What wasn't splattered all over CNN and the NYT

Britain's Telegraph reports the latest on the 'reformulating, reconstituting' Taliban in Afghanistan:

The Taliban's much-vaunted spring offensive has stalled apparently due to lack of organisation after dozens of middle-ranking commanders were killed by British troops in the past year, according to military sources. The death last week of the key Taliban leader Mullah Dadullah at the hands of American special forces has harmed the Taliban's morale to the point that local commanders are having to tell their troops to "remain professional" despite the loss. After suffering more than 1,000 dead in battles with the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines in the last year, the Taliban retired to regroup and re-equip last winter. A spring offensive was ordered by the Taliban leadership based in Quetta, Pakistan, and was meant to be launched in late March. But a lack of mid-level commanders has meant that there has been little co-ordination to bring about the offensive. "They are getting strategic guidance from Quetta but this is not translating on the ground," a military source said. "It's a bit premature to discuss the Taliban as a spent force. I believe that they are struggling but still maintain a capability to carry out attacks on a daily basis. But I would suggest in the long term the Taliban may just peter out."

Now doesn't this jibe with the argument I advanced with two posts in the last year on the subject of increased violence resulting from an ISAF offensive rather than a resurgent Taliban? Why is no one reporting that the ISAF (read: British, American and Dutch) efforts have been successful in decapitating the Taliban and apparently degrading 10% of the fighters they claimed they were putting in the field? Wouldn't this be considered progress? Why haven't the major outlets reported the good news from Helmland?