sadly, you are right.

To many closed minded people in this world IMO.

What would the reaction be if Microsoft did the wands, and Sony had Natal?

I don't agree at all. NATAL is making the most news at the moment - people are seeing it as the next big step. It would have been a massive coup for Nintendo to have NATAL - they would have instantly gone from 'last' to 'winning' E3 IMO...

The same if Nintendo had Natal, Microsoft had Natal, or Sony had Natal. The press would love it. The ones with the wands would be bombarded. Unless it was Nintendo, in which case its an upgrade from 1 to two wands, which would be fairly normal.

Nintendo fans really need to stop playing the victim. The press loved the idea of motion controls when the Wii was first announced and the sword play that would come with it, it's not their fault that Red Steel disappointed. The press love new tech, and they would love Natal no matter who made it. The reason the press aren't super excited about Motion + is because it's an upgrade to get to where Nintendo hyped themselves to be at the very beginning.

Why da hell there´s not a single article talking about media bias?

Everybody knows its there.

You may want to brush up a bit on your history.  Most of the articles at the time of the Wii Remote announcement concerning Nintendo and the then-Revolution were declarations that Nintendo would be coming in last place this generation, that motion controls would be a passing fad, and that the Revolution's remote was not going to catch on or make any waves.  Things didn't improve one bit for the quality of articles following E3 2006.  There were many articles at that point saying that the SIXAXIS was going to give Sony the edge needed to undo any advantage that the Wii Remote might have given Nintendo even as a sales-drawing gimmick, and lots of extra criticism got thrown about that the Wii Remote was just a "gimmick" that wouldn't sell systems.  All in stark contrast to the vast interest the system was generating on the show floor, mind you.

Not sure if it's a bias against Nintendo. Media just need a sensation to buzz. MS provided them with material, no matter what exactly is that thing all about, it just got them excited. I'm pretty sure one of the main point to announce Natal at this stage of development is to steal a steam from Nintendo and Sony at E3. And MS succeed in that. Nintendo could care less, 'cos it doesn't brings a competition any time soon, and, maybe, never will be (there're some theories on that matter).

So they made articles that contained the logic of the time. Nintendo was taking a big risk and many people thought they would fall flat on their face. Isn't that what many are saying about Natal right now?

Interest on the show floor doesn't necessitate the massive sales that the Wii has seen, and that's because they've been marketing geniuses, but it wasn't set in stone the second the Wii was revealed and the same goes for MS and Sony. Sure there are a few sources saying MS just showed the future of gaming, but that's because the tech is really cool and futuristic looking, not because the Wii is doomed to failure now that Natal has been shown.

I think you need to differentiate between what media thinks is cool and interesting, and what analysts think are going to sell.

Also, telling someone to "brush up on their history" for something that happened less than 5 years ago sounds really haughty.

Torillian, your response seems to imply that you think you said something besides what you said. The media was NOT hyping up the Wii Remote for swordplay controls; what few articles mentioned that possibility often did so in scornful jest (ie. that it would be the ONLY good thing the Wiimote could do). Most of the articles were too focused on insulting it for being different.

And there's nothing haughty about being told to brush up on your history from 3 years ago in this industry. The gaming press regularly posts articles in complete disregard for events that occurred even just 3 months ago. There are more than a few examples of media outlets re-posting the same story multiple times at differing intervals with only slight variations, acting like it's breaking news each time. With a precedent like that, I cannot simply assume that people will remember details from 3 years ago, particularly not details that contradict what they're trying to argue.