It's pretty much impossible to find an article where the journalist treats the Russian soldiers as unknown or neutral parties and almost just as hard to find articles that give the full statements from the Kremlin without the implication being that it's not a proper explanatory statement given the situation. The reason is the statements filling the majority of the body are from western sources, which were more reputable in that instance.

To your point on covering Israel, it would be in the interest of telling the story accurately to mention that journalists are vetted through the IDF and all footage is subject to that vetting as well as who is allowed in. The factual model you present breaks down when access is limited, both by the IDF killing journalists and by limiting the eyes on the ground journalists, their equipment, their film, and their employees at every level. If you control the opposition's ability to communicate reality, then you win under that model, but other news models like what Zeteo does mentions those things and the perspective is prioritized with the proper rarity and reputation that it actually has.

Reporting what governments say is the job of the media as the fourth estate, imo.

Not exactly. To paraphrase the well known example, the job of the fourth estate is not to say "the government says it's raining". It is to look outside and tell us if the government is telling the truth.