intodimensions.com

I recently read an article on Smallbusinesscomputing.com about the services offered by Anonymizer. The article has the title “Remain anonymous” and I expected something about in general how a business user can stay anonymous online but to my surprise I found that it was nothing more than a glorified sales-pitch for Anonymizer’s products, disguised as an “editorial.” Puzzled as I was I sent the writer of the article an email:

“Perhaps I read the article wrong, but the impression I get is this is nothing but a nice ad for Anonymizer products. Where’s the critical view on what their products do and what they can be used for? How protected is a user really? Any empirical tests that can tell me if I am really anonymous or not? Where’s the look at alternative products/services? Why are there no alternative views to Cotrell presented? I would certainly expect more from a “managing editor.”

//Magnus”

And the reply was:

Hi Magnus,

The story was a news announcement and an overview of what the company offers. The critical view comes when we review products. You’ll note that we do not endorse the company’s claims — we’re simply reporting them.

Thanks for your comments,

Lauren

Lauren Simonds
Managing Editor
SmallBusinessComputing.com

Ms. Simonds should get credit for replying to me, not everyone would have. But her reasoning seems a bit strange to me. It was a “news announcement” and “an overview” of what Anonymizer offers. To me the article doesn’t come across as a “news announcement.” Perhaps I’m being misled by the title but I would expect some critical thought and analysis about the products and probably also something about other, competing products. Other publications seem to do a better job of distinguishing between what is just presenting something that has not been reviewed and checked and what has. What makes it worse in this case, I think, is that it’s signed by the “managing editor” of the publication. That certainly indicates that it’s either his/her editorial, which means it’s totally their personal opinion and in which cased it might be okay with this article, or that it’s somhow sanctioned and approved by the editor, in which case it’s not okay. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but it certainly seemed a bit “fishy” to me. Anyway, Anonymizer should be happy. They got free and uncriticial publicity.