I'm glad I'm not the only one who had problems with this piece. I wanted to make some comments on it but didn't want to come across as rude. The research on this piece is just so vague that it is almost useless. The research might actually be good, it is just defined so broadly that the piece seems incredibly subjective. Examples are the sections on offensiveness and editorializing. There is not even a definition or discussion of what qualifies an article as being editorialized.
Even the section on coverage could be inaccurate as defined. The piece does not say what classifies an article as covering Nintendo or Microsoft. It is easy to see how an article could be covering EA and Microsft or Nintendo at the same time if EA is making a game for either company's system. The coverage section just seems to ignore the fact that an article can cover more than one topic, and coverage of EA is not opposed to coverage of NIntendo or Microsoft. Those are just some of my issues with the piece. I think the author is touching on some good issues, it just comes across as being poorly researched and poorly explained.
