Quite, and the first two paragraphs of the article, which are all I can read because I'm not a WSJ subscriber - which I suspect will be the case for many here - do nothing to dispel the sensationalist interpretation.
(As an aside I'm starting to opine that posting WSJ articles here may be bad form for this very reason.)
(As an aside I'm starting to opine that posting WSJ articles here may be bad form for this very reason.)