When you follow any ongoing news story, especially one with Donald Trump at the middle of it, it's important to recognize patterns the media will use in establishing narratives. They will never officially tell you in a story that they're assuming a position that's oppositional to Trump, but you call tell whose side their on by comparing their language to what a lawyer would use in a courtroom.
Since Trump tweeted his accusation that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped, just about every media story on the matter (and most of the headlines) have used the phrase "without evidence" to describe Trump's claim. Why is that noteworthy? Isn't evidence important? Sure it is. But in all the years the media have been attributing statements to politicians in news stories, when did they start telling us on every single occasion if the politician provided "evidence". When Barack Obama claimed that voter fraud is rare, did they tell us he did so "without evidence"? Because he did. But they didn't say that. When Hillary claimed she had turned over all her work-related e-mails, did they report this statement as having been offered "without evidence"? Because it was. In fact, there was plenty of evidence that it was false. But all they did was report and attribute the statement.
