Huh, the article where they say "Trump did not explicitly tell people to 'storm' or 'breach' or 'break into' the Capitol" and instead “peacefully and patriotically” march does't fit the mold of "pure, unadulterated bias."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-stor...

I'm so confused!

Snopes rated that claim "Mixed"

Compare:

  It was a subjective call on whether ____'s use of phrases "you have to show strength" and "demand that ____ do the right thing" were meant to condone violence and crimes among ____ extremists without explicitly encouraging it. 

With:

  ___ said they should “stay in the street,” “fight for justice,” and “get more confrontational.” But there was more context to ___ remarks, and ___ didn’t call for violence, nor did ___ words incite violence.

---

The first is from the article on Trump you cited (rated "Mixed").

Second quote is from an article about comments by Maxine Waters on George Floyd protests & LA riots (of which she explicitly said, "I call it a rebellion") https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maxine-waters-comments/ (rated "False")

The pattern seems to be: If there's a way a favored speaker can be taken positively, that will be explained. If there's a way a non-favored speaker can be taken badly, it will be called out.

That statement is correct. Why are you confused?

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-s...

Engage with the given example, which proves the claim.

If a source makes questionable claims to the left or right, it is biased. If it makes questionable claims to the left and right, it is not biased, it just lacks quality.

There's nothing questionable about the statement you quoted.