NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- I've read in more than one place that the Facebook (FB - Get Report) IPO was "shameful."

What a load of hyperbolic absurdity.

Like political candidates, the media will do whatever it takes to direct you to a spectacle of emotion rather than a boring dose of logic. That's been the beauty of the Republican party -- turn elections into referendums on social issues that, while important, have no business impacting or, worse yet, deciding an election.

To secure your eyeballs and attention, the media takes something the Facebook IPO and frames it like a Hollywood screenplay. They cast heroes and villains and turn the entire episode into a dichotomous battle between good and evil. This form of sensationalism has become such a part of everyday life in newsrooms across the country that the folks pulling the fire alarms barely realize, on any conscious level, what they're doing.

The media mongers fear by pointing out that Mark Zuckerberg owns a majority of Facebook shares and, as a result, controls the company. At the end of the day, if Zuck wishes to make it so, he can render the company's board of directors irrelevant. The media loves taking the official term for this type of arrangement -- Facebook is a controlled company -- and making it sound as ominous as possible.

First, why in the world should Zuck not have control and, ultimately, the final say over the company he created and continues to nurture? The company did not do an IPO to cede control to you or board members such as Netflix ( NFLX) CEO Reed Hastings.

If your lemonade stand went public when you were a kid, you probably would have wanted to call the shots, not your best friend's hot sister you gave a token board seat to.

But, that perfectly sane and logical reality aside, the media -- and investors who lap up everything the media says (not you!) -- completely misunderstand the power structure at Facebook. In the process, they cheapen Mark Zuckerberg's accomplishments. They discount not only the solid decisions he has made as the business grew rapidly, but his ability to make them in the first place. It stuns me that you can create something out of your dorm that practically "everybody" in the world uses, yet you can't get any respect.

I have been one of the few people to support Zuckerberg before, during and after the IPO. Many months ago on Seeking Alpha and just last month on TheStreet I highlighted a move Zuckerberg made that shows a maturity that goes well beyond his years:
In fact, he made a move too few people give him credit for when he brought in a strong COO (Sheryl Sandberg) to mind parts of the ship he does not have the time or skills to deal with. She can keep Zuckerberg's long-term visions in check to ensure the near-term runs as smoothly as possible.

And now Facebook does something that, honestly, I thought it had already done. It puts Sandberg on its board of directors.

Sandberg is not just a pretty face. She's far from a pushover. In fact, she's a heavy hitter. She came to Facebook from Google ( GOOG - Get Report) where she was VP of Global Online Sales and Operations. Prior to Google, she was a Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of the Treasury. For goodness sakes, Sandberg made more than a quarter of a million dollars just to sit on the board at Starbucks ( SBUX).

Why hasn't the hysterical media ever asked the question, why did Zuckerberg bring in a strong and more-than-competent COO like Sandberg? Why didn't he just pull a Reed Hastings and refuse to bring in executives with the guts or ability to push back in any meaningful way? Do you really think Sandberg would take the COO gig at Facebook to be Mark Zuckerberg's "yes-woman?"

When the media yelps about Zuckerberg's power over the board and Facebook's "controlled company" status, it not only insults Zuckerberg, it insults Sandberg. And I will tell you this right now, the media rarely mentions Sandberg as a powerful figure in Facebook's organizational structure because she is a woman. Simple as that.

If Zuckerberg brought in a former Google VP and government official who happened to be a man, the media would paint a different picture. Instead of here and there, cutesy mentions of Sandberg as Zuckerberg's "right-hand woman," we might actually hear about what a shrewd move Zuckerberg made to bring in somebody capable of implementing checks and balances on his power and lofty vision.

Mark Zuckerberg will not abuse his power at Facebook. He earned the right to assume that power because he deserves it. When he hired Sandberg he proved as much. Adding her to the company's board just reinforces the point.

This article is commentary by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.

At the time of publication, the author was long FB.