While I realize many reporters attached to The State News have very strong anti-war feelings and that these feelings inevitably shine through in war-related articles, I feel the column "Video games often blatant propaganda" by Megan Frye crossed the line into propaganda in and of itself (SN 3/19).

There are several points on which I disagree with the author. First of all, with the possible exception of the "Army Game," which was produced by the Army itself, all video games, including "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon" game mentioned in the article, are produced by private enterprises.

The sole purpose of these enterprises is to create a profit by selling popular video games. Therefore, if external cultural influences shift the balance of popularity to war simulations, that is what they will produce. That isn't propaganda, it's honest profiteering.

Also, I take issue with the idea that staging a video game in Ethiopia is in any way wrong or irresponsible. The goal of the makers of "Ghost Recon" was to produce a realistic simulation. Would it have been realistic if it had been based in Luxembourg, for example? Realistic war simulations are by definition based in unstable, war-prone areas.

One final issue I have with the article is how the author seems to think video game creators do not have a right to express their views in the same way other artists do. There are many musicians, for example, that express their views on the war in their music, however the author did not label those expressions as propaganda. It may come as a shock to Frye, but people who are pro-war have as much right to use whatever media that is at their disposal to spread their viewpoint, too.

Matthew Bridges
computer science senior