The Hollywood Reporter (and Variety) wouldn't be worth much if they simply reported news someone happened to post on the Internet. Considering how unreliable much of the Internet stuff is, they'd soon lose all credibility in the industry. And notice that The Hollywood Reporter didn't jump on deadline.com's report that the Depp/DS film was going to start in January or the one that said it was going to start in February. I believe the last time The Hollywood Reporter reported on the Depp/DS film it was to say that Seth Grahame-Smith had been hired to write the script - and only that, despite the many coinciding reports on the Internet of the supposed January start. (Though that's not to say that deadline.com's info was inaccurate at the time - only that The Hollywood Reporter's source had either not confirmed it or not given it to them. But if they had been picking news off the Internet, it's likely they would have gone with the January start as well.)
According to Google, as of a few minutes ago 30 Web sites were reporting the April start (even Reuters) and they're citing The Hollywood Reporter more often than deadline.com. But then, no matter how reliable any entertainment Web site might be, The Hollywood Reporter (and Variety) will always trump them as the more reliable source.
As for not giving credit where credit is due, sadly that slight is rampant on the Internet.
And as an aside, as part of their story ew.com is reporting that back when Depp and Burton were interviewed last February before the release of
Alice in Wonderland, they told EW they’ve never seen any of the
Twilight films...