This article read like a self-parody. The obsession with what words to use. The instant reach for Nazism as the point of reference (Ezra Klein invoking the "Nuremberg defence"?) The conspiracy theories about The Narrative and The Media, all so strangely similar to the nutcases on the other side. The rage at the Establishment. The foaming-at-the-mouth tone. Dave Spart lives!
I will point out that you only talk about stylistic issues and do not actually address the central point of the article, which is that language matters ("terrorist" or "freedom fighter"?) and that the discourse using these words is influenced by it.
A discussion about freedom fighters is a different one than a discussion about terrorists, even though the people involved might have committed the exact same crime (shooting a bunch of people).
As such, designating the mob as American Patriots and the event itself as a "riot" or "insurrection" instead of as a "coup" is - indeed - important and very telling.
A defining feature of this era is that language doesn’t matter, starting with "fake news" in the summer of 2016. Riot/protest, fascist, coup - these terms and more have been co-opted and reflected back at the other side. Same words, different meaning in the opposing context.
Might the simpler explanation be that liberals tend to be measured in their criticisms of conservatives and perhaps that leads to sometimes underplaying things?
