I was responding to a comment about why Reuters didn't link their source for the article by pointing out that it's consistent with their coverage of trying to sensationalize a pretty boring story. If they linked the Microsoft blog post, people might realize that the story isn't what Reuters is trying to spin it as.
Their motivation of generating click-bait at Microsoft's expense matters as it means you should seek clarifying information from other sources. Or just ignore Reuters and hope the drop in traffic drives them to more closely tell the whole story.
Technically true as far as it goes, the important bit about the piece is what it doesn't say; no modifications or builds. To understand how important that is, and why Microsoft included it in big letters in their post, just see how many people here are asking/worrying about that possibility. Read isn't cool, nefariously wrote is cool.
Technically true but highly misleading is a dangerous route to go, and it makes me sad how often stories tread that path in the name of clicks.
My gut feeling is that it's more about an instinct not to drive traffic offsite from their customers online properties, perhaps combined with a now hilarious print-defensive attitude ("URLs don't work in print and our reports must work equally well both online and in print").
Breached is a legal term... they were compromised but probably didnt suffer a breach. The MSRC blog post is exactly there to cover those legal grounds I guess.
Their motivation of generating click-bait at Microsoft's expense matters as it means you should seek clarifying information from other sources. Or just ignore Reuters and hope the drop in traffic drives them to more closely tell the whole story.