A group of men physically assaulted him, leaving him with internal bleeding, a broken jaw, and multiple bruises.

But to the activist media, this alleged act of political violence is not an important part of the story despite the fact that America is in a period of heightened tensions over politics. Instead, they chose to focus on the victim’s problematic past.

RedState’s Jennifer Van Laar noted how ABC’s Miami affiliate covered the story. “WPLG then named the victim and reported that he’d been arrested in 2017 during a protest in Hollywood, Florida regarding renaming Confederate statues and monuments, accused of ‘jabbing a flag, containing a Confederate design, at people,’” she wrote.

The report pointed out that during the protest, the victim wore a t-shirt that said “League of the South,” a neo-Confederate organization.

But it wasn’t enough to hone in on the victim’s past affiliation. They also revealed his identity to the public even after acknowledging that he “has spoken publicly about his past support of white nationalism, but said he changed his ways.”

It is worth noting that there is no evidence that the attacker was aware of the victim’s past ties to the League of the South, which means it has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. But we already know what this is, don’t we?

Progressives often criticize conservatives for bringing up the criminal past of a black victim of police violence – especially when it has nothing to do with the incident. They posit that this is only being done to distract from the actions of the police officer and to lessen sympathy for the victim.

They are not wrong. I’ve often criticized this same behavior myself.

But this story shows they are no better. By emphasizing the victim’s past, they are attempting to smear him in a way that will distract from the fact that he was brutally beaten, possibly for his political views. They don’t want to acknowledge that this could be the latest in a series of politically-motivated assaults.

It was only a month ago that a man allegedly killed an 18-year-old Republican in North Dakota by running him over with his car after a political dispute. If the activist media had been able to tie the victim to racist groups, you can bet that this would be the primary focus of the reportage on the matter.

But we already know how this story would be covered if the political parties were switched, don’t we? If this had happened to a supporter of Val Demings, all the major news outlets would give it wall-to-wall coverage in an attempt to smear Republicans.

Instead of focusing on the issue of political violence, outlets like ABC are more concerned about spinning a narrative and avoiding the problem altogether. After all, the political affiliations of the individuals involved are not convenient for these people, right?

Unfortunately, this is a trend that will not die off anytime soon – if ever. When you have a Fourth Estate that is bent on influencing, rather than informing, its audience, this is precisely what you get. It is yet another reason why trust in the media is currently in the toilet and why alternative outlets are flourishing on the internet.

It is one thing for a news agency to be biased. But it is quite another to engage in outright politicking. Choosing politics over actual reporting has been – and will continue to be – the activist media’s downfall and the reason why they no longer have the credibility they once had in the past.