What would that have added to the article? The issue seems to be between Snap and Everytown. NRA ads just happen to be the thing they're disagreeing over but it could've been pandas.
I am pretty sure if the email had read "a panda petting zoo might advertise during the campaign" this article would never have been written. The only reason this is controversial at all is because it involves the NRA. The article repeatedly mentions the NRA and leaves it as an open question if the NR A was interested in running ads. Requesting comment from the NRA would be appropriate in my opinion.
"Yes, Snapchat reached out to us for a particularly good ad spot at a discounted price" would be highly interesting.
"Snapchat? Do they accept advertising?" would be quite illuminating as to the situation at hand.
The NRA is either a bogeyman posited by Snapchat as a hook for the hard sell, or they're an unwitting co-conspirator, or they're just a buzzword to grease the skids on this article. It would be informative to know which, and if the news is supposed to inform, then I can't see how there's any harm in reaching out.
