Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of this quote from the latter:
Robert Accetta, the National Transportation Safety Board investigator in charge, said diagonal elements between the bridge’s canopy and deck worked like a truss bridge. But the cables designed to fan out from the column weren’t needed to support the bridge deck, he said.
“As I understand it, these were cosmetic,” Accetta said. “They were not structural members.”
If the quote looks OK to you, maybe you can correct the speculation you cited. For those in the peanut gallery (who I in no way connect to you), this means the pedestal was decorative. One more hint for the unwashed - decorative elements aren't designed to carry structural loads. So they could have included gargoyles in the design and except for their own dead weight, would have no structural affect.
No, I would NOT believe anything written in USA Today.
Politics, energy, engineering, construction codes, structural systems, design, material, machining, foundations, concrete, steel, demolition, electrical systems? Would I trust any writer covering those matters at USA Today either? No.
Yes - I will believe the experts discussing this issue at Eng-Tips.com.