Comments on: Daily Star Outs GTA Rothbury

By: deejayem

deejayem — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:58:23 +0000

Victory – of sorts, anyway.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=46083&c=1

By: jsdn

jsdn — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:40:52 +0000

“All I’m saying is that on Alec’s account the paper is guilty not simply of incompetence but of causing deep distress, and that if this is the case then the other party who played a necessary role in doing so.”
I can agree with this, but I also don’t feel it is the case. I think they were only mildly upset, and Alec just wanted to rub it in using hyperbole.

By: dadioflex

dadioflex — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:39:09 +0000

@Unaco – for someone who has a beef against using “and” at the start of a sentence, you sure use “however”, another conjunctive, at the start of a lot of your sentences. Check your Strunk, man. You’re embarrassing yourself with your slipshod languageing.

By: Spaghetti

Spaghetti — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:35:40 +0000

It is ironic that the only person making money out of this is the writer of the article.

By: Kast

Kast — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:16:39 +0000

“I can’t believe someone wants to make money out of people that have been killed,” and “This game is beyond belief.”

Well, exactly! Beyond belief, yet YOU believed it.

By: MD

MD — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:42:47 +0000

“I personally believe it’s a very basic responsibility for a tabloid to check their information”

So do I.

“and if someone can teach them this basic lesson (even if it inadvertently mildly upsets some people) they should do so.”

For me this clearly comes down to a weighting of [benefit from showing them up] against [damage caused by doing so], and also the question of whether or not the benefit could be achieved in a less damaging way.

Alec attacked the paper for “deeply distress[ing] one of the victim’s relatives”, so on his account this wasn’t a case of “mildly” upsetting people. I also think that ‘inadvertently’ is a rather generous interpretation. Sure, they might not have realised the paper would directly contact a relative of a victim. But if they didn’t realise that the appearence of the story would upset those affected by the tragedy, they are just as incompetent in their basic human role of ‘considering the consequences of one’s actions’ as the paper was in its basic media-outlet role of ‘checking facts before you fucking print them’.

As for the ‘less damaging option’ question: I’m pretty sure that when you’re dealing with a newspaper this shit, there are plenty of ways to show them up that don’t involve salting the wounds opened by a recent tragedy.

“Who’s more wrong in such a situation is fairly subjective and contextual.”

I’m happy to concede this. All I’m saying is that on Alec’s account the paper is guilty not simply of incompetence but of causing deep distress, and that if this is the case then the other party who played a necessary role in doing so (and could reasonably have been expected to realise this would result from their deception) should also be condemned. Focussing one’s disapproval on the paper is fine, but praising the pranksters is a bridge too far.

By: PHeMoX

PHeMoX — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:37:13 +0000

It’s just one of those desperate and downright pathetic attempts to link video games to real life crime.

The fact that no GTA game features a Columbine scene says enough. They’re not about glorifying real life crimes, nor encourage real life crime. It’s all about doing what can’t be done in real life, together with providing entertainment.

Especially the latter gets the emphasis and if it’s alright to show violence in movies, then so must it be in video games which are essentially the very same thing. There’s no such thing as a ‘murder’ simulator, heck most movies would explain more about real life violence than any game controlled by mouse and keyboard ever could.

Anyhow, end of my rant, this ish is crazy. Good move on making that screen cap.

By: pipman300

pipman300 — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:07:28 +0000

hey i heard jerry lawton beat a man to death on the steps of a church someone oughta run that story

By: pipman300

pipman300 — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:32:45 +0000

“you want me to check my facts before spouting my dumb mouth off? well you’re a bunch of manchildren!”

^^^^

daily star’s new slogan

By: Diogo Ribeiro

Diogo Ribeiro — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:20:31 +0000

Just spotted this:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/40124/Journalist-defends-GTA-Raoul-Moat-story

“The Daily Star journalist who penned yesterday’s story claiming that a Grand Theft Auto game based around the recent Rothbury shootings is in the works has stated that he’s surprised by the reaction to the piece.

Furthermore, speaking on his Facebook page Lawton chose to make a further dig at gamers.

“Baffled by the fury of adult gamers,” he wrote, as reported by Destructoid. “These are grown (?!?) men who sit around all day playing computer games with one another who’ve today chosen to enter the real world just long enough to complain about my story slamming a Raoul Moat version of Grand Theft Auto!

“You would think I’d denied the Holocaust!!! Think I’ll challenge them to a virtual reality duel….stab….I win!!!”

Lawton’s comments are unlikely to win favour with an industry already irritated by his ignorance of the medium.”

By: Collic

Collic — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:46:37 +0000

This made my day.

By: jsdn

jsdn — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:36:19 +0000

You’re dancing in a moral gray for most people with that analogy. Who’s more wrong in such a situation is fairly subjective and contextual. I personally believe it’s a very basic responsibility for a tabloid to check their information, and if someone can teach them this basic lesson (even if it inadvertently mildly upsets some people) they should do so.