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.