Personally I'd have sent Charlie Brooker in, he's not so known for it, but he's a big fan of games and started out a a games journalist. The only problem being that he might call them all c***s after about 3 seconds of being in their pointless company.
I'd love to go on there and debate that:
'So, you feel that violent media promotes violent actions in children?'
'That's EXACTLY what we're saying, and we have scientific proof!'
'Ok, when do you start campaigning to ban the Bible from all school for its horrifyingly violent material?'
Of course, at that point they'll either cut my mic, or the host will just put fingers in his ears and go 'lalala can't hear you', which is about one step past how they deal with everyone on their station that they don't agree with.
Honestly, the BBC is accused of left wing bias, but damn, it's as neutral as can be, compared with this.
I'll also admit, that like Fox, I've not seen the offending section of the game, therefore I'm entirely qualfied to comment on it
I'm on the side of someone earlier however, who stated that surely it being a mature game, it should be allowed to confront mature issue, such as the moral choices of taking the more dangerous option of being careful to not kill civilians.
To me it depends on context, is it played out seriously, or is it a GTA style 'rampage'?
