It is not always true because it is in print.

In  Fields, Fens and Felonies: Crime and Justice in Eighteenth-Century East Anglia (2016 Waterside Press, United Kingdom), Gregory Durston writes in his introduction that “newspapers were usually reasonably reliable when it came to reporting the basic facts of a case and its outcome…” (p. 17). He goes on to comment further that it was not uncommon for newspapers to use a few select words for certain types of crimes quite liberally when there were in fact a variety of specific words assigned to specific types of crimes.

As a result the newspaper may not have been entirely legally accurate.

Durston is discussing newspaper reporting of criminal cases in 18th century East Anglia, and one has to be careful extrapolating his statements to newspapers in general. However, it’s important to note that newspapers are not court records and should not be considered as their equivalent. The genealogist should use a newspaper reference to a court case as a means to learn that it exists–not as a completely accurate account of what took place in court.

There could be legal details that for a variety of reasons a newspaper decided not to print.

So when a newspaper says your relative was found guilty of a robbery in 1800, you probably should try and locate actual court records.Those records may use a different word to describe the crime and that word may have had a very specific meaning.

All of this is why one cites exactly what one has used. If a newspaper said a person was convicted of a robbery, then that newspaper should be cited so that you (or someone reading your information and citation) knows that you’ve not referenced the actual court record–just the newspaper was used. It may be that court records are not extant for the period of interest.

No matter.

Your citation should reference the newspaper and you should remember that, the newspaper may have got the essence of the story right but that there could be a few details that are askew.