Or it could be that this is impartial reporting of a situation where little is known and nothing has been proved, which is how things should be done in a free press. But feel free to stick to your paranoid interpretation.
For it to be impartial the journalist would have given equal weight to his status as a whistle blower and as someone who is wanted by the USG for blowing the whistle and taking some government property in order to do so.
First impressions count. What you lead an article with serves as the context for the rest of the story and is the part that's most likely to color the reader's judgment. Also, most people only skim the first part of an article; the abandonment rate drops precipitously with every passing paragraph, which is why you put the most important things first, and the least important things last. This idea is succinctly conveyed by the literary maxim: don't bury the lede.
It's really not a paranoid interpretation. It's well known you can sway a reader's view on a topic by the order information is presented, and being aware of this tactic is useful for thinking critically about a news story. Every news outlet has a particular bias; the BBC is no exception. This isn't in any way to say it's a disreputable outlet.
so I guess they just forgot to mention or include the last paragraph from the HKSAR press release they quoted?
Meanwhile, the HKSAR Government has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on earlier reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. The HKSAR Government will continue to follow up on the matter so as to protect the legal rights of the people of Hong Kong.
