"search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent."
You don't think that definition fits this instance?
I'm genuinely amazed that so many people still think the mainstream media is this infallible guiding light of truth that shouldn't be questioned. That we should take the word of CNN because... well hey, they're CNN, the most trusted name in news! Yeesh.
They're highly fallible, but power is more so.
This isn't doxing per se because media enjoys certain protections when it comes to the investigation/revelation of information. Doxing is a complicated issue in tort because of varying state privacy laws. In most cases there's a standard of proof required to prove one's privacy wasn't violated through malicious means and with injurious intent. Wikileaks, for example, has rested on this legal distinction, at times using media protections to justify their own leaks of material (e.g. obtaining the material through 3rd party sources). At this point, no one has been doxed, but I do believe CNN is toeing a line that would be an interesting test case in court. It definitely seems like using institutional power to bully a private individual at face value, but the threat of revealing the identity of someone who operates in the public sphere (through publicly discoverable means), which social media is, doesn't necessarily make someone liable.