Huh?

The National Catholic Register has commentary by Father Owen Kearns about the missing Motu Proprio titled “What Happened to The Indult?”. See article here.
This commentary honestly boggles my little mind. Father Kearns states that the indult is conspicuous by its absence. In it he states:

It had been reported that a document allowing wide use of the Pius V Missal would be part of the document. The Pius V Missal is often called the “Tridentine Rite” or old Latin Mass. [OK, reported by whom?]
The Catholic News Service reported that the Holy Father intended to publish such a document, and the Register reported that news.
It is not clear how the rumor started that this “universal indult” allowing the Pius V Mass would be part of the new Eucharistic document. The Catholic News Service piece made no such claim. [OK, let me get this straight. It was reported, but we are not sure by whom. We are not sure how this rumor that it would be included in the AE got started and as far as we can tell it was not reported in the source we reported it was reported. Now we are writing this commentary because this fictional rumor was proved false]

Ok, now I follow this Motu Proprio watch stuff pretty closely. I am not aware of anyone who honestly thought that it would be part of the Apostolic Exhortation. To comment suggesting that it was conspicuous by its absence when you state that you don’t even know where the rumor got started is just silly. Or is it just me?