That is absolutely the pattern they use with antifa, BLM, and other useful idiots. I am merely pointing out that their usual smears are plausibly deniable in this case. Nobody who isn't already aware of this pattern will be convinced by an ambiguous example like this, where the summary is accurate enough not to count as obviously biased.

It's not really 'interesting.' It's just journalists behaving like presstitutes, as is usual.