Is that actually the rationale, or are you guessing? It seems weak, if true, since:

- An article reporting X does not or can not necessarily always explain why X.

- Removing "Why" can (and does) destroy some titles, and submitters aren't always going to notice it was changed under their nose and fix it before submitting (or they will consciously trust the bad change, if they are not themselves an experienced reader of the language).

- Removing "why" doesn't seem to have any impact aside from saving a tiny bit of space and a tiny bit of annoyance for the small subset of people who are opinionated writers and dislike seeing the "why" trope in the cases when it is truly unnecessary.

It's not like we're talking about the "You won't believe why..." trope. Then I could understand.