> Nobody (at least, nobody identified) is reveling in what may have happened at the residential schools, or using it as a device to avoid forgiving any particul

> Nobody (at least, nobody identified) is reveling in what may have happened at the residential schools, or using it as a device to avoid forgiving any particular person. I believe this is where the misunderstanding lies. I think the root commenter is implying that that's exactly what the media was trying to do when they chose to push this narrative in the first place. The idea is that the media organizations in the linked article were trying to highlight historical wrongs in an attempt to ensure those wrongs are kept at the forefront of everyone's minds and not forgiven, and that resulted in "a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible", even in the face of a lack of evidence. The lack of skepticism isn't the point; it's what motivated the lack of skepticism in this case that the root comment was discussing. You can certainly disagree about whether that really was the media organizations' underlying motivation/bias, but I think the original quote is relevant.