That the media in the US, of all places, should be left-biased seems like a very strange statement. There are a bunch of very far right outlets with massive viewership, a bunch of organizations with slight left tendency and lower viewership and a couple of insignificant left-leaning companies. Aside from the audience numbers the impact of right-wing extremist groups in the US is at an all-time high as the "alt-right" movement helped Trump win his campaign and represented in the government.
Also, equating an assumed left-bias in the media with a wide-spread conspiracy to hide the truth about an event like this is just buying into the alt-right propaganda bullshit. The media make a living by revealing information that noone else has, they'd all jump on the opportunity to expose something like this.
As for the police - hard to blame them for being careful when there were several heavily armed militias at the protest. Any perceived provocation by the police could have led to a massacre.
"MrFancypants"As for the police - hard to blame them for being careful when there were several heavily armed militias at the protest. Any perceived provocation by the police could have led to a massacre.
...Whereas there was absolutely zero risk of a massacre occurring as a result of them standing down while counter-protestors set about trying to violently shut down the rally? Not entirely sure I follow the logic here.
Maybe that's because of your strawman; noone claimed the police strategy would have "zero risk" of things going wrong. Very likely the police looked on and waited for some violence to occur. At that point they have a justification to step in aside from basically being forced into action. Besides, the same strategy worked well with other protests that had armed militias present.