Channel 5 defends The Wright Stuff

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 9 May, 2011

"We always aim for balance."

The editor of topical discussion show The Wright Show has defended last month's 'Do shoot 'em up games lead to real violence?' episode in which panellists linked video game violence to real world violence.

During the show panellists associated 22-year-old murderer Leon Dunkley's London gun rampage with violent video games, and celebrity Anne Diamond dismissed research suggesting there was no link between video games and real world violence.

Jailed for life Dunkley murdered a 16-year-old girl after she went to buy pizza.

UK consumer group Gamers' Voice had accused The Wright Stuff of favouring "uninformed statements and sensationalist representation over a balanced look at the issue" in a letter sent to the UK broadcaster.

"We always make every effort to ensure that discussions on controversial subjects are fair and balanced, and I am happy that we did so on this occasion," Caroline Davies, editor of the Wright Stuff, wrote in a response.

"We are, however, an open access current affairs discussion programme and are strongly committed to fostering robust debate and the expression of strongly held opinions. We are the only such programme on British television.

"We always aim for balance but what we will never do is suppress the expression of legitimate and reasonable opinions simply because we disagree with them.

"Matthew in fact felt they [video games] were not the cause. So far as the research is concerned, he repeatedly stressed that this is inconclusive."

Gamers' Voice has written to regulator OfCom over the showing of a clip from 18-rated Activision shooter Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 at 10.30am on Thursday 14th April – before the watershed.

Davies defended the decision. "We did feel it was essential to use a short clip to illustrate the discussion; many of our viewers are not gamers and it may have been meaningless to them otherwise. It was editorially necessary, but very short, and as you point out, a game image rather than real violence; indeed, in the light of your comments I do not really follow your objection to its inclusion, but as you have referred this to OfCom we will await their response. I am satisfied it was well within the relevant guidelines."

Despite Channel 5's response, Gamers' Voice chairman Paul Gibson remains unsatisfied and awaits word from OfCom on its complaint.

"Whilst their response puts great emphasis on the experience and 'credibility' of the panellists by claiming that they are 'intelligent and reasonable people' they do not in any way refer to the inflammatory and quite frankly insulting remarks made regarding gamers in general," he said.

"Our complaint to OfCom remains a live issue however, and we look forward to the results of that complaint in due course. Overall we are pleased that Channel 5 have taken our complaint seriously and have performed this review. Even though they do not acknowledge any wrongdoing, we hope that our action will cause the broadcasters and the presenters to carefully consider their statements and subject matter in the future."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (70) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • supermaniacs #1 1 year ago

    Cunts !

  • Shotaro #2 1 year ago

    "We are, however, an open access current affairs discussion programme and are strongly committed to fostering robust debate and the expression of strongly held opinions. We are the only such programme on British television."

    Um... Question Time?

  • EvilMonkey70 #3 1 year ago

    The world must have been such a peaceful place before video games were invented.

  • bad09 #4 1 year ago


    Fine if you want to have the discussion, but using footage of what is quite clearly gang violence is misleading and these cunts knew it. Wright even said how can this kid shoot into a shop so casually is it video games?

    Misleading media no matter how they defend it.

  • ZuluHero #5 1 year ago

    Good point, though Question Time is less for your average, sensationalism seeking, Jeremy Kyle sort of person...
    Edited by ZuluHero at 09/05/11 @ 08:46

  • PixelPirate #6 1 year ago

    in response, next week on EG TV with Mr Minkels:

    'Do poorly researched, hype hungry talk shows lead to real violence?'

  • Gromit #7 1 year ago

    As a gamer, I no more need my "voice" being broadcast for me than any non-idiot, non-gamer needs people on the Wright Stuff speaking for them.

    All of a sudden because we buy one of the most popular forms of entertainment on the planet, and some ill-informed cretins talk crap on a daytime tv chatshow, we are suddenly a persecuted minority that needs speaking up for? Don't get it...

  • Daddy-Doom-Bar #8 1 year ago

    Who did they have (if anyone) defending video games? I see no mention of this.

    And anyway, even if video games did cause violence or influence the young, who is it that puts violent video games with 18 ratings in front of children or those incapable of discerning fact from fiction?

    THE FUCKING PARENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • CaptainQuint #9 1 year ago

    Channel Five is the scurvy of British broadcasting anyway. I don't give a shit what they do.

    Judging by their viewing figures, I'm not alone.

