That could be misread too though depending on when you're reading it and when you think the article was written in relation to the events. If it's a quick article right after it reads like the original verbiage but if you think it happened a while before the article was written it sounds more authoritative that there were no injuries. The "it is unclear" phrasing makes the ambiguity clear that the author doesn't know if there were any at the time of writing.

And if injuries are later reported people will sneer that 'media always gets it wrong/lies'. If they use plain language and say 'we don't know if anyone was injured yet' then people will sneer that 'I could have wirtten that, they're trying to sensationalize a nothingburger.'

How about: "As of the time of writing, we don't know of any reports of injuries"?

There's no need to use 15 words when 9 will do.

"At the time of writing there are no reports of injuries."

Honestly, that's redundant, because it's obvious in context.