"Backroom" deals are named that way for a reason -- they're very hard to prove, and thus unlikely to be reported in reputable publications that require absolute proof. Regardless, Microsoft is known for throwing its monopolistic weight around to its advantage, and being suspicious of such articles is likely not a bad thing.
Naturally, I agree completely. However, one article is not proof of "any and all articles since the beginning of the year" as the GP claimed. It has no doubt happened several times this year which we will probably never know about, but to dismiss every pro-Microsoft article out-of-hand just because they say Android isn't technically mature enough yet is either naive or unfairly biased.