  • Whitster #10 1 year ago

    I love the way they defend the guest who dismissed the research that shows no link between game violence and real violence, then hypocritically defend their inclusion of an 18 rated game clip with it's "a game image rather than real violence".

    Considering I know a bloke once fired from a computer game shop for putting SFIV on the demo pod (15 rated due to animated cutscenes) heads should roll for putting an 18 rated clip from a far more violent and bloodthirsy game on daytime television.
    Edited by Whitster at 09/05/11 @ 09:00

  • adofessex #11 1 year ago

    I think they are right. Since I started playing violent games, I just cant stop murdering.

  • DwarfyP #12 1 year ago

    The did own Gamers' Voice though.

    Complainging that the discussion wasn't balanced and that video game violence doesn't lead to real world violence then also complain about CoD:MW2 being shown at 10:30am.

    While I don't think video games do lead to real world violence it is well within the freedom of the UK for others to believe otherwise and discuss it on TV. Gamers' Voice should just accept that people have rights to believe what they want and at the end of the day there isn't any proof saying video game violence doesn't cause real world violence either.

  • inutaihanyou #13 1 year ago

    The brits have a version of Fox too? I feel sorry for you guys :/

  • frunk #14 1 year ago

    10.30am on a Thursday on Channel 5

    That is the world of 3000% short term loan advertising - I think most people finding the time to watch that will already have ill-informed entrenched views.

    You could counter argue - the fact having ridiculous statements like that may encourage any parents to take a slight interest in their 13 year old son/daughters videogame playing can only be a good thing. An (18) cert is there for a reason!

    In fact highlighting it here has probably given it more oxygen than it deserves. Probably more viewers... and certainly a higher combined IQ

  • andywilkie35 #15 1 year ago

    The Wright Stuff can fuck right off.

  • twyford #16 1 year ago

    "many of our viewers are not gamers...."

    Strange how it didn't stop them voicing their incredibly ill informed opinions. As for the short clip of MW2, how does showing a short clip of that in anyway explain or demonstrate anything to non gamers beyond the graphics.

  • Dave_McCoy #17 1 year ago

    I have to agree that at least Matthew did argue that games don't lead to violence when I saw the section. The others though were clearly thirsting for a Daily Mail style lynching.

  • roquey Verified Lead Quality Assurance Tester and Compliance Specialist, Universally Speaking #18 1 year ago

    First person to punch Caroline Davies and get it on TV will get a round of applause from many gamers. But i guess Channel 5's idea of a non bias opinion is a bias one.

    First of all, Anne Diamond isnt a celeb. Second, what the fuck does she know about video games and the like? Id happily take my xbox and insert it inside her backside and then ask her does video games cause violence?

  • zhgingaah #19 1 year ago

    " It was editorially necessary, but very short, and as you point out, a game image rather than real violence;"

    Ergo, game images are not violence? 'Shooting down' your own arguments there then?

  • chubster2010 #20 1 year ago

    Anne Diamond sticks her ill-informed oar in again...

    Sad to see someone attempting to cling onto her last vestiges of fame so desperately....

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #21 1 year ago

    "uninformed statements and sensationalist representation over a balanced look at the issue"

    That's all there ever is on The Wright Stuff, why should they make an exception to introduce rationality for videogames?

  • evild_edd #22 1 year ago

    @DwarfyP: "at the end of the day there isn't any proof saying video game violence doesn't cause real world violence either."

    Your poorly worded post rang alarm bells but this comment is utter, utter nonsense. Proof doesn't work by saying that a theory has merit because it can't be disproved, it works by showing beyond doubt that cause and effect are linked. Apples and gravity etc.

  • aphex187 #23 1 year ago

    I had the Wright Show on the other week (not something i usually watch tbh!), and i can't remember what the topic was but it wasn't game related. Anyway midway through a discussion Wright came out with 'all these brain dead gamers', or something to that effect and i was like what a cock, is there any need? Dave Gorman was on that particular show, i switched off with in minutes of him saying it, twat!

  • arcam #24 1 year ago

    I guess I'm one of the few that agrees with DwarfyP. I'd imagine this isn't the first subject to be discussed on the Wright Stuff that wasn't completely informed, but we don't complain about that every week. They are within their rights to discuss it, even if they are wrong.

    And I can also see some irony in people dismissing the argument that violent games can affect people, and then complaining that children were exposed to a short clip of a violent game.

  • Phantom_Dynamite #25 1 year ago

    Anne Diamond needs a good noob tubing .

