It says "CBS News" at the front of the headline. If they aren't inclined to make the distinction, I don't see why they deserve the benefit of the doubt from me.
If the same article were published on Abc.com, putting a credit in the headline would be similarly useful, and it would obviously be ridiculous to say that CBS was then responsible for the content of the article under the headline (in this case, it seems that CBS Radio is responsible for the content though)
And? KCBS isn't an affiliate; it's owned and operated by the network. The difference in domain name is purely cosmetic; if CBS corporate weren't OK with the content of the story, the story would no longer be online, if indeed it had ever been published at all.
The difference between the entities is largely cosmetic, but it simply isn't accurate to say that "CBS News" is responsible for the content of the article that you linked. As I pointed out, CBS Radio is, so as you say, that points to "CBS corporate" still being responsible, but it's more fair to the people working at CBS News to not mis-attribute the story (I used the abc.com example to try to make it clearer that conflating a source mentioned in the headline with the attribution is a mistake).
edit (which I see you only said CBS, I got lost in the depth of the thread.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-given-email-account-infor...
If the same article were published on Abc.com, putting a credit in the headline would be similarly useful, and it would obviously be ridiculous to say that CBS was then responsible for the content of the article under the headline (in this case, it seems that CBS Radio is responsible for the content though)