To us geeks, often, stuff is either true or not true, with no room for maybe.
To reporters, they're both trying to understand what's happening without direct knowledge as well as convey that in a way a layperson can understand. Unfortunately, in that game of telephone, a lot of important details get lost.
I also think reporters deal with imperfect information and rely on their judgement to determine if any particular detail is important to the overall narrative, often influenced by the competing agendas of the players involved.
What's great (rare) about this story is there's published data, the validity of which no one disputes (yet), to chew over.
