Agreed, but my point was not that the O.P. had an airtight argument, but rather that your counterargument was ungenerous regarding the arguments that were made, and thereby didn't address several of the lines of criticism. This is a reasonable rejoinder to the point...you just hadn't made it before.

I don't think it's really my responsibility to argue the O.P.'s side of things, but I'll have one more go of it, just to illustrate that their perspective can't be quite as easily dismissed as you seem to think. It isn't that there isn't ultimately an argument aligned with your perspective that would be successful--there might be--but you made it too easy on yourself in places.

For instance, I don't think even your defense of "defund the police" given here really works. The problem with arguing that defunding was supposed to involve an effective redirection of funds is that what actually happened, predictably, was at the slogan-level. So police departments did get defunded in some places, mostly with substantial negative consequences to the communities they were intended to serve. Whether or not the funds were redirected to other programs, in practice, they were not, in general, sufficient to compensate for the loss of policing.

If, for instance, you run a right-wing anti-immigrant group and your rhetoric around unauthorized immigration is, "Shoot the bastards; make them all red", and you have a huge spike in murder, the thing to do is not plaintively complain that "we mean take pictures, and file civil lawsuits to put the people in debt!" If your slogan has a very clear literal meaning you have to take some responsibility for the consequences.

The media is by construction something of a mess these days--it reports what sells. Staggering numbers of missing people of all sorts are ignored every year because a missing person is a boring story unless it has some extra angle to catch one's attention. What sells is at best very much a mixed bag, though. There's a big market for the "anti-POC racist violence" story. For example, when the most recent Los Angeles hate crimes stats came out, NPR dutifully reported the depressing news: a huge percentage increase in the number of anti-Asian hate crimes, a sizable numerical increase in the number of anti-black hate crimes, etc.. This struck me as weird--why not use the same metric for everyone, and why didn't they mention anti-white hate crimes at all? So I looked up the stats, and the percentage increase in anti-white hate crimes was larger than the percentage increase in anti-black, while the numerical increase in anti-white crimes was greater than the numerical increase in anti-Asian. So there was no way for them to have a single metric that played up the "anti-POC racist violence" angle, and if they mentioned white people, they'd have to say something that showed that there was some metric by which anti-white violence was getting worse by more than some other group, which isn't the standard story.

So, if your point is, "Oh, ugh, media, *facepalm*," I agree. If your point is that media is systemicatically biased and only unwillingly responds to direct pressure to report on injustice against people of color, well, no, I can't agree to that at all. These days, it depends on the media, and it depends on the story.