I read the link. I hadn't seen it before now.
So wait, what's the argument here? Retailers are somehow preventing publishers from advertising on TV, websites, and magazines? They're doing this through some vague, undetermined system of "threats"? Threats about what, exactly?
Or was he saying that sinister retailers are refusing to advertise downloadable games in-store and in their flyers? In that case, what do threats have to do with anything? And wouldn't it make just as much sense to chide McDonald's for not putting up posters of Burger King sandwiches?
It's interesting that the comments following the post first defended it as legitimate news, then as an editorial... Personally, I'd go with "schizophrenic rant."
As far as I'm concerned, something like that has no place on any public space, much less on the front page of a website struggling for legitimacy. Your rebuttal ought to be common sense, but maybe it isn't for some people. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.







