I believe Abigail Beall took these two concepts from the paper

"The glacier has been suggested to arise from a source region connected to the deep interior , or from a sink collecting the volatiles released planetwide."

                                         and

"This points to atmospheric –topographic processes as the origin of Sputnik Planum’s N2 glacier."

                       Then she reduced them to this one statement.

"The model showed the glacier at the heart of Pluto was not formed by an internal reservoir of nitrogen, as previous studies have suggested."

It looks to me as though she wasn't far off from the paper's intended message, she just said it in a more succinct, clear and easy to understand manner.

If this is a suggested point of the paper which it appears to be then I tend to fall back to my original concept, it seems to me this premise while plausible to some is potentially viewed as incorrect by others and some may even feel the need to steer eschew of this potential interpretation. While I am frequently ideologically left of the mainstream view and few exist in supporting numbers of others observations which suggest fluids are welling up from below the surface as can be seen in the above images but alas admittedly alternative interpretations inevitably abound.

The paper has many admirable and astute findings from which I derive thought provoking and stimulating mental pleasure. I personally, am particularly partial to original thought processes which this paper appears to contain in copious quantities this becomes an invigorating as well as titillating experience for the cerebral cortex.

The Paper, in other words,
has one error with loads of good stuff.
Oops! I wasn't supposed to do that.
Too direct?
Just can't help myself
I've always been a bit of a cheeky fellow, that is, if I properly understand the British idiom "cheeky". Or as Americans might say, my comments are frequently made with tongue in cheek,