Reuters isn't reporting what happened, they're reporting on what Israel said happened.
They are, to the best of their abilities, a non-editorial news source.
"Israel lies about target of attack" is editorial, regardless of accuracy.
The report about what happened is a different article
In the content of the article about Israels statement they open with it being journalists who were killed, continue to point out that they had been there for weeks and that it's normal for news outlets to do this, which is why multiple news agencies were at that location. They also only refer to the targets as "alleged targets" who were "allegedly militants".
They also list the report about the man and his killing by Israeli forces above the story of what Israel said about it.
We've gotten very used to media being by default editorial in nature. It doesn't just say what happened, it tells us how to feel about what happened. A handful of new agencies still try to report on facts, and leave qualitative judgement for the reader.
This does result in odd headlines sometimes when they report on stories they are involved in. Like this headline (which has been revised), or when the AP dutifully reports on the white house calling them lunatics for following standard journalistic writing style, mysteriously detailed in the "AP style guide".
Neutrality free from context or interpretation of any sort is opening the door for lies to have equal ground with the truth. Needing that context to be present in the headline without reading the body is starting to erode the notion of being unbiased.