I don't think it detracts from previous viable points like OP, but I do think the headline might at first trigger an eye-roll on a lot of readers. It sounds like an irrelevant piece of trivia that the NYT wants to blow up in an attempt to just keep throwing mud at Facebook.

If one reads the article there's a few interesting points-- it includes some statements by Mossberg and info on his book which will probably include some thoughts on Facebook.

I try to at least skim stories before commenting on them which is the only reason I opened this one. The title reads like cheap celebrity journalism. Something more fleshed-out, like an interview going in depth about his thoughts on Facebook and tech's impact as a whole, leading to his book, would've been more "NYT worthy" IMO. And a better title.

Do you know if the NYTimes wrote an article when mossberg opened his facebook account? If mossberg opening a facebook account isn't news, neither is his closing of his account.

Also, mossberg is a journalist. I was under the impression that journalists being the news themselves is bad journalism. Isn't that why most journalists go out of their way to not to be part of a story?

If rupert murdoch, in his war with facebook, pressured mossberg to close his account, that would be news. Otherwise, this is just the nytimes and a journalist creating news, not reporting on news.