Obviously not. It matters what surrounding facts and circumstances are reported, how extraordinary they are, how they are known, how they were cross-checked, who is doing the reporting, what is their track record around research and impartiality, etc etc.

Different people will come to different conclusions about who they trust for what reasons. Some people may conclude they do not trust "the news" in this particular case or in general. Some may have ideas about what they think really happened and will not be convinced otherwise.

Very, very few people, especially outside "the news", will do actual, open-minded research. A lot more will comment and speculate pointlessly.

I think there’s also the issue that you’re more likely to be murdered by someone you know than a random person. At the very least, matching bullet marks from shots fired from his associates guns to any casings found at the scene is just due diligence.

Granted, even if you find such matches, you still have to prove motive and opportunity.