It's a good article, though I think it's impossible for a journalist to ever get all the facts right. There's always one wrong piece of information.
For instance, the claim was made that the web site and the publications contradict each other on the subject of shunning. This is not true. The web site is stating that ones who are inactive are not shunned. The magazines say to shun disassociated and disfellowshipped ones. This is not a conflict. The conflict is in what JWs say and what they do: inactive ones are informally shunned to a degree, in that other JWs will be hesitant to associate with them, but at least they are not officially being shunned; someone cannot get in trouble for talking to them, and their family will still probably talk to them. This informal shunning of "weak" ones is something that happens naturally in the congregation and not an official policy found in the literature, so it's not so easy to prove as simply reading a quote from the literature and saying, "Aha, this contradicts their web site!"
It's an important difference because going inactive, or "fading", is a less traumatic way to leave the religion as long as one avoids any direct interrogations by the elders over one's faith. However the fader still faces the loss of his community and disapproval by family, so I'm not saying this course is trouble-free. I'm looking at following this path myself in the next year or so, and it's not something I look forward to. But I still think it's an important difference.