Many sides

Plenty of time has passed since the lethal act of a white supremacist in Virginia. I feel that I can think rationally rather than emotionally about the subject. The primary issue that I want to discuss is the media's response to Trump's response.


After the incident, Trump condemned violence "on many sides." This certainly wasn't the best response he could have made, especially since only one side suffered the loss of life. The media, however, went completely overboard in how they discussed Trump's words.

One of the big arguments was that violence was 100% the fault of white supremacists. It was well established that counter-protesters did resort to violence. Some people have insisted that without racist protesters (although there is reason to believe that some involved had no racist intentions), the counter-protesters wouldn't have been there in the first place. That might sound good to some, but it was clearly spin. To truly believe this line of logic, you have to believe that counter-protesters were in no way responsible for their own actions.

A lot of people still criticize Trump for refusing to condemn the actions of white supremacists. The problem with these arguments is that he did condemn their actions and their organizations. The real reason that he faced this ridicule is because he condemned the actions of white supremacists as well as the actions of the counter-protesters.

Again, Trump certainly could have handled the situation better. The media, on the other hand, was far too critical of his decision to condemn all violence. They have made it perfectly clear that they wanted Trump to completely ignore the violent actions of the counter-protesters. Apparently, the media believes that violence is acceptable if they support the cause. Personally, I think the media's defense of violence was worse than Trump's reluctance to single out white supremacists.