I was genuinely surprised to see a high number of comments to the story criticizing Shacknews for reporting on Lambourn's game and sensationalizing the situation. "News [stories] about this are just as bad as the news outlets posting the [killer's] videos and pictures," wrote one user, in a frequently echoed complaint. Nearly all of the objections seem to have to do with a desire not to "give attention" to the creator of the game.

That complaint is one with which I would generally agree if we were simply reporting on the game's creation and availability. This, however, is not the case. More relevant to the coverage sphere of this site is the situation that has sprung up around the game, with elected officials using the game's subject as a platform to further erode the already embattled reputation of the video game industry as a whole--or even the concept of games as an entertainment form!--and with mainstream media effortlessly blurring the line between a freely distributed nonprofessional game and a product of the established game development community. A fully commercial game, Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto IV, which has yet to be released, was even drawn into the discussion by a New York state senator who, rather notably, heads up the state-sanctioned Task Force on Youth Violence and the Entertainment Industry.

Imagine if a tasteless fan-made YouTube movie about the shootings inspired political attacks on Hollywood, or garnered media reports suggesting that such works have any particular relevance to film as a medium. Such developments would surely be discussed at great lengths within the film community, and for good reason. We gamers have to deal with misinformation about our hobby on an unfortunately frequent basis, but even so, this week's situation is particularly notable for inspiring such widespread attention over something that even gamers themselves, on the whole, make no effort to defend.

When Nick mentioned to me that he was writing this story, I was unsure as to whether it worth reporting and told him I would check out the draft. I ended up approving it with very few changes, because of the complete and relevant picture it paints of the situation in terms of keeping gamers informed--not informed of the existence of the game, which has already been widely publicized, but about public perception of games in general.

From the start, the story's headline, "V-Tech Flash Game Stirs Violent Games Debate," refers to the fallout of the game, rather than the game itself, while the first paragraph introduces the point of the story. In fact, only a single paragraph deals with the game's content; another deals with the creator's brash response to criticism, and the remaining two deal with New York state senator Lanza's bizarre response.

Do I advocate giving unnecessary media attention to sensational figures for the sake of attention? No; I wish Paris Hilton were out of the news as much as anybody. Will that influence my editorial decisions when it comes to reporting information that is of genuine relevance to gamers? Absolutely not. Lambourn will be forgotten soon enough, but constant persecution of video games is a more long-term problem.

"I think it's good that people are finding out about this game. Being an intelligent adult myself, I realize what the game author is doing is tasteless and basically being a child screaming for attention," wrote another user. "I think the reporting on this story is great. I love knowing the names of these grandstanding politicians and public figures so i know who not ever support or vote for."

That response strikes at the heart of why I have attempted to bring more general industry coverage to Shacknews in my few years here. We--certainly, I--have posted stories that have generated controversy in the past, but the reason I decided to further speak on this one is because it would genuinely sadden me if our readership believed we were attempting to exploit the events of a tragedy rather than deliver what we see as newsworthy information unfortunately related to that tragedy. One decision which I do regret is responding overly strongly in the comments myself, which is why I hope to more eloquently state my case here.

It may be worth noting that, as employees of Shacknews, both Nick and I work on salaries unaffected by any kind of ad- or hit-based commission. This story drove no meaningful traffic of any kind, and was sandwiched between coverage of the much more traffic-heavy (if not comment-heavy) coverage of Sony's recent press event. I did not expect it to drive large traffic, and it did not. Like much of our other coverage dealing with the games industry, it was intended as a service to our visitors, and I can only hope that its true intent was not lost to the majority of our substantial readership. This type of coverage may not be a longstanding core foundation of Shack's coverage, and it still is not, but I believe it to be worthwhile reporting.

Going forward, I will continue working to ensure that proper context of potentially offensive subject matter is emphasized. I have great respect for the readership of Shacknews, which during my time here I have grown to appreciate as several cuts above the standard vocal internet mobs. I hope that I can trust our readers to give our stories on controversial topics the full open-minded consideration that reports on such topics demand.