Ridiculous claims require strong evidence. In this instance we have a ridiculous claim with ridiculous evidence.

Oh, dear. From Conservatives Conjure Up Liberal Support for Antifa Violence by Peter Beinart. Leftist journalist says there is no basis for criticism of leftist journalists.

The claim is that,

Despite trawling social media, conservative publications found scant evidence that mainstream commentators approved of an attack on a journalist.

The spark to this extraordinary claim is the attack by Antifa on journalist Andy Ngo in Portland this past week. An attack undertaken in the presence of Portland police who stood by and did nothing.

On June 29, a video appeared showing masked activists wearing black clothing—the garb commonly associated with “antifa,” the self-described anti-fascist movement—assaulting the conservative journalist Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon. As if in unison, conservative publications published articles accusing the “left,” “liberal journalists,” and “reporters” of condoning the attack.

That’s a disturbing charge. Luckily, there’s little evidence it’s true. Indeed, the articles in question say less about widespread liberal approval of antifa attacks than about the right’s need to conjure it up.

There's little evidence? Well, only if you clothes your eyes and do not read the papers. And close your ears and do not listen to the reports. Or, perhaps most tellingly, if you ignore your own reporting.

From The Rise of the Violent Left by Peter Beinart, again writing in The Atlantic but this time from all of twenty-two months ago in the September, 2017 edition.

Such tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left. When the masked antifa activist was filmed assaulting Spencer on Inauguration Day, another piece in The Nation described his punch as an act of “kinetic beauty.” Slate ran an approving article about a humorous piano ballad that glorified the assault. Twitter was inundated with viral versions of the video set to different songs, prompting the former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau to tweet, “I don’t care how many different songs you set Richard Spencer being punched to, I’ll laugh at every one.”

The violence is not directed only at avowed racists like Spencer: In June of last year, demonstrators—at least some of whom were associated with antifa—punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California. An article in It’s Going Down celebrated the “righteous beatings.”

The claim that he forgot what he wrote might have at least a smidge of validity, had not Beinart,

It is a patently absurd argument made in a disingenuous fashion. In general, the mainstream media are usually a little squeamish about reporting positively about violence unless it is against someone they really dislike. But they certainly are pretty tolerant of Antifa with all sorts of obfuscating arguments that hinge on the idea that words are violence and ideas are dangerous. Most everyone else see sociopathic losers wielding violence against those who are different from them. The press see defenders of the left. They cheerlead their activities. When someone ends up being injured, the mainstream media downplays it, often by intimating that the victim "asked for it."

A despicable apologist approach apparently endorsed by Beinart given his approving quote of

Charlie Warzel of The New York Times, who said, “Violence should be unacceptable. But there are also serious risks involved with putting yourself in volatile situations.”

Any argument on principle that starts with "X is . . . BUT . . . " is inherently suspect.

In order to make his argument Beinart starts with small fry on the left who have cheered Antifa. They are indeed small fry. That proves nothing. To show that mainstream media have not supported Antifa, he needs to actually show that, not distract by focusing on small fry.

In his own article he mentions some big mainstream media who have exhibited direct or passive support for Antifa including, The New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, The New Republic, Slate, Media Matters, and Mother Jones. For each he has some contextual story to try and downplay what they have said.

And to be fair, there is plenty of nuance here and clearly everyone is using this instance as a stand-in for a lot of past behavior and statements. And there is a wide definition of what constitutes support. "We think that Antifa should have swung some more padlocks on chains" is one strong affirmation. "Antifa focuses on protecting others from harm" is a more passive support but they are both support. Beinart doesn't get into the details. He misdirects (small blogs), he explains away (making excuses for the big MSM.)

Finally he changes the field goals. He redirects from mainstream media leftists to Establishment party members.

Despite scouring the internet, writers for the Daily Caller, the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, and Red State didn’t find a single Democratic politician or prominent liberal, or any major media figure, who defended antifa’s violence.

The center-right sites I read usually focus on MSM support for Antifa. Most politicians are usually more sophisticated than to be seen supporting a violent anarchist movement. Most, but not all.

Click to enlarge.

From my reading of the press over the past few years, the mainstream media and their personalities have been slow to condemn Antifa (though they do occasionally), quick to make excuses, and eager to obfuscate Antifa's goals and actions. Nothing in this article approaches an argument to revise that assessment.