I think you are misreading it. The source is upset because his long winded explanation /did/ make the article, but evidence that his explanation was anything ot

I think you are misreading it. The source is upset because his long winded explanation /did/ make the article, but evidence that his explanation was anything other than theorizing did not. he was expecting to read about how this specific hack was achieved. Instead, he said, Bloomberg appeared to be parroting the precise theory he had outlined I don’t read that as jealousy, but surprise that his theory became fact in the story.