Scarlett and SodaStream 'mackeyed' in the NYTimes


SodaStream and Scarlett Johansson are ahead in the campaign to promote a commercial product.  The counter-campaign to boycott is a failure, unsuccessful.
So, what does Robert Mackey  at The Lede blog of his at the New York Times do to provide a negative spin?
He turns around the story with this headline:
Scarlett Johansson’s Defense of SodaStream Factory in
Occupied West Bank Fails to Sway Critics
He had to work in the word "fail" as applying not to the anti-Johansson people but to Scarlett.
He could have considered that
(a) those types of anti-Zionist critics could never be swayed
(b) that the point is freedom of expression
(c) that the critics are immoral no matter how much their politics are appreciated by you
(d) that who the hell cares about those critics anyway for if the product sells, it''s a success.
Mackey’s one other defender of Johansson, Scott Stringer, New York City’s comptroller, is described ''staunchly'', so:
The actress’s argument won her praise online from staunch defenders of Israel’s policies
That’s plain nasty and unnecessary.  Why do Israeli defenders need to be described more than just being defenders?  
What really irks him is that “several critics” – and he must include those less-than-numerous and who-cares-about-them "several critics" – don’t like “Israel’s settlement-building policy”.  Moreover, they note, as Mackey points out
that Mr. Stringer’s comments seemed at odds with the long-held position of the United States government, which calls the movement of Israeli citizens into the occupied territory an obstacle to the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
First of all, "seemed" doesn''t mean it is and Mackey doesn''t confront that.
Second, it’s a “position” and it has nothing to do with the issue because a "position" isn''t a law or legal judgment and in any case, the US is committed to recognizing a change on the ground which reflects the realities of ... Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, as well as the principle of Israel being a Jewish state as per the 2004 Bush Letter:
The United States is strongly committed to Israel''s security and well-being as a Jewish state...In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
Mackey adds on the negatives of the radical nigh anti-Zionist Blog +972, as well as Rashid Khalidi and Diana Butto, “Arabs-who-call-themselves-‘Palestinians’” and rabid Ben White and his mock ad.  No other supporter of Johansson or SodaStream is included.  That''s another trick - make one side seem a minority.
Not really a balanced post.  At all.