So, I take it you read the Daily Mail often? Because I do. And I know a lot of people who do. And they all have one thing in common.squid5580 said:snip
They already believe what they're reading. Essentially, the Daily Mail is designed to have its readers tutting at the state of the country. Not going up in arms over it. The Daily Mail will never start anything, it just reinforces what is already believed. Games are bad? Mention it at any opportunity. Princess Diana's memory is supposed to be held close? Mention it at any opportunity. There are Muslims in the country? Mention that too. People that play video games are generally not Daily Mail readers. Unless those gamers are old and wealthy. Or English nationalist. Which a lot of them are.
But I am willing to bet you anything that not one person read 'ultra-violent' in that article, and rushed off to buy the game. But I can also bet you the same amount that at least forty five per cent of the people that read that article blamed the game.
The art of debate does not rest in keeping a superior attitude and scoffing at your opponent, Squid. It does not rest in demanding to know if the opponent knows every subject personally. I know the sort of people the Daily Mail aims at. And I also know that the same people that read the latest shocker about immigrants generally fall into the same category as those that'll blame violence on games. Naturally, there are people outside the Mail's target audience that read it, me, for example. God knows why I read it...I tend to prefer my local paper, but sometimes the Mail is all there is.
It's stagnant, basically. It won't sway anyone either way but it will feed the usual gossip. Luckily for us, the Mail readers tend not to be energetic enough to leap out of their armchairs, throw down their reading spectacles and declare war on Rockstar. Luckily for us, nobody takes the Mail seriously except the aforementioned audience.
But the dig was there. That's what I'm getting across. I'm not saying the world will be up in arms over it. I'm just saying, it's not the most polite thing to do, and if they were to do it with a skin colour or a gender, then they'd be racist or sexist. Truth is, it is discrimination either way, and while I'm not personally upset by it, I would rather journalism go back to giving unbiased facts. Not trying to get a dig in wherever it can. Would you be as apathetic if the story was an Indian man who did it, and the Daily Mail decided to write "The attacker, who is an immigrant". Sure. Won't have anyone chasing Indians out of the country, but it'll have the old folks tutting and blaming immigration.
Just ain't right.