The more your children play video games at the expense of television, the less they are exposed to marketing.
The more your children play video games at the expense of television, the more likely they are to expect to control what they watch. Gaming, by definition, requires interactivity.
The more your children play video games, the more demanding they become of those games. With a small bit of informed parental criticism, their taste in games improves along sensible lines.
I have no patience for parents and interest groups who complain about games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas or the various iterations of the Dead or Alive franchise. This is not the same as complaining about Howard Stern back when he was on the radio or the various things that happen on broadcast TV; while your kids can access Stern and whatever offensive stupidity is on the boob tube by pushing a button or clicking your remote, you have to go to some effort to buy violent console games and the equipment to run them on, and so you have a correspondingly higher amount of involvement (if you're any kind of sensible parent) in what comes into your house. So the argument for banning violent videogames loses from the outset, and gets even weaker when you consider - as Professor Death has - that there may be a correlation between the increaed availability of violent videogames (and pr0n) and the decrease in violent crime (and rape).
If I ever have kids again, I'll be much more likely to let them have a couple of game consoles instead of access to a cable/satellite-enabled TV. If nothing else, it'll get me playing DDR and HALO 2 more often. Cobb makes some very valid points about the advantages of console games, especially when compared to TV, and has some things to say that might surprise you.