There’s a reason that PEGI and other rating systems exist, and there’s a reason that games (like Modern Warfare 2) carry an age rating of 18+. You’d think that common, sane people would be able to play games or even watch violence movies without feeling the need to go out and shoot someone. There’s always the exception, which I won’t argue against, but the majority sees it’s for what it is: innocent entertainment and nothing more.

As you’ve said, mentioning videogames in relation to a violent incident will make certain members of society go bullocks which may be the exact purpose of mentioning it at all.
If that was indeed the purpose, then I’d say whoever mentioned it is a very clever one. After all, he or she did only mention it knowing that it may trigger a chain reaction, luring whatever foolish “experts” to relate this to school-shooting incidents, where investigators are prone to find a shooting game in the culprits room. Maybe a World of Warcraft account also, but we won’t mention that ever, will we.

So, you have a lot of shooting incidents, this one more violent than your typical teenage weirdo going bananas, and the only point in common is a violent videogame. (Another one is, that they are all filthy males, but mentioning that is just out of our minds, right?)

Whoever mentioned MW2 had a duty to do so, in order to get away from writing about global warming or whatever dead-beaten horse we’ve all read about centuries ago, and yadayadayada.

But, even if we all have different opinions on this matter, there is no denying the fact, that a violent videogame is a common denominator.
This means someone, deliberately or not, made a connection using videogames. You don’t like the idea, and that’s fine. It seems to me, however, that your view on this matter is too narrow.
Now, I realize you have a passion for games and subsequently are sensitive to what can be viewed as anti-game thought, but only denying whatever “theories” people can come up with and get frustrated and denounce the crazy idea of MW2 having the slightest part in that incident, without a proper view of the situation, is no more different than a kid whining about the parents turning off the TV.
Why should they not mention MW2? Relevant of not, it’s a fact. If I remember correctly, a lot of other things were also mentioned, one being that the culprit is an active participant of extreme rightwing idealism, a fact that the media seems a lot more interested in writing about.
I don’t follow up on scandinavian newspapers, so maybe it’s a big deal in Norway and Denmark, but in the rest of the world, people aren’t really hearing about MW2s participation in this, which leads me to believe, that at this point games are not going to become scapegoats. At least not outside Scandinavia.

So, before you jump the gun on a little gaming-naming, you should assess the situation first.

Besides, why is Modern Warfare 2 not involved in this? You seem to think otherwise, but the fact is, you can shoot and kill civilians in it.
Spending time mourning over the deaths of young people may be good for some people, but in case there is the slightest chance of MW2 having a sideeffect besides being dangerously boring, is it not in everyone’s interest in getting to the bottom of it, in order to avoid more fools going out and repeating Utoya? Hence the mention of the game? If there is a chance, then we should all consider it however foolish it may seem, should we not?

It seems to me, that you are quite occupied by media outlets “attacking” the gaming industry, but the fact is that censoring and whatever is loosening up as time qoes by, regardless of whatever little wave may hit the ship, as can be seen if you check up on game violence and censoring through the ages.
A newspaper mentioning a game in relation to a violent incident isn’t going to amount to much, if at all. Making a fuss about it won’t help anyone either besides giving fuel to the fire that is doomed to die out anyway.

If you insist on being pro-free expression in games, then I suggest you put som solid arguments on the table, instead of just making the opposite claim that “MW2 is not involved” without backing it up with anything more than an attitude.

It does however seem as if you – knowingly – are manning your defenses before an attack has even been declared by your enemy. Is this necessarily wise?