No, the media spent years reporting about suspicious about his connections to Russia. That's an entirely different thing, and they were entirely right to do that.
> Remember how they lied about the Covington Catholic incident?
No, because that's pretty inaccurate and tendentious framing. I highly doubt they "lied." IIRC, the media, in general, reported on social media outrage which was actually happening and then later reporting corrected the misconceptions that were fueling that outrage.
They probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done, but that's a far cry from "lying."
> Remember how they said BLM protests were "mostly peaceful" as protesters burned down buildings causing over $2 billion in damage?
So? Both those things can be true at the same time.
> They probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done, but that's a far cry from "lying."
This is a bit of linguistic gymnastics. I don't know your exact politics, but I'm pretty sure that if Fox News did this kind of thing (which they also do) you'd be plainly calling them out for it. If you can't see that the very reporting that CNN and others did was fueling the very outrage on which they were reporting, and that it was a self-perpetuating cycle of their own making, then I'm at a loss.
No, I'm just not being misleadingly sloppy with language.
If there was a big protest at the intersection of First Avenue and Main Street about aliens mind-controlling the president, it's not a lie to report that the protest happened and what the protesters said, even though what the protesters said wasn't true. It's true that the protest happened and the protesters said things. That's a concept that a lot of people don't seem to get, and it leads to a lot of annoying noise.
> I don't know your exact politics, but I'm pretty sure that if Fox News did this kind of thing (which they also do) you'd be plainly calling them out for it.
What do you mean, exactly?
> If you can't see that the very reporting that CNN and others did was fueling the very outrage on which they were reporting, and that it was a self-perpetuating cycle of their own making, then I'm at a loss.
Why would you say that? Did you not see the second line that you quoted from me?
I saw the second line. It was a reluctant acknowledgement that "they probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done", which is the most tepid and gentle characterization that can be mustered without lying. On top of that, you also proceeded to say that $2 billion in property damage and "mostly peaceful" can co-exist. Sorry, but $2 billion (with a "b") in property damage and a much larger - but difficult to quantify - amount from lost business and other collateral damage is far too great to make the allowance of "mostly peaceful".
If you still think that the media isn't trying to gloss over all of this, look at the coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. I'm not a fan of the kid, and I'll gladly argue that, as a 17 year old, he shouldn't have been there. But he was trying to help in a peaceful manner, and in the events that unfolded - all seen on video - he clearly was cornered and forced to defend his life. Yet the media tried to paint him as a racist monster who chased after others to commit murder. Facebook wouldn't allow discussions of his innocence. GoFundMe refused to let him raise money for his defense on their platform. And night-after-night, the media, who had access to the original video the whole time, told us of his murderous exploits rather than give an honest accounting. In the end, a jury, having seen all of the evidence, acquitted him.
It SHOULD give you pause. What if, because of being deplatformed, he couldn't afford a competent defense and was convicted because of the media's actions? Who will be the next collateral damage in the narrative wars?
The major media outlets - on all sides - are corrupt. And we tolerate it.
Sorry, those things can obviously co-exist, otherwise you're in nonsense territory where everything is tainted because everything has nuts associated with it.
So the question is: how many people participated in the protests, how many damaged property, and (in this case) how many of those where just exploiting the situation to pursue other goals (e.g. boogaloo bois). If the peaceful fraction is in "most" territory, then they were "mostly peaceful."