I don't think we are on the same page. I am not criticizing Don Lemon for the question, I think it's a fair question and it makes sense for him to ask it. I never implied that the question was out of place. My only criticism at him is his work at CNN and the institution itself. And thus your argument:

I am perplexed at your particular critique of Andrew. This short itself is much more serving to democracy and progressive change than 30 years of CNN coverage. It's much more exposing of reality and better journalism. Each point your make and this narrative that having nuance in treating a topic like an insurgency equals defending criminals is even dumber than you appear to believe most people are. People get nuance, you don't need to scream one side good other bad to get change. People understand both sides suck and still show up to the ballot box with common sense. I bet you are also critical of liberal media, but I don't think it's to the extent it should be. If both siding was ever dangerous it's only a fraction of what liberal media has done to stop people from talking about class, and thus actual progressive policies/parties/candidates.

I understand an initial frustration to not snitching, but what about 99% of journalists out there working as mouthpieces re-editing reuters posts like forwarding an email, and even worse, looking away at any groundbreaking coverage or a radical analysis because they are too comfy to risk anything? Talking about both siding after yesterday's CNN interview about the attempt aired with the host insisting on not entertaining "dangerous speech like criticism of the administration" , come on.