Reuters leading with "Twitter beats revenue estimates..." while the Wall Street Journal chose "Twitter to Cut 9% of Workforce as Revenue Growth Slows" [1]. This is usually a sign of a political fragmentation, e.g. within management, within the Board, between the former or within the shareholder base.
(Reuters' correspondent is based in Bangalore; the Journal's in the Bay Area [2]. Neither contains any direct quotes. Journal cites multiple Wall Street analyst reports.)
Meanwhile, TechCrunch led with "Twitter lays off 9% of its workforce as it posts a desperately-needed positive Q3," [1] a clear and obvious sign that there is a shareholder struggle within Aol, TechCrunch's parent, and that ultimately they decided to split the difference to avoid the website shutting down. I point to my magic slippers as evidence supporting this fact.
(Reuters' correspondent is based in Bangalore; the Journal's in the Bay Area [2]. Neither contains any direct quotes. Journal cites multiple Wall Street analyst reports.)
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-to-cut-workforce-as-reve...
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/in/dseetharaman