you can choose to interpret it like that sure, doesn't change the generally accepted definition at all
speaking of immunity to facts though ... is CNN still going around calling Hunter Biden's laptop a Russia conspiracy?
how about that 2016 Russia hoax they kept pushing?
Nah, they'd rather keep quiet on the subject.
You see, if they publish something like "Hunter's laptop was a Russian hoax", people can accuse them of lying when it is proved wrong. But if they publish nothing at all, they can merely say, "We didn't think it was newsworthy".
This way, they control what the people see, without publishing anything obviously false.
Like, another example is not covering the riots in Philadelphia. They could say something like this is white supremacist violence, which would be a lie, so they'd rather say nothing at all. That way, readers won't start to wonder if BLM is really a good thing.
Anything to keep the narrative going.