A balanced review will attempt to present things from both sides, whether the observer believes the facts to be balanced or not, the purpose being to allow readers/viewers to make objective (or subjective - that's their call) judgments of their own. Such a review needs to be objective in itself, but that doesn't mean that objectivity denotes balance.

You don't "allow" anyone to make a correct judgment by presenting things from both sides. Just because you present both sides of an issue doesn't mean you've got your facts correct, it just means you're reporting "he said vs. she said," even if what "he said" is demonstrably false. The media does this all the time. You allow people to make a correct judgment first and foremost by researching and presenting the facts correctly.

I have no idea whether the things the author of the Vista/DRM article wrote are true. For that, I hope to get clarification from other /. posters! It's obvious the author thinks what Microsoft is doing is bad for consumers and bad for Microsoft. It's also obvious he's using loaded words (aka "spin"). But his argument either falls on its face or stands based on whether his facts are right, not whether he publishes a "balanced" view.