https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2020/12/31/microsoft-interna...
Drives me crazy that Reuters could write an entire post about a Microsoft blog post, yet not link to the post itself.
You'll note that they buried the byline in this piece at the bottom, crediting "Reuters staff" at the top.
You're saying Reuters shouldn't report severe security breaches at Microsoft? Or that they are doing it because someone there dislikes Microsoft? For the latter - does the motivation really matter?
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.
Simplified, sure, but not overly so.
(Linking or not linking to corporate blog posts - I agree they should do that, but I suspect it's a general article style guide thing.)
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.
What we believe organizations should do and what they actually do in is often misaligned based on problematic underlying driving forces/goals.
Profit motives have tended to overcome all other incentives in our (the US) economic structure. It may be a broader problem globally due to power and influence of the US.
The same can be said about consumer motives. I probably should shop locally more often, but I may not be able to afford local rates and have to pass the costs down the line if I want to continue supply more basic underlying goals (eating, staying sheltered, etc).
At some point we have to have the difficult conversations of choosing the tradeoffs we do and don't want to support, otherwise we may let flawed underlying goal structures guide us to the paths of least resistance, which may ultimately not be good for humanity (or it may be, who knows).
Given a lot of current directions, I find it hard to believe our underlying system structures are great for human well being. It may have been a good run for awhile but that may be a short temporal anomaly. We may have to more throughly consider long term consequences of goals we set that may run counter to their actual intent.
It's easy for some to simply ignore the underlying problems and play the game optimally for oneself. Personally, I've never been happy with that option (the option which OP sort of alludes to).
I'd not be surprise if someone in Reuters is profitting from hyping the breach.