I'm hesitant about asking the question.
Especially as a journo.
But the issue of fatigue is now firmly out there, on TV, radio and in the press, and there are times when 'digging' can be of greater value than watching as something is covered up. Journos and others digging was, on balance, helpful on the Chinook/Mull accident, for example.
And isn't it always better, if a story is going to be told anyway, that that story should at least be 'informed'?
It's easy to ascertain the milestones at which fatigue is regarded as a concern by LM, and we know that the centre wing box is 'of concern' to the IPT. If we know that 179 was a low houred aircraft we can avoid unnecessary and distressing speculation, and if we know it was high houred (in the 'of concern ballpark') then reporting can at least be more calm and level headed.
And why should 179's hours and cycles be a secret?