You wrote that these are the facts:
"Barry Lynn wrote an article critical of Google. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt complained to Anne-Marie Slaughter - CEO of think-tank New America - about the Lynn article. After hearing Schmidt's complaint, Slaughter fired Lynn."
But these are not the ONLY facts. There is the "fact" that Barry Lynn published the article using his affiliation with the think-tank without his bosses review. There are almost certainly more which may or may not affect your chosen position.
You have listed three specific actions (not facts) and used them to create your narrative. This is a legal approach to making a case which - almost by definition - is trying to convince an audience of your OPINION. I appreciate that this is what the world now seems to be sued to, but claiming that you are only presenting "the facts" is disingenuous. You have a position (which I have a lot of sympathy with) and you have written your article reporting on the various statements with some balance, but then you have cherry-picked certain parts of this and presented them in such a way as to shut down the discussion (These are the facts!)
Such dogmatic statements take away from the value of the article.