“Alleged” is for when there’s an ongoing legal case. If you shot someone you’d be a suspected shooter until you’re charged with a crime. If you’re legally charged for murder, you’d then be called an alleged murderer. If you’re convicted of murder then you’d be called a murderer.

If you apply the same rules, then the media should only use words that describe what happened (bombing, shooting, shelling etc.) and not use words that indicate it’s a crime until there are legal charges.

It doesn’t matter how much you feel that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered people, the media won’t refer to him that way because he wasn’t convicted. Responsible media will handle a word like genocide with even more care since its an even bigger crime than murder.

Ultimately it will be history that will judge whether it’s a genocide or conversely whether people have been making false accusations of genocide as apart of a propaganda campaign. Nobody serious in any position of responsibility will use the word genocide unless there’s compelling evidence. And so far we’ve only seen the kinds of things that happen in every war occurring. So it’s rightly termed a war no matter how many times one side of the conflict want it called a genocide. This is obvious propaganda, and responsible media source won’t be a part of that.