If you want the other side of the story, read the other 99.9% of McD coverage. Where's the criticism for that coverage not telling both sides of the story?
The Dunne article is the first time we've gotten this side of the story. We wouldn't need a Dunne article to balance the scales if the other reporters did their jobs.
The purpose of this article was to tell us the side of the story we haven't already heard. Why waste any time in it fluffing up McD by repeating the stuff we've already heard 1000 times?
In conclusion. You don't need to "tell both sides" in every piece of journalism, especially when one side of the story has already dominated the coverage of that subject, and you're telling the opposite side of the story.