This week, we've now learnt that not only is Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 encouraging the youth of the world to become terrorists, but that it also commits war crimes.

This latest piece of media paranoia has stemmed from a pair of Swiss human rights organisations, Trial and Pro Juventute, who played through a series of videogames with human rights lawyers in attendance. These people, who clearly don't have much better to do, worked through the likes of 24: The Game, Far Cry 2, Modern Warfare 2, Metal Gear Solid and Soldier Of Fortune. Puzzle Bobble was clearly already out at their local rental shop.

So they all sat round a screen and gasped in horror at what games portrayed on screen. "The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is... astonishing," they noted. As the BBC reported, "It said games were sending an ‘erroneous' message that conflicts were waged without limits or that anything was acceptable in counter-terrorism operations."

Oh, give us a break.

The authors of the report then said "[We] call upon game producers to consequently and creatively incorporate rules of international humanitarian law and human rights into their games."

Have these people played any of these games through to the end? The intensely realistic firefights and battle chatter of a Call Of Duty game is surely as shocking as anything any other medium could generate. And as we've said before, isn't it good to present such things as realistically as possible?

As one colleague of ours noted on Twitter, "War-based video games don't adhere to Geneva Convention" shock. Also, Mario not a certified plumber". (cheers @JulianProkaza).

When these people who put such reports together start reading books, they're going to be in for one hell of a shock. And what happens if the parental block functions are disabled on their digital video recorders? Just wait until they see what things human beings get up to on the telly! Our thoughts go out to the poor folk of Trial and Pro Juventute, who are going to be finding out some things about basic human life that they really don't like.

The problem is that reports such as these trivialise, by coming to conclusions that would surely set off the WTF meter in most sensible people's heads, matters that could really use discussing. Just a few weeks ago we were talking about the furore surrounding a level in Modern Warfare 2 that had you walking through an airport pretending to be a terrorist. And once more, the hysteria shouted down a legitimate debate. Because surely it is worth discussing that particular level in Modern Warfare 2 as grown-ups. And it is worth discussing whether the realism of games is having an impact. But it's simply impossible to get any sense of proportion on it.

There are thousands of games released across the planet every year, across a broad spectrum of formats. And yet every survey and report of this ilk just goes instantly for the most violent, the ones ironically protected by certificates that keep them (in theory) out of youngster's hands. And you end up with the likes of Anne Diamond in the Daily Mail last year playing deliberately chosen games to get her knickers in a twist over (the link's at the bottom, but among our favourite quotes was her view on the 18-certificate game Jericho: "I stopped playing when I was set on fire and something splattered blood all over my visor," she moaned. Seriously, Anne: shut up.)

I've nothing personal against Anne Diamond, I should note. But if this is the kind of debate we're trying to encourage, why don't we get Jeremy Kyle, Oprah, Jerry Springer and the Cheeky Girls in on it too? I wonder if Simon Cowell has a view? He's in charge of the world anyway, isn't he?

The irony, of course, is if you look elsewhere on our screens, there's a lot worse going on. Every week in CSI, someone dies. If someone dies if your life, it's a huge and major moment. In shows such as CSI, it's a plot device, almost a triviality on the way to the point of the episode itself. I'm not knocking it - CSI on form in its many guises is a great show - but it's interesting that TV programmes aren't being analysed with the same slanted scrutiny as games any more.

Gaming, though, is such an easy target that you can see the tabloids now writing headlines about how it's videogames themselves that are basically committing war crimes, as opposed to real human beings who would be, presumably, harder to deal with.

Why do we have to endure this hysteria? Why is the world so scared of something new? Every new media outlet that has arrived, from the Internet right back to telly and pop music, has managed to convince clever people and reporters that it's the end of the world in disguise. Yet here we are, in a world where bad things happen, and bad people live.

But, here's the thing: bad things have always happened, and bad people have been around a long, long time. The crime rate hasn't shot through the roof since Space Invaders was released, and nor will it when Grand Theft Auto 5 turns up. Sure, there are worrying copycat moments, and this is where the need for proper grown-up discussion comes in.

But is it games themselves that are at the core of the problem? Are videogames inciting people to commit war crimes, or violence? And does it make any of us really think any less of such atrocities?

I know what I think, but I'd genuinely be interested to hear your views. I'll read them once I've got to the end of this level of Modern Warfare 2, though. Assuming I don't get an electronic tag just for playing it...

The Daily Mail