Initial reporting a few hours ago was notoriously foggy, not due to a lack of facts but lack of clarity in the writing written by ADHD addled "internet reporters."

That's why I wait for reporting from mainstream news outlets. I never read these "internet reporters" as they rarely take the time to actually get the story before publishing their garbage.

But that's all really irrelevant. You can find this piece of news on any widely known and widely read news source, with most all of them in general agreement on the basic facts.

What is the average internet citizen supposed to derive from that exposition?

What I stated above. Don't believe any of these crap sources. Look for the news on something more main stream.

Question back at you. Why bring up this garbage reporting multiple hours after the event, when there is already plenty of quality reporting to choose from?

You seem more than capable of filtering good reporting from bad. In the internet age there is always going to be bad reporting, especially very early on in an event. Good reporting is willing to wait just a bit to get information correct. So the very first few reports are likely from unreliable sources. And the most reliable sources will tell you right away when they haven't confirmed all of the facts. Unreliable sources never mention that.

--Peter