To be fair, we should separate what the protesters are protesting and what the reporter says is part of a general debate. NYT does not get to say why people are

To be fair, we should separate what the protesters are protesting and what the reporter says is part of a general debate. NYT does not get to say why people are protesting, though it helps them drive a narrative if people reading the article can't tell the difference. They deliberately conflate vandalism with general debate, and unfortunately it is then up to us to be smart enough to not lump them together like they did. The formula is usually to take shocking story/reaction, humanize it at a micro level, talk to so-called expert who may have written a book, have expert give general reasoning at a macro level, and then watch readers confuse micro and macro.