Note that the article doesn't say anything about the man's statements. It does say "The source stressed potential mental health concerns have not yet been ruled out, which could factor into any charging decision." They don't do reporting on the actual event, they try to make it seem as if it being "peaceful" is a controversial issue; but then do no reporting about what the suspect said.

The BBC also doesn't say anything about the perpetrator, but they don't put "peaceful" in quotes. "A pro-Israeli peaceful demonstration was under way when the attack happened, police say - the group meets regularly for a walk to remember the hostages taken by Hamas"

This is how they report it. No reporting on what the man said, even though it is on video; only an attempt to make it seem general. They cast doubt on whether it was "targeted"...there is a video of the man targeting it....

yet here you have officials saying it was targeted. So why the need to make it seem it was not?

NBC is better, it notes that these were people who gathered to support hostages. No quote marks here.

NBC "Multiple people were injured when an attacker used an incendiary device on demonstrators in Colorado who were marching to buoy awareness of hostages held by Hamas militants in Gaza." CNN: "A man reportedly set people on fire in Boulder, Colorado, leaving multiple individuals injured, the city’s police chief said, as people gathered for a ‘peaceful’ pro-Israeli demonstration." Why is "peaceful" in quotes? Is there a suggestion the people who gathered were not peaceful? No. It's an attempt to quietly tell the reader that there might be a mitigating circumstance, it's coded language

here is CBS...which won't identify anything in the headline...just a people being burned...

Paragraphs in...CBS won't tell you anything about it, it'sjust some generic event. This is a clear attempt to hide what happened. Only later in the article: "Witnesses at the scene told CBS Colorado that the suspect attacked people with Molotov cocktails who were participating in a walk to remember the Israeli hostages who remain in Gaza." Why isn't that at the top?

This is how legacy media reported an attack on people. This is what they do. They downplay the motive and refuse to report what the perpetrator said...every attempt is made to hide all the details. It's systematic. It's not just "whoops"...it's systematic. The screenshots tell you how they did this. It has been hours since this happened. It's not that they didn't know. They know...they see it...and they too often work to hide and minimize it.

Here is ABC...you have to read half the article to get to; "Leo Terrell, head of the antisemitism task force at the Justice Department, said that an 'incendiary device' was thrown at participants in the Run for Their Lives walk. The attack happened 'as they peacefully raised awareness for the hostages held in Gaza,' Terrell said." Why is this half way into the article? Why not the lead? It's systematic. Every. Single. Article.

The CNN quote of "peaceful" isn't quoting anyone in the lead of this. If you try to find out why they felt the need to put this in quotes...there's no logic behind it. It's no where in the article.

I looked...the word "peaceful" doesn't appear in quotes in the article. It's only put in this quote mark at the top. Why? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/0...

Let's ask a simple question. If it was a peaceful gathering of ANY OTHER group and someone attacked them with molotov cocktails...would "peaceful" be put in quotes. Would the motive of the perpetrator be erased...or at the end of the article. If it was a BLM march would "peaceful" be in quotes? I think it's worth asking this basic question.

Is it unfair to latch onto this one word and the quotes? No. It's worth asking why. Why did someone feel the need to add quotes to this? It was a peaceful mark wasn't it? Someone attacked it. There's no question about whether it was peaceful. There is only a question about the perpetrator. If they wanted to put "anti-Israel" in quotes...as in "peaceful march attacked by 'anti-Israel' man"....then you could say that's fair...the person who did it is being described that way. Or "peaceful march attacked by 'terrorist'". Ok. Fair. But why put peaceful in quotes?

It’s on video. But from the reports above you wouldn’t know it

It’s on video

I know I misspelled “feel” in the first post in this 🧵…that now is getting lots of RT…can’t edit it…😞 anyway everyone understands

Succinct and correct. See 👇

Basic, factual reporting see

Correct 👇

Details