But it is a higher and more restricted standard to say a crime has been committed. Journalists can uncover and publish evidence that a crime has been likely committed.
Journalists cannot make a legal determination that a crime has or has not been committed. This is left for courts.
If I have evidence that a crime has been committed based on my layperson understanding of the law, I will surely inform others before the case is even brought to courts. Journalists can and should do the same.
By your logic, reporting based on evidence provided by whistleblowers shouldn't exist. Things like Watergate would likely have never happened.
Journalists shouldn't accuse anyone of committing a crime, and goes without saying that facts shouldn't be fabricated, which is unfortunately common nowadays as well, but they should report events that happened based on the information they have, whether these happen to be related to crimes or not.
Going beyond the evidence and jumping straight to the crime is where the situation becomes tricky as the defense would be unlikely to prove beyond doubt that the accused person was actually guilty - that's why terms are used such as "alleged child abuser". Alternatively, the evidence/facts can be reported e.g. "Trump featured in many victim reports as an abuser".
In the US, careful journalistic organizations follow ethical and legal guidelines that often split hairs.
Have a look here: New York Times - Ethical Journalism A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Opinion Departments
https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journali...