What a refreshing change. I read their mission statement and found it very agreeable.

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/about-us/our-mission" onclick="window.open ( this.href ); return false;" class="comment_url" >http://www.commons...ssion

More of this please!

Excellent to see constructive criticism rather than crusading zeal in a product review by a parental advice group.

Hypocritical of MCV to attack biased views of other publications when it has it's own clearly biased agenda with leading words ("other notorious examples"). Preaching to the converted is pointless. Then again, MCV is to gaming magazines what Daily Mail is to Newspapers - neither is exacly going to win a pulitzer. Please dont publish personal opinions under "News". Put it under "blog" or "comment".

Spot on.

Well, yes, labelling Anne Diamond's piece in The Daily Mail as a "notorious example” is indeed expressing an opinion. But, personally, I find it hard to imagine anyone reading that piece accepting it as anything other than glorified, ill-educated nonsense. You’re not seriously arguing that Diamond’s rants are legitimate journalism?

Of course, if your views differ, then right here in comments is exactly the place to state it. But MCV has always taken a pro-games industry stance – which is perhaps unsurprising for a games industry trade magazine. We’ll always stick up for gaming and point a finger at dated mainstream anti-gaming bias – this is the reason why Common Sense Media’s piece is so refreshing.

I'm sure myself, like anyone else on these forums, is pro gaming and pro GTA but it doesnt help our cause when we get into a opinion slinging match and lower ourselves to that level of Journalism. As the leading gaming industry magazine in the UK, MCV has an obligation to promote gaming news in an unbiased way as it speaks for all of us - The Daily Mail isn't taken seriously and Gaming won't be until we ignore or dismiss them instead of perpetuating their nonsense.

Your point is fair, undoubtedly, but I'd hardly say we've entered into a slinging match. I simply referred to the Daily Mail piece as notorious - which within the industry it certainly is. Reasonable critique on gaming is always treated reasonably by us. But TDM piece is anything but, no?

I think we're finding ourselves in a slinging match soon enough!

of course - the daily mail is useless in all respects and I love TDM as it's amazing for downloadable content. I just dont want to see MCV go down the path of reporting like the Daily Mail does.

We'll try our best not to ;-)

By definition... "Notorious": well-known; publicly discussed.

I hardly think referring to that Anne Diamond article as "notorious" has anything to do with opinion, by definition, it is fact... good article Ben. The industry appreciates the growing level of maturity in adults around the world. One day, they might even be mature enough to have kids. ;)

Pulitzer, I refer you to your own advice:- "Please dont publish personal opinions under "News". Put it under "blog" or "comment".".

What you posted was YOUR personal opinion, which is not news for the rest of us who have spent 20+ years in this industry, watching the media rip us to shreds for any excuse. It's a change to see mature parents take the time to assess the content in question, and not return with an "OMG, my 12 year old kids are going to see an exposed virtual penis in a game, they will be scarred for life!!" type response. We can only hope that the concept of "mature parents" catches on, and that they will in fact stop buying their 12 year old kids the 18 rated games in the first place. While they are at it, maybe they can stop with the drink, cigs, drugs and 18 rated movies too... when they get back from the pub that is.

Your argument was also based on clear misunderstandings of the terms "biased" and "notorious". You will notice from my dictionary reference, notorious was a perfectly adequate description of the article in question, and shows no bias for or against that article. Yet, I would have been quite happy to see ample bias against that particular article. It was written by an ignorant woman with an obvious lack of "content control" over her children. She bought a 360 with Halo 3, packaged games are not compulsory and the specific title certainly isn't forced on you. She could have chosen an alternate title but SHE chose not to, and then proceeded to show other 18+ games to the same children. She's the typical "controversy seeker" and got her wish. Unfortunately, she also exposed herself as a flawed parent, which again, is typical.

Put forward an objective and reasoned argument, then I consider MCV to have an obligation to respond in kind (although MCV isn't "obliged" to do anything WE think it should do tbh), but put out that kind of one-sided misinformed rant, and I think MCV is fully within its rights to respond in kind.

I also suggest that if you want to be taken more seriously, you refrain from using "catch words" as your name and take the time to register properly. Trying to belittle journalistic content with a name "pulitzer" isn't going to earn yourself any Kudos... unless of course, your name is Mr Pulitzer that is... Do you sign you Daily Mail letters as Mr Useless Journalism?

hahah Lee I think you've completely missed the point he was making!
"Notorious" since the 17th century has had a negative connotation. Your definition, which im sure is from Wiki is only half given and wiki does go on to say that there is in fact a negative connotation to it! By presenting only half the definition you've done what the daily mail does by presenting only part of the issue to your benefit!
Also, he did give that advice but that he followed it too! he posted it under "comment" - his gripe was that this is a hypocritical article posted under news promoting fair reporting while having a BIAS!
he didnt seem to have anything for or against any of the articles mentioned in this "news piece" so im not sure why you felt it necessary to quote things from the articles. that was pointless. And he was right to say that MCV was stooping to their level. Your comment about 20 years of being bullied just highlights your justification for biased reporting based on your past experiences. that's not the way to report "news". he's once again right - it's an editorial, comment or opinion and thus reporting it under news is wrong.
then you finish off with a personal attack on him! How Daily Mail can you get? :)

James, i also think there is no point in a slinging match with emotional Proof by Verbosity Sensationalists! :)

http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-xanax-no-rx - xanax http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-tramadol-no-rx - tramadol http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-valium-online - valium http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=buy-ambien-online-without-prescription-buy-ambien-10mg-5mg - ambien http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=buy-xanax-online-buy-xanax-2mg-1mg - xanax http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=buy-fioricet-online-without-prescription-buy-fioricet-cod - fioricet http://connections.blackboard.com/people/50273d6fc2 - tamiflu http://tapestry.formos.com/wiki/display/~buy-tamiflu-winthout-prescription - tamiflu http://boinc.vanderbilt.edu/CSB/view_profile.php?userid=5324 - ambien http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~ativan4r5r - ativan http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/~buy-ambien-without-prescription - ambien
schemes peabody reimbursed sociological sanskar catalogs countercheck