I originally went to this article as it was linked as a particularly blatant example of an "unbiased" (in the sense of "unbiased" meaning "praising an inferior product so as to avoid offending the company's fans") review. Myself, I don't see this; it reads as a parody of said genre. In particular:
The Player is not as light or as thin (0.35 inches thick instead of 0.28), but the slight thickening makes possible a removable back panel. Inside are two things the Touch doesn’t offer: a removable battery and a memory-card slot.
You’ll probably need to buy a memory card, in fact, since the Player comes with only about four gigabytes of free memory for your files. But the point is: the capacity of your Player is up to you. Choice is good, right?
But, note the title:
Now, here's the same article, from a Google search:
And the URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/technology/personaltech/galaxy-player-4-2-by-samsung-aims-at-ipod-touch-and-falls-just-short.html
I don't think this is an example of nefarious censorship of an uncomplimentary review title; rather I think it's to fit with the article; the original title clashed a bit with the sarcastic tone.