You are correct based on what's written. The author implies that Facebook PR reached out to NYT -- but doesn't claim what Facebook PR wanted or how the NYT reacted. This fact (the NYT agrees that FBPR contacted them) is juxtaposed with the observation that people are mad the NYT removed this graf from the original 300-word breaking news story:
> Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees...
This is definitely an interesting graf, but I don't (and neither do the NYT reporters, ostensibly) think that it's the key part of the story, not even of the 300-word blurb. In any case, this blurb was updated (rather, replaced) by a 1,300 article at the end of the day:
The critics of NYT think that the "consternation" line should not have been erased because it apparently is so directly damning of how Sandberg was resistant to deal with Russian interference. The NYT reporters have disagreed; they see the 1000+ words adding far more evidence of how Stamos tried to warn FB.
In any case, the article author is trying to associate 3 unrelated events together:
- NYT made a major update/rewrite of its article about Facebook
- People are mad that the most damning line against Sandberg (re: Russia) was watered down
- Facebook PR contacted NYT after the first version of the story/blurb was published.
The OP has a hypothesis. But no evidence to support it. "Facebook Forces NYT" is not the right headline because the author never purports to prove or claim that Facebook forced NYT to do anything.
> Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees...
This is definitely an interesting graf, but I don't (and neither do the NYT reporters, ostensibly) think that it's the key part of the story, not even of the 300-word blurb. In any case, this blurb was updated (rather, replaced) by a 1,300 article at the end of the day:
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1652560/1652801/https%3A/www.nytim...
The critics of NYT think that the "consternation" line should not have been erased because it apparently is so directly damning of how Sandberg was resistant to deal with Russian interference. The NYT reporters have disagreed; they see the 1000+ words adding far more evidence of how Stamos tried to warn FB.
In any case, the article author is trying to associate 3 unrelated events together:
- NYT made a major update/rewrite of its article about Facebook
- People are mad that the most damning line against Sandberg (re: Russia) was watered down
- Facebook PR contacted NYT after the first version of the story/blurb was published.
The OP has a hypothesis. But no evidence to support it. "Facebook Forces NYT" is not the right headline because the author never purports to prove or claim that Facebook forced NYT to do anything.