> “The institutional values of most really good media companies should transcend any individual opinion,” ... argued Joseph Kahn, the managing editor of The New York Times

This seems to be the central dispute. Facebook promotes the opinions of friends and family over articles on nytimes.com. I don't think nytimes would care so much but for the fact that so many people are in fact paying more attention to the opinions of friends and family. More than just the lost advertising revenue, this is an existential issue for nytimes and similar content creators.

It's an existential issue for American society. Journalism has a function that has evolved in symbiosis with civil society. Friends and family don't fulfill that function, unless you have a very large family made of journalists.

Zuckerberg seems to realize this, given the comment about public funding, but that is just an unrealistic throwaway line in the current moment. I don't much like the idea that you can make billions by destroying the support for a pillar of civilization and then say that's not your problem to solve.

This is the basic "who, what, where, when, why" that is (or was at one time) taught in journalism school (not sure if that sequence is right).

Not a lot of "opinion" fits in there, that I can see. Though of course it's nearly impossible for humans, even journalists, to be opinion-free.

You might look closer at "why".