Rove: Same story, two media outlets. One gives us most of the facts, the other, gives us only the facts they want us to know, but with a hearty helping of their opinion.

First Breitbart.com (and similar reporting from AP):
President George W. Bush's top aide Karl Rove testified for a fourth time before a grand jury about the leaked identity of a CIA agent, which opponents call politically motivated. […]

"The special counsel has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges," Rove's attorney Robert Luskin said in a statement.

"The special counsel has indicated that he does not anticipate the need for Mr. Rove's further cooperation," the statement said.

Then from Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, testified at length on Friday for a fourth time before a grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity, as prosecutors neared a decision on whether to bring charges.

Friday's testimony appeared to be Rove's last opportunity to convince grand jurors that he did nothing illegal following the disclosure that he had spoken to two reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, despite earlier White House denials. (Pure speculation inserted as if it was fact here)

Prosecutors have told Rove, the most powerful and controversial political strategist in Washington, that they can not guarantee that he would not be indicted.

But the whole part about Mr. Fitzgerald not indicating that Rove is a target, and they shouldn’t need any more of his cooperation doest show up in the Reuters story until the very end… which you have to click an extra link to find (after you've read every condemning opinion of the author).

My only questions are:
A.) Why Reuters cannot seem to report facts and let us make up our own mind?
B.) Why no other media outlets hold Reuters accountable for reporting opinion instead of fact?