  • lexxx #26 1 year ago

    "uninformed statements and sensationalist representation over a balanced look at the issue" is the modus operandi of this show.

  • Whitster #27 1 year ago

    @Arcam

    The issue isn't that children might have been exposed to the clip (I'd be worried about children being exposed to the Wright Stuff in general) but that as a responsable broadcaster CH5 should be held to account for this breach of censorship laws.

  • arcam #28 1 year ago

    @Whitster

    I'd like to agree with you, but really I think the issue is that gamers have taken offence at their hobby being unfairly slated, and so see this as a technical violation which they might have caught the Wright Stuff out on.

    I've not heard people complaining in the comments thread when clips of 18-rated games are shown on TV in a positive light (reviews, sales success stories etc.).
    Edited by arcam at 09/05/11 @ 09:58

  • Tryhard #29 1 year ago

    Thank goodness they do not realise Pac-man started people pill popping.Or that Frogger saw the decline of the Toad in the UK.And Defender brought the space programme down.etc etc

  • TheNinkyNonk #30 1 year ago

    A show hosted by an ex-footballer exploring the violence in games?

    How about a show looking at the violence, racism and hatred that football incites across the world?

  • Restart #31 1 year ago

    Don't worry, nobody watches it anyway.

  • Lukus #32 1 year ago

    "We always aim for balance but what we will never do is suppress the expression of legitimate and reasonable opinions simply because we disagree with them."

    Oh really? Because on the few occasions I've happened to watch this shit, the host Matthew "Smug Face' Wright has had no qualms about cutting off and disconnecting callers whose opinions he disagrees with, no matter how reasonable and genuinely informed.

    Shit show is shit.

  • Subi #33 1 year ago

    @Dave_McCoy: The others though were clearly thirsting for a Daily Mail style lynching,

    Given that Channel Five is owned by Richard Desmond, who also owns Express newspapers, I think you mean a Daily Express-style lynching. :) It should also answer any questions any of us have about the supposedly balanced and fair views of the programme...
    Edited by Subi at 09/05/11 @ 10:13

  • Lemming81 #34 1 year ago

    There is a reason this program is on during hours when only the unemployed can watch it. Who cares?

  • fizzyfish #35 1 year ago

    Hmm, that's odd, because I usually find "legitimate and reasonable opinions" to be the ones WITH conclusive supporting research.

  • arcam #36 1 year ago

    Who cares?

    This should be the proper response.

    Videogames have made it, we do not need to be concerned with Matthew Wright holding us back. Games will still be with us long after his show has been cancelled.

  • yupyup #37 1 year ago

    I'd like to know Fozzie_Bears opinion on all this.

  • Shikasama #38 1 year ago

    I love how in any articles have a negative opinion on gaming (regardless of how justified it is or isn't), the people in the comments section really work hard to represent themselves in ways that prove the article wrong.

    CUNTS! LIARS! FUCK OFF! NO GAME HAS CAUSED ANYONE ANYWHERE TO THINK VIOLENT THOUGHTS! CUUUUUUUUUUUUUNTS! HACK! FUCKING IDIOT!

    Well played boys, well played.

  • Lukus #39 1 year ago

    That's the internet all over. I like to think a few of those comments here are laced with intentional irony.

  • the_dudefather #40 1 year ago

    Games are worse than films because you can play games in the home

  • byakuya83 #41 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 10:03:41 30-03-2012

  • djed #42 1 year ago

    After I saw the highway chase in the film the Matrix, I nearly killed myself riding my bike on the highway the next day.

    With my credentials as a retard well confirmed, I still think TV is stupid.

  • canoot #43 1 year ago

    Wright referred to gamers as "brain dead" last week,the guy is a fuckwit and only about half a million people watch his crappy show.he's the type of person that believes if he says something enough times it becomes fact.

  • sega #44 1 year ago

    I completely agree with Gamers' Voice regarding the unfair link between violent games and the shooting when no evidence has even been released that he was even a gamer. The link drawn from the fact he was young and he shot somebody. I think a discussion to ask if games can cause violence is fair, but not to link it to such an event as that's clear bias against it - I mean why not also show a clip of someone doing a tremendous good deed and linking that person as a gamer?

    However I don't agree with them contacting OfCom as well. The clip shown didn't portray any violence so it was no worse than seeing a trailer for said game on the TV commercial slot with the violence edited out. Their original accusation is good enough - no need to complain about pre-watershed game footage too when there's no case for it.

