I believe that to a degree some public exposure of things directly relatable to government are inevitably in the public eye, and to that extent it is impossible to leave it entirely to the courts. But, particularly when there are issues that would be actual crimes if true, that we all should be more circumspect, at least until there is credible evidence that there is something to report beyond innuendo. My politics don't enter into it, and yes they should have been more circumspect with Hilary, at least until we knew from Comey's report that she had broken the law even if they declined to prosecute. It is a difficult thing, particularly with social media being the way it is today. If it is an issue that doesn't carry a criminal penalty, then at that point public opinion will be what it is, it is just that once you have let unfounded allegations (with the serious implications of jail time and ruined repuations) loose in todays social media climate, it's too late to unring that bell. I thought the OJ case was a travesty as well, but I was one of the few that told others that I didn't have enough information to make a judgement about his guilt, and therefore I would wait until the trial was complete.
I agree, however I don't believe what MSM is doing these days can be called responsible reporting by any stretch of the imagination. They are the primary actor complicit in extra judicial pillorying that is rampant in the media. I would hope there is some way to return to more honest and objective reporting, but I see no glimmer of it, except from non-traditional sources.