I guess, maybe it isn't that weird, maybe that's just how people are. There is very little diversity of thought or ability to see multiple dimensions in the general public, so why should I expect it in journalism (well, it's supposed to be their job, but that's obviously old fashioned).

> Why would it be weird? Is there an alternate perspective where the nation's capitol wasn't ransacked by a hostile mob? What other interpretations are you imagining would be reported?

This is an example of the above. You see this event as: "The nation's capitol was ransacked by a hostile mob."

There is so much more to this story, so many obvious (to me) questions, and even other details in the coordinated narrative running in the media. Yet here you are, rhetorically representing that a "mob" "ransacking the capital" is all there is to it. And it's not just you, this sort of obvious(?) distortion of reality is becoming extremely common in culture war threads. I point it out regularly, and I've never had a single person touch the topic. Either they will reply but completely dodge the question as if they didn't see it, or they will say asking such questions are absurd or inappropriate, or simply not reply. To me, this mass change in the ~"collective consciousness" of the population is completely fascinating.