The fact that you specifically want to access and read the original source — which, as you just demonstrated, is public and somewhat easy to get - is certainly commendable. Yet, the vast majority of people need the news, which is indeed a summarization of very complex documents.
Like in any other profession, journalists are better or worse at doing exactly that. You can question that this article does a good or bad job at it, but always assuming malfeasance is a dangerous populist view that doesn’t help anyone, it only reinforces your own flavor of high-level dunning-krueger effect.
The reason why a journalist can be bad at doing this summarization in pieces like this is because they are human. Objectivity in reporting has been always a tremendous misconception of pure-breed American journalism. Journalists have preferences, biases, networks and more, like everyone else. They are not judges, and don’t have the law to stand by, but rather an ethical unwritten (or written, in case of a large publication that employs them) code of conduct. Surprise: they often disregard it.
That said, the business of news is indeed a business (and that’s a major issue, in my opinion) with all that comes with it. Nonetheless, journalists are not “out to get you and manipulate your mind”. That is a dangerous interpretation by people who know nothing about journalism and feel reinforced by the musings of rich actually manipulative idiot savants like Elon Musk.