So - any protest where 5 protesters were killed at once would be dramatic. Some light research suggests that basically all of the people that have been killed

So - any protest where 5 protesters were killed at once would be dramatic. Some light research suggests that basically all of the people that have been killed at protests were using the protests to cover up some other activity, or because of some 1:1 dispute or grief. None of the protests over the last few years have had more than perhaps 2 associated deaths with any given event, and that's in protests involving 15-20m people in total. The january 6th protest/riot involved 2000-2500-ish people, and 5 people died - 4 protesters and 1 police officer. Two more police officers committed suicide in the following weeks - could be unrelated, but seems....unlikely. So that already puts January 6th in a category of its own in terms of deaths relative to number of involved parties (at least in modern times, I suppose the boston massacre had the same number of deaths with fewer protesters). Then you couple the events with the context - a sitting president, disputing the electoral results, riles up a crowd of protesters, encourages them to go down to the capitol building, where the results of an election are being certified, and as a result - 5-7 people are dead. It's unprecedented. I agree that some of the "coup" hyperbole is overblown - when I think of coup, I think of a highly organized plot to overthrow a government. However, I don't think the lack of project management around this particular initiative should distract from the fact that a lot of the people there were trying to "stop the steal", aka stop the legitimate counting of elections through force and violence. So - a uniquely deadly protest, oriented around a presidential exhortation, that led to a group of people trying to disrupt the standard constitutional process of the peaceful transfer of power - that seems newsworthy, no?