The Langewiesche piece is taking 14000 words to sell the same message as some forum members here tried to sell: that real "airmanship" would have saved the day. But in the process the writer:
- downplays or simply ignores the fact that AoA-failure-induced MCAS action doesn't look like runaway trim, because it responds to cancellation with the yoke switches
- skates over the fact that a condition with failed power trim, AND trim and high speed can rapidly become very difficult to handle, hence the "roller-coaster" maneuver
- simply doesn't mention the simple fact that this particular failure was fatal two out of three times it occurred, and that once an erroneous MCAS action kicked in, the crew had become test pilots,
Now, maybe Langewiesche simply believes that flight training standards are inadequate and that pilots need experience in manual-control airplanes that they'll never fly professionally. But the missing bits of the story - including no "I asked Boeing to comment on XYZ and they declined", which is boring narrative but good practice - makes it sound consciously pro-Boeing to those familiar with the issues. On the other hand, even an attentive layman reader, or a general-interest editor, will not be aware of what was left out of the story.
I would think Boeing would be crazy to try to plant a story like this, because of the blowback should any linkage be revealed. But there is crazy - and there is desperate.