  • zedzee #45 1 year ago

    Only an idiot or someone out of their mind would go out into the real world and duplicate what they played in a video game; and if they do, well, anything would've influenced them (say, a violent/war film), because as I stated earlier, they are idiots/out of their minds, not just necessarily a video game.

    Such sensationalism about video games being influential is utter rubbish because there are plenty of other influences for children in East London to be captured by, including gang culture through peer pressure, music, failure in education, failure of parental control, failure in job prospects etc.

    The VERY FACT that tonnes of studies have been done on this subject and NOT ONE has proven the link goes to show that it's the wrong assumption to make. If there was such a proven link, then legislation would've come in to curb the industry somehow, which would've then led to other forms of entertainment being equally punished, such as the film and music industries.

    If anything, I see video game violence as an 'outlet' for frustration - to let off some steam, especially when you're competing with a live player on-line. It's also part of the role-playing, surely, as well as noting the fact that NOT ALL GAMES are about violence and guns. Are there any stats showing the percentage of so-called violent games versus non-violent ones?

    In my opinion, the bottom line is, it all comes down to parenting; do you watch over what your child grows up playing or do you give them a free reign and let them be cooped up in their room for hours/days on end?

  • TheSaint #46 1 year ago

    I look forward to their next feature on whether watching porn turns you into a rapist.

    I'm sure channel 5 owner and notorious pornographer Richard Desmond will very interested in the outcome.

  • coolbritannia #47 1 year ago

    I've never even heard of this show, is it fronted by Ian Wright?

  • Subi #48 1 year ago

    The simple solution is that Richard Desmond buys a games company. Then all of a sudden the lies swing in our favour. :)

  • arcam #49 1 year ago

    Are there any stats showing the percentage of so-called violent games versus non-violent ones?

    I don't think that particular stat would reflect very well on the industry...

  • zedzee #50 1 year ago

    @arcam: I mean for the games that are rated 18+, versus ones that aren't. I'm sure that would show that only a minority - versus all others released for all platforms and all formats - are actually deemed so violent, that they deserve an 18+ rating.

    Surely that's a positive stat?

    @ EG: By the way, it's not "The Wright Show", it's "The Wright Stuff" - don't want them accusing a gamer site of trivialising their obviously very important, highly influential, very much watched, prime time hour slot show! ;-)

  • The-Bodybuilder #51 1 year ago

    "We did feel it was essential to use a short clip to illustrate the discussion; many of our viewers are not gamers and it may have been meaningless to them otherwise. "

    What will you show when you next talk about porn? You know, to help those who don't watch it?

  • arcam #52 1 year ago

    @zedzee

    Only if you look at 18+ games. I think it would quite eye-opening to see what a huge percentage of games don't have an 18-rating, but still have violence as the primary gameplay mechanic.

  • bad09 #53 1 year ago

    "I look forward to their next feature on whether watching porn turns you into a rapist."

    Won't happen. Studies have already indicated rapists actually don't tend to watch porn and watching it seems to lead to a healthy attitude to sex and women in men.

    True story!
    Edited by bad09 at 09/05/11 @ 11:41

  • carlitoswagon #54 1 year ago

    The Wright Shows comments are ill informed and should be ignored. Gangster Rap is the real culprit here.....

  • arcam #55 1 year ago

    watching it seems to lead to a healthy attitude to [...] women

    There's a big fat [citation needed] hanging over that statement.

  • bad09 #56 1 year ago

    @carlitoswagon

    Actually it's low income, social inequality, poor job prospects, broken family and the fighting over the extremely profitable criminal business that's the governments prohibition of cannabis.

    But don't tell anyone, we might need to actually address those things if we have no scapegoat. Shh....

  • bad09 #57 1 year ago

    @arcam

    It's true studies have been done with rapists and surveys on men who watch porn. results to point to porn watchers having a good attitude to women and sex, where convicted rapists tend to be about control rather than the actual sexual act so porn is not a factor.

    Can't give you links as I read the findings ages ago but it's out there.

  • weebl #58 1 year ago

    Playing video games clearly affects people's ability not to swear. Your points would carry more weight with people older than 16 if you chose to write eloquently instead.

  • Cherub007 #59 1 year ago

    @NinkyNonk
    "A show hosted by an ex-footballer exploring the violence in games?
    How about a show looking at the violence, racism and hatred that football incites across the world? "

    It's Matthew Wright, ex tabloid hack, not Ian Wright, ex Arsenal legend (but also a crap TV broadcaster).

