> "While the 'Trusted News Initiative' publicly purports to be a self-appointed 'truth police' extirpating online 'misinformation,' in fact it has suppressed wholly accurate and legitimate reporting in furtherance of the economic self-interest of its members," the suit alleges.

In this case, the article gives no specific examples, and doesn't verify the claims - that accurate reporting has been suppressed is left as a mere allegation that the article's author doesn't feel worth confirming.

> Kennedy, 68, whose father Bobby was assassinated in 1968 while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, became a face of the anti-vaccine movement after promoting the medically discredited theory that vaccines cause autism.

But when it comes to what Kennedy got wrong, it manages to come up with specifics, and uses its authoritative voice to confirm Kennedy was indeed wrong - "the medically discredited theory", not "theory said to be discredited".

The trick is common: Leave statements you dislike as mere allegations (even if trivial to verify), the vaguer the better, but confirm and elaborate on statements you do like. That way you get a "he said but the facts are" article that pretends to be objective, but has pretty much decided for its readers who they should believe. It stands out in this article because its vaguer on the presumed subject, i.e. the lawsuit, but specific on Kennedy's background, which is tangential.