Just a little thought here.
People get genuinely offended when they see the word "alleged" used by the media to describe a suspect in a crime that is still being tried...
Which I genuinely don't get. At all. If you detach at an emotional level and look at it from a rational one, the American (mostly where I'm noticing the offense coming from) system is supposed to be a system where people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Sure it doesn't always work out for the best (that is genuinely unfortunate, and yet a topic for another time), but it isn't a bad idea, due largely to the fact that EVERY human that can communicate possesses the capacity to lie about their actions, or about actions done against them.
So wouldn't it be unethical for an unbiased press to present a damning decree against someone who has not been found guilty, by presuming them guilty before all evidentiary process is exhausted? Public opinion can be very, very damning, especially on a local scale, so surely it is inappropriate for any media outlet claiming unbiased reporting to leave out the word "alleged", wouldn't it be?
I just want some other thoughts, because maybe I'm wrong in my thought processes (and I am willing to entertain that notion given my human tendencies for being wrong occasionally), but it just doesn't make a ton of sense to me on a rational level when people get offended about media outlets not casting a definitive damnation against people who are not declared guilty yet.