Is it valid to speculate on the motivation of the author of the piece?:
1. He expressed ideas in which he believed.
2. He was writing a piece of satire, only slightly more aggressive than some of Zapiro's material.
3. He wrote it as a trap to induce the target media to post something of "over-the-top" extravagance. (Huffington fell for it; reportedly at least one other publication did not.)
The ombud apparently only believed in the first alternative, and did not even consider that other two.  Would that have made any difference, seeing that the press code only addresses "news" and "opinion" pieces?  What are the boundaries for satirical material?