I´ve read it twice and I can´t see what is supposed to be biased in this, please show me/us what part you consider biased.

how is it not biased, he says that only the wii has become the home of online video, which is a lie, PS3 and 360 both have downloadable videos (some of which is HD, therefore better than the wiis), he clearly attacks both sony and ms just because they wont stirke a deal with the bbc, which is pathetic. he also incinuates that other companies should favour the wii, it this is not bias i dont know what is, he also fails to mention the upcoming deals that both ms and sony have to put bt vision and play tv on there consoles, which would include bbc shows and thoose of rival companies, he makes no effort to show the alternatives offerd by ms and sony. i find it outrageous that the bbc both publish and promote this article

He isn´t talking about all those things he is talking about the Iplayer and that Nintendo didn´t try and controll the content of it like MS and Sony did when they negotiated about Iplayer on their platforms.

I think you are seeing something that isn´t there and as far as media players go the Wii might have some media player choices to offer but it isn´t and will never be a real media player as it never was intended too or even try too.

Media player wise 360 and PS 3 are way ahead of the Wii and there is no discussion about it being otherwise.

But I find it really sad that MS and Sony tries to controll the content of all things on their platforms as he states that they tried to with the Iplayer.