Because making large mistakes or intentionally lying/misleading torpedoes their credibility and greatly reduces how seriously anything they have to say will be taken in the future, perhaps?
I'm going to chime in here, because we categorically are not "intentionally lying" and I strongly disagree with the characterization that our reporting is "sensationalist."
@Stlin is correct, there is quite a bit of nuance in the budget (maybe too much nuance for an internet forum), and we focused on the total top-line budget authorization numbers for each project.
We could have gotten more into the weeds with expenditures vs. remaining unspent funding, but when we're writing, we need to strike a balance between providing enough detail to let people know what's going on, versus trying to provide too much detail and thereby boring our readers to tears (in the news biz, they call this "editorial judgement").
Part of that decision also requires asking ourselves how important those details really are in the grand scheme of things. If you're walking, driving, or taking the 39 on Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, it's cold comfort that the city has spent $840K out of a $1M budget – the street is still kind of a mess, and whatever planning and design work the city has done is still incomplete.
In other words, the ratio of spent/unspent funding doesn't matter much to the fundamental outcomes our readers experience. These projects had been in the city's project capital plan for years, and everyone was expecting them to remain there until they produced a shovel ready design plan followed by additional funding (often with state or federal matching funds) for a construction project.
By removing them entirely from the city's capital plan, all those prior years' expenditures on design and planning work are now just sunk costs for projects that are much less likely to proceed.