stop writing oped-like articles in your family health section of your site.  Parents will be uninformed, or even misinformed, if you continue presenting information in this fashion.  Stick to fact, stick to studies, and present conclusions clearly.  Maybe even help parents understand practical ways to implement the advice or findings from health professionals…that would be brilliant!

I think it is largely due to my dealing with FPIES for my son that I became so alerted to how sensitive children are to their environment.  Before learning about FPIES, I would not have ever known how children’s behavior can be affected by what they ingest.  I partly blame a society where so much of the information we receive, even through journalism, is deliberately murky, controversial, and confusing.  I hope that the growth of blogging might help present people with more facts, but of course that requires more action of ourselves, the readership or audience, to seek it.