I don't even think those headlines are in the same spirit as terrible Buzzfeed headlines?
In the case of Why is Microsoft's Plan... that "is" is doing a lot of work. "Why is" to me indicates the the piece is going to be investigative or discursive, looking at a potentially complex issue to try and get at the root of it. I think that when you get an article with a headline like "why Microsoft's plan is news today" it implies an answer that is being withheld (clickbaity), but with the is it implies a potential lack of a clear answer. In this case, a more flat title like "Microsoft's plan...is news today because x" would actually be equally misleading and sensationalist - in the vein of interviews that pull a quote from an interview out of context to give a different impression to that of the actual interview ("George Clooney says Llamas are racist!" then in the main body it's something like "maybe llamas have the potential to be racist, I don't know." That was a dumb example).
In the case of the article about the guy who pirated Skullgirls, I think your point stands though! The key difference is that it's reporting on an event, but not telling you what the event is, I think! With that said there are definitely two different ways you could read that title:
"What happens when you pirate a game? Click to find out!"
"This is what happens when you pirate a game!"
I personally think that if the intent is the second one it might be justified, because although it is informal, it still gives a sense of the "what" - guy pirates game, gets called out or punished in some way - in a way that the first statement doesn't?
Quite frankly I think the biggest difference is that a news article about a short conversation on Twitter is setting a pretty low bar anyway!