Reporters tend to be very careful about this in the context of things like deaths, embarrassing scandals, etc. where they might be sued. If you note, the kind of stories you’re referring to tend to be referencing what someone else said—a source in law enforcement, neighbors, friends, etc.—because that makes it clear that there are not the opinion of the news organization itself.

I agree with everything you said, but the news organization's decision to include or not include a quote or speculation from someone is fundamentally a narrative choice. And every news organization makes those choices at their own discretion and it can result in uncritical reporting.

Pick a few frontpage stories from any news site you like, then see how its covered one a new source you don't like/leans the opposite way politically (short of the crazy outlets) and see how the same stories are reported. You'll see different quotes, different speculation, different choices of what to include or not include. Hell even the choice of what is covered on the frontpage will obviously vary if you just compare them. Saying that what a news outlet is reporting is "not the opinion of the news organization itself" may be technically correct in a legal sense, but that's worst kind of correct.

Yes, coverage follows trends for most news organizations but that’s pretty far off of my original point which was that the reason the responsible news organizations weren’t covering this as an anti-Jewish hate crime was just there was no evidence supporting that theory. Now that details have started to come out, we have a good example of why serious journalists have that policy.