  • TheDarkFurie #60 1 year ago

    watching it seems to lead to a healthy attitude to [...] women

    There's a big fat [citation needed] hanging over that statement.

    While that particular fact has never been proven there are reports that whenever the internet was introduced in an area and porn became readily available to the public there, the percentage of rapes went down in that area year on year. It seems that the more weird the porn available, the less rapes there are (at least reported) in the world. These stats are from an article I wrote in 2009 and based off the 2008 stats. The article was about the whole rape games palava back then and highlighted different countries attitudes to gaming and what their certification lets pass, along with these stats showing a pretty picture.

    Australia - 77.79 rapes per 100,000 people
    USA - 32.05 rapes per 100,000 people.
    UK - 16.23 rapes per 100,000 people.
    Japan - 1.78 rapes per 100,000 people.

    Of course there are other things to take into account there, as each country has a different culture and attitude that may affect the stats in different ways.

  • arcam #61 1 year ago

    A little more balance will do these programmes and channels a lot of good.

    Balance wouldn't do the Wright Stuff any good. If they don't have reactionary sensationalism and riled-up viewers, what do they have? Presenting a balanced view would see the show kicked off the airwaves pretty soon, as no one would watch.

    If this was a news report I would give more credence to people's arguments, but complaining that Matthew Wright isn't giving a fair and reasoned debate is like complaining that Jeremy Kyle doesn't portray low-income families in a positive light. A waste of time.
    Edited by arcam at 09/05/11 @ 14:35

  • FortysixterUK #62 1 year ago

    I don't think such uninformed conversations, however they are broadcast, are going to have any real adverse affect on the juggernaut that is the games industry. There's too much money involved.

    In the past liberalist groups have blamed other things for peoples reprehensible behaviour, books, comics, films and music.

    They're all still going strong as best I can tell. However, I think it's excellent Gamers in general have a very public voice to speak out in their defence in the form of " Gamers Voice"

    Bottom line, if you are pre-disposed to comitting acts of crime, then whatever media you are exposed too is going to get the blame once you get caught. The point is, you were going to commit that crime regardless.

    I think I'll opt for something controversial & right wing as my closing comment, tomorrow I'll change my mind if I get paid to have a different opinion on a chat show. Bring back the death sentence.

  • GaryHoward #63 1 year ago

    Channel 5 still exists?? Ha.

  • arcam #64 1 year ago

    @FortySixerUK

    Did you just imply Matthew Wright was a liberal?!

  • smelly #65 1 year ago

    Gamers are their own worse enemies on this debate.. by continuing to buy mediocre games wrapped in violent packaging - it just puts up a flag saying "gamers only care about violence".

    .. and in a lot of cases, i think that actually may be true. It explains why a lot of this tosh keeps doing well.

  • gott_sei_dank #66 1 year ago

    "FIFA make users more aggressive than COD" I wouldn't have known this if I hadn't watched the paper review on the Wright Stuff, I think it was Zoe Salmon who made a statement along the lines of it being obvious that there was link to violence and games, Matthew Wright said that most people would agree and that given the response Anne Diamond had received it was self evident. I laughed. fwiw this how I remembered it not an exact quote.

  • GitSomE_UK #67 1 year ago

    Anne Diamond - FHUTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • trubadman #68 1 year ago

    'a game image rather than real violence; indeed, in the light of your comments I do not really follow your objection to its inclusion'

    This quote is so hypocritical it is unreal. So basically, at 10.30 when young children might be watching it's ok for them to watch a scene from a graphic game, a game which entices youngsters to become violent. Hmm, what has the world come to, at the same time its not unexpected that games are discussed negatively in some segments of the media and in this case to an audience who are mainly ignorant to video games which makes it an even greater farce since you can never judge something without knowing enough information about it.

  • TrevSkyline #69 1 year ago

    Can't speak about FPS's but I can give evidence that BOXING games cause anger and hatred!

    Judging by the two abusive voice messages I received last night from some American child after knocking him down 4 times in the first round......

  • moonrad #70 1 year ago

    Anne Diamond is a grade A douchebag, why people are even listening to her in the first place is beyond me. Sounds like, as with a lot of mainstream media, ignorance makes up for actual facts. I think it's common knowledge that most violent video games are rated for adult use for a reason, they contain adult content unsuitable for children. If children are playing these games, it's because their parents aren't don't give a flying monkeys arse what their kids play.