I don't disagree. But I also acknowledge that newspapers have to tow a line between reporting what most people think happened, and reporting exactly the facts of a case that hasn't even made it to trial.

Is a one-year-old a baby? Absolutely. That seems like copwashing.

Did an officer murder a baby? You can't use a word like "murder" in print when a jury hasn't weighed in on it yet.

Did an officer shoot a baby? I mean, that's more clear than saying "murder", but there's no direct evidence yet that the cop shot the baby. The facts are that the officer fired at the vehicle, and the baby died. We, the public, can certainly connect the dots, even beyond a reasonable doubt, which is probably what this jury will do. But, until then, a newspaper can't do so because they are open to libel.

Honestly, this is why old media dies, and new media rises from its ashes. New media is not afraid of Gonzo Journalism, while old media collapses under the weight of its own journalistic rules. What was once used to protect the moralistic integrity of the truth has been twisted to subtlety push the agenda of billionaires. The public put up with it for decades, centuries even, but now that the choice presents itself, it's pretty damn clear who's winning.