Have most of you even watched the segment in question? The comments in this thread about it are more ridiculous than the mistakes made on the show. Point by point:
*Contention: Critics argue that Mass Effect is being marketed to kids.
Response: Microsoft, in a statement, sidesteps the marketing criticism and focuses on ratings and parental involvement.
*Contention: The bottom banner makes a claim of "full digital nudity". Response: The game features a moment of posterior nudity and side boob. "Full" is a bit of a mischaracterization of the content.
*Cooper Lawrence, a psychologist, asserts that while games may be 'targeted' to adults, statistics show that it's adolescents, and not their dads, who play video games. She points to studies that show violence in video games have a desensitizing effect. This is a matter of dispute, but not an outrageous claim.
She goes on to assert that sex in video games can also have a desensitizing effect, and give adolescents a distorted view of females, overly represented in video games as sex objects. Again, the actual effect this has is disputeable, but come on, there is no question that the preponderance of female portrayals in video games is of big chested hotties.
*The host correctly marginalizes the ridiculous ass-covering 'age verification' system many websites employ.
*Geoff Keighley correctly frames the amount of nudity that is in the game, and correctly clarifies that you can play as a woman. He doesn't address the portrayal of females in general, or the impact of sex/violence on adolescents.
*The fact is, Keighley is put up against ONE other person, and is given as much time as the other guest. The host merely facilitates the debate.
*The panel seems to be a general group of people on the show to discuss a variety of topics. They didn't seem to be listening to the previous discussion closely, but mostly speak in generalities. The Luke Skywalker/Debbie-Does-Dallas comment was stupid, but the realities of parental supervision are accurate. One of the panels shows her ignorance how content is rated, but another panelist makes the point that government doesn't have a place in censoring content.
All in all, despite the mistakes made, it was a fairly innocuous segment. The rancor it has stirred is ridiculous. This is hardly an example of a big bad news network trying to promote a devious agenda. Asking EA to send a representative to correct the record is perfectly reasonable.