The irritation, however, stays in the collective gripe-o-meter section of public consciousness because of the many ways news outlets can shape public opinion in other ways (and often do) but sure seem to bend over backwards for a certain class of criminal, more often than they sure as fuck ought to, I opine.

You can maintain someone's presumption of innocence via non-libelous writing and still make it clear that editorial considers them a poorly regulated threat to a cohesive and social contact abiding society (or whatever it is editorial is saying and no, there never was and never has been true unbiased news; a good outlet merely attempts to expose multiple views, but humans in the editorial process can't help but introduce slant towards one of those views however small.)

The wealth of nuance in my previous statement, for example, allows for both of these following interpretations to be attributed within a statement exposing the facts that allegedly tie Mr. Palmer, 49, of OK with the alleged criminal findings (while still avoiding a tort and leaving further reinforcing of the narrative possible through the rest of the hypothetical article) if the article writer is crafty and has a purpose:

'Mr. Palmer from OK, 49, is an example of why, you, similar dear reader, need to please consider revisiting your stance maybe, it's not okay to make pipe bombs to fight the unbelievers'

and

'Mr. Palmer from OK, 49, is a demented lunatic in layman's terms, and an example of why, you, similar dear reader (if you actually exist, please don't), need to chill the fuck out before taking a nap and drinking a juice box because you're a fucking child who is allowed to buy whatever you want from the hardware store, so show responsibility'

Or damn near anything else in-between. While still (the subject is our news outlet shaped strawman standing in for The Media, recall) allegedly not shaping the course of public discourse in ways that best aligns with the totally not commands and orders to not interfere with the owner(s) of the organization or their interests.

Words have power. Their selection matters.

The organizations whose existence is predicated upon this know this (the many humans within went to 'word' school as a rule). The politicians who are ever either condemning or praise the press know this. The billionaire owners of the media conglomerates know this.

They have a responsibility no matter how deeply a court of law can find them to be disingenuous, lying, cowards. Allegedly.