Sure, but instead of saying "Boeing leaked 45GB" it would say "Boeing leaked files of undetermined severity".
The disk size does not matter, and when the severity was actually determined it would show up in the headlines as "Boeing leak determined to be a level 3 leak" instead of just being "That boeing leak 5 months ago was kinda bad".
These are journalists publishing breaking news. They are not autistic IT professionals.
Relevant quote from the article: "I haven’t gone over the whole data set but Boeing emails and a few others stand out as useful for those with malicious intent"
Journalists are almost never deep experts of the fields they report on (although I hope well versed), but given the tools to report the news in a way that is more understandable to the public I think they will use them.
Both journalists and the public need a better way to understand how different breaches affect them.
As someone wrote earlier, they won't know the severity until it is analyzed. That could take a long time. Days or weeks. This is just the breaking news. Also what incentive does anyone have to waste their free time analyzing the data and issuing a report to you after this headline that the general public will not give a shit about a few days later?
I'm not saying to delay the report. I'm saying to not headline the size of the leak unless it has some sort of significance. If the severity is later known report that as news.
If anything this would create two stories where there now is one, so journalists would not have less or later to report.
The disk size does not matter, and when the severity was actually determined it would show up in the headlines as "Boeing leak determined to be a level 3 leak" instead of just being "That boeing leak 5 months ago was kinda bad".
Either way, listing the size says very little.