To some extent the facts are irrelevant - all that matters is the interpretation of those facts. Valg's post is a good example and its partially what I've been saying about smoking for years (I'll explain this in a moment). Do violent people probably watch violent media? Sure. Does that cause their violence or does violence cause their desire to watch the media? I have no idea but in this case the research sought to prove the latter and thus that's what they believed they proved. In reality they've proven nothing.

When I mention that in regards to smoking I note that if you have a heart attack and you are a smoker - your smoking created that heart attack and the common spin or implication is that you would not have had that heart attack if you did not smoke. Obviously that is misleading, given the frequency of heart attacks and given the risk factors for smoking being often similiar to the risk factors for heart disease (minorities, poverty, etc). Furthermore you almost never see the actual numbers or statistics shown about smoking - instead you see relative statistics often shown. Such as "You're twice as likely", even when twice as likely might mean 2 out of 1000 instead of 1 out of 1000 (fake numbers, but the point remains). Its not wrong, per se, what they say about smoking but it is purposefully overstated for effect.

That being said, I could care less if smoking is bad for me or not. I quit because I don't like the psychological impact of being addicted to something. I do think people tend to spend too much emphasis trying to look more pretty and live longer and not enough emphasis being productive in this life - but that's another thread entirely.