I feel there is a difference between giving both (or all) sides a voice and setting up a fire only to fan the flames. 1) Release 3-5 articles all supportive an

I feel there is a difference between giving both (or all) sides a voice and setting up a fire only to fan the flames. 1) Release 3-5 articles all supportive and encouraging and downtalking any other sides. Fire them off daily or weekly at the start of a movement. 2) Spin around a month or two later and post little positive coverage and now post the other side(s) arguments while downtalking the movement. A complete tailspin from the first step. If 1 & 2 don't have that month period between and happen at the same time - I see it as giving a voice to both sides. If 1 and 2 have a large time gap between them, it's setting up a fire then fanning the flames. In recent memory, outside of "fringe" or "everyone discards it as a right wing nutjobs newspaper" (Breitbart) there has never been negative/critical coverage of any school "protests". All MSM has nothing but positive things to say until the movement is dying out/people are forgetting about it at which point they become highly critical, piss off those in the movement, and fan the flames a while longer. It's something I see time and time again. It's the timing that is suspicious. Not necessarily the articles themselves.