I'm going by actual original sources, which I named: the paper's official initial statement written by Senior Editor Carol Hunter about what happened and the ti

I'm going by actual original sources, which I named: the paper's official initial statement written by Senior Editor Carol Hunter about what happened and the timeline. Not the yellow journalism and factually incorrect Buzz Feed summary OP gave and which you quoted, and were fooled by. It's just as I summarized. The reporter approached management. A discussion between editors ensued. And "Register editors" made the decision to include the angle about the posts as a minor, claiming that the posts were relevant and should be disclosed in the article for the benefit of anyone who has "donated money to King's cause or were planning to do so". Then then boldly summarized and justified their decision as "rooted in what we perceive as the public good".