Exactly. That's a symptom of the hypocritical bias. Pilgrim did it, too. To wit:
"IMHO there's a big difference between a group of people whose intent is to loot, burn and destroy their own community and other people's businesses as opposed to those who have been partying all day and night and celebrating a championship win by their football team."
See what he did there? I don't know if it was intentional or unintentional, but the resulting effect is the same regardless. He took "a group of people" whose "intent" (a special word, meaning as if it was premeditated, and not a typical spontaneous mob action which is usually the case) to loot, burn and destroy "their own community" (how can anybody do that? That's crazy!) and then contrasted that "group of people" with the entirety of "those who have been partying all day and night," thereby elevating the "group of people" to the same stature of all those who were partying all day and night, meaning not just "a group of people" but everyone who participated in the protesting in Ferguson. The OSU riots are further mitigated by no mention whatsoever of the damage they did to "their own community."
That's how news stories get crafted with blatant bias.
It's much more difficult to demonize an entire group if you have to limit it to a qualified subset of the larger group. The opposite is true where you intentionally point out that it was just a handful of rioters who were the ones to set fires to couches and dumpsters, etc., making it very difficult to paint the large group as violent demons. But when you do that (paint one group with a wide brush and single out the exceptions of the other group) it makes to very easy (albeit a logical fallacy) to make the case that the two events were not the same at all.
Whereas if you treat each event equally, either by plucking out the exceptions in both groups and then defining the whole by that, or by broadly characterizing both groups as a whole by leaving out the exceptions from the characterizations, then both events have far more in common than their differences, with the only real differences being the scale of the riots, the color of the majority of the participants, and the events that provoked the riots. So when someone says they are completely different, those are really the only three differences that they're talking about. And when you get into the details of scale, all you're dealing with is the number of participants and time. So really, the case they're making is, the two riots are are completely different because of the color of the rioters and the reasons they rioted.
This isn't something I made up, or that I alone have observed. People all over the world have observed the same thing. It's the way they get reported that's the issue. And there are decades and decades of research and studies from sociological and psychological points of view as to why.
There are certain groups of people, mainly white racists (and to a large degree the more zealot of the American Conservative community) who are outraged, incensed and go just bat crap crazy when back-on-black crime, and 'black cop shoots unarmed white guy' doesn't get reported with the same zeal and fervor as 'white cop shoots unarmed black guy' does. They scream bias in the press. However, when white rioters are described affectionately as drunk and out-of-control revelers, while black rioters are described as violent protesters intent on destruction, they have no problem with that at all. That's not even, as Muttly put it, a false narrative, it's straight up hypocrisy. Own it.
If you own it, there's at least a semblance of a chance you can be a better person, if for no other reason you'll recognize when the media is attempting to manipulate you.
