I do not think the manner in which you've apportioned blame is correct. The article is less technical than the press release yes, but the core of both remains the same. They both talk about fasting leading to a depletion of white blood cells, triggering "stem cell-based regeneration" of new immune cells and how this may prove useful when treating cancer patients.

The main difference in the two is that the press release does not use the word 'entire' in its headline and the regeneration aspect was only specified for mice. But, and this is important, the press release does not make particularly clear whether the regenerative aspect was also looked for in humans (was it? the quote makes it seem so). I do not blame the likely time starved writer for not bothering with nuance if the press release itself doesn't take the time to be clear. The news article is also better for its attempt at sampling more skeptical views, most 'reporting' does not go that far.

A lot of (most?) science reporting is just regurgitating press releases, if science reporting is poor then press releases can explain the bulk of that shoddy reporting. The game of telephone aspect of paper to blogs can't be avoided so it pays to take a much more sober approach when writing press releases:

40% (95% confidence interval 33% to 46%) of the press releases contained exaggerated advice, 33% (26% to 40%) contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36% (28% to 46%) contained exaggerated inference to humans from animal research. When press releases contained such exaggeration, 58% (95% confidence interval 48% to 68%), 81% (70% to 93%), and 86% (77% to 95%) of news stories, respectively, contained similar exaggeration, compared with exaggeration rates of 17% (10% to 24%), 18% (9% to 27%), and 10% (0% to 19%) in news when the press releases were not exaggerated

-- http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7015

Good science reporting on: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/12/09/the-power...