You infer malice, by twisting my words, which I’m not doing.

Sometimes bad things happen for reasons that aren’t malicious, understanding that will help.

No that’s a pretty solid twist of my words

I believe the issue comes down to not needing to later retract things to change the statement, like yeah I know Apple was convicted of this and currently is “convicted” but if they appeal and win and in 5 years the article says “Apple convicted of X, must pay Y” you’d necessarily need a follow up article to correct it OR a retraction or whatever later.

Anyways. I bet that’s the reason, even if I agree that what you said should be the way it’s reported as it is currently the most accurate