I suspect that's exactly why they did not provide specific details. Which for me, negates the value of the article.

In which case-- this article is more of a "Don't get phished. But I won't show you how not to get phished and what it looks like when you're getting phished."

The article has some value, which is to make people aware of the fact that this happens, and happens in highly bespoke ways to powerful/influential people. It’s in all of society’s interest that powerful people don’t get phished (imagine this journalist getting phished, compromising photographs being stolen, and then blackmailed to say “talk positively about this political candidate and ensure they win or we will leak these photos.” Not at all far fetched.

I would expect a journalist to share this information. Many journalists don't shy away from sharing the details when they are reporting a story on someone else.