They're not reporting that because you're not a significant public figure.
Now, I think they were targeting journalists. Explain to me how the video or live stream from their reporter is proof that their intended target was the journalists. They're not disputing that they killed them, just what their intentions were.
It's difficult to prove intentions without having some form of explicit documentation of the sort that's unlikely to be forthcoming from the Israeli military.
You can point out that they've killed a lot of journalists (which they did), that international journalism organizations are calling for UN intervention and sanctions for the targeting of journalists (which they did), that the stream was not new or an unknown thing, and the location had been being used by multiple news organizations for coverage (which they did), that their second strike hit medical responders from the bombed hospital (which they did), that they're historically not productive at investigations into their killing of journalists (which they did), that there's counter claims that the people they claimed to have been targeting were known to be elsewhere or were previously killed in a different location (which they did).
Those are facts. They paint a clear picture from which one can easily draw a conclusion, but that conclusion is not a fact.
Are you that desperate for every line of every relevant news article to align with your beliefs that you can't tolerate a news agency reporting "Israel claims they didn't do it on purpose"?