I like Marcus, but he really needs to address the larger issue that an (apparently increasing) number of gamers feel that Sony and Microsoft are treated markedly differently by the gaming press.
Part of the reason why "resolution-gate" has blown up the way that it has, is that for the last few years its been commonplace for the media to make an unfavourable comparison between PS3 and 360 versions of multi-platform titles. Often citing small differentials in resolution and performance as a contributing factor, some outlets like Digital Foundry have specialized in this sort of nit-pickery for example.
This has been going on for many years, and I honestly cannot think of a single instance where the importance of these comparisons to consumers was ever called into question by a fellow member of the media.
Until of course, now, when suddenly its apparently become in need of repudiation.
Why is that? Why now?
You don't have to be a console warrior to pick up on the fact that the major circumstantial change is who is getting the rough-end of the scrutiny this time.
When you get this sort of about-face in what constitutes "meaningful" criteria for comparison, and it (perhaps inadvertently) is to the benefit of the same party, people are going to start asking questions.
What concerns me personally is the fact that there's been no effort made to pre-empt skepticism on the part of the gaming public over this about-face. Regardless of whether an individual journalist actively took part in making these sorts of comparisons over the last few years, they would have to have been wilfully ignorant not to have noticed that it was the status-quo in the gaming media as a whole.
In simple terms, by allowing DF and their like to flourish without comment or censure for the last few years, the gaming media has legitimized this sort of approach. So now, when we start being told, "no, no, that doesn't matter", its very difficult not to wonder what agendas and ulterior motives are at work.