This is a silly comparison. The article itself does not contain any phrase like "Clearest Sign Yet of Ancient Life on Mars", it was someone else's decision to give it the clickbait title here.

I'm not an expert on the topic here, but at arm's length this sure seems like responsible scientists doing their best to rigorously study something with some crazy implications. They're not saying "OMG guys there was life on mars!!!!", they're saying from what we can tell with Perseverance's little portable lab these rocks sure seem consistent with a biosignature. Their conclusion is that gee it would be great to have samples brought back to earth for better analysis, which... maybe one day, who knows? Here's what they actually say:

  Ultimately, we conclude that analysis of the core sample collected from this unit using high-sensitivity instrumentation on Earth will enable the measurements required to determine the origin of the minerals, organics and textures it contains.

> it was someone else's decision to give it the clickbait title here

Is it notable that the "someone else" is Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy referring to the publication with “After a year of review, they have come back and they said, listen, we can’t find another explanation, so this very well could be the clearest sign of life that we’ve ever found on Mars"?