100%. I’m not a formally trained journalist but I would imagine that rule number one is, “in the middle of a crazy developing situation, only report what you know”.  

It might look obvious from 2000 miles away but when you are at the scene of a crowd where gunfire is happening it is very confusing and everybody’s describing different things happening and so you just report what you can confirm.   I’m not really sure what the other motivation would be, like they were going to cover this up or something, I’m not really following the logic there. 

 And there are times in the past when journalists have failed to do this and ended up being humiliated, a headline that’s up for 2 minutes that turns out to be wrong will hound them for a long time