I feel there is a difference between giving both (or all) sides a voice and setting up a fire only to fan the flames.<p>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.<p>2) Spin around a month or two later and post little positive coverage and <i>now</i> post the other side(s) arguments while downtalking the movement. A complete tailspin from the first step.<p>If 1 &amp; 2 don&#x27;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&#x27;s setting up a fire then fanning the flames.<p>In recent memory, outside of &quot;fringe&quot; or &quot;everyone discards it as a right wing nutjobs newspaper&quot; (Breitbart) there has never been negative&#x2F;critical coverage of any school &quot;protests&quot;. All MSM has nothing but positive things to say until the movement is dying out&#x2F;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.<p>It&#x27;s something I see time and time again. It&#x27;s the <i>timing</i> that is suspicious. Not necessarily the articles themselves.