For further reading: https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-crimes/
You identify the issues with someone's story that you don't like and then you make a story about how they 'admit' those things.
God help anyone who actually 'admits' anything these days as to some people that must be instantly discrediting.
Main example: "Elected official claims nothing bad was done"
It has a gentle enough negative connotation to allow you to massage the emotions of your reader, while still being a technically accurate statement.
Only people with something to hide will "claim" or "deny" something. It's the same idea where you're talking about something and your audience can feel a "big old but" coming. Even if you never produce the but, they still have the feeling what was just stated is about to be refuted.
They'd take some pure BS story from the internet that aligned with their politics and report it as "allegedly" to sound fair... and then list out the lies word for word as they came from some conspiracy site and then just move on. They'd sprinkle their whole broadcast withe these tidbits. You couldn't help but get the impression that controversy and scandal was surrounding whomever the target of the day was, despite no evidence of any kind being offered.
Think of an insurance claim and/or civil claim. In response to a civil complaint initiating a civil lawsuit, the defendant must answer the complaint by “admitting” or “denying” each allegation.
And “allege” is the entire basis of US criminal law...as in innocent until proven guilty. As in the defendant allegedly committed the crime until and unless convicted.
These are all legal terms of art.
More like the art of legalese, TBH.
Spelling out male middle names can make anyone sound like a serial killer.