Just the facts

Some reporters seem to take the position that they are "just reporting the facts". 

In a sense, therefore, they are claiming that they know nothing, since knowing requires the ability to make causal connections between the reported facts. 

This might seem like an honorable thing to do since they appear to be letting the audience for their facts draw their own connections between the facts. 

And people will inevitably draw connections, just as people discern movement in a animated film, interpolating or inferring movement between two adjacent frames.

But if two facts (or frames) are so far apart as to be open to a variety of interpretations, then it would seem that it behooves the reporter to assert, to proclaim, that no definitive conclusion, at least in his or her opinion, can be drawn.

This suggests the philosophical problem of inference which asserts that nothing can be known as causality is invisible.  This is the basic defense in trial based on circumstantial evidence, wherein the defense's main goal is to bring into question the possibility of any causal links between the evidence.

This, then, seems to be the case with "just the facts" reporting, which builds the case that the lack of any causal links is basically a win for the defense; rather than a call for further investigation.