Deciding on the accuracy of claims is difficult. We have complicated and lengthy judicial processes that attempt this, and they still make frequent mistakes.

Saying it’s okay to defame people with an “allegedly” disclaimer and relying on the public to somehow do what even our courts cannot, is willfully ignorant.

Publishing an allegation should be legally equivalent to making an allegation.

Is it accurate that this person is being tried for a crime? Did the prosecutor state which crime they were convicted of? Then report on that.

That's not defamation. Stop trying to have newspapers make editorial judgements. Just report the facts.

I work in a local TV newsroom for my job and the idea that the public has about journalism has been deliberately warped. A great example of criticism of bias is that it's widely reported that Luigi Mangione's motive was unknown until they uncovered and verified the manifesto. "Clearly the corporate media is in the pockets of the insurance industry. You can't think of one reason someone would hate the CEO of United?" Of course reporters can relate to your experience with health insurance, they're workers too. However, if you think about it, it's more biased to try to relate to that group (even though almost all the viewers are in it) than it is to ignore your opinion and only say what's in the black and white.

99% of accusations of media bias in my experience are just someone whose experiences don't match those of that particular story.