His analogy was perfect - he was discussing the headlines that contradict what is actually happening in the Chauvin case, and in many instances, explicitly contradict the story they are attached to.
If the person only "heard" (read) the "commentary" (headlines) and didn't have other information to go by, they would be convinced that the outcome is unexpected when the fight result is announced.
It would be a better analogy if the audience was WATCHING the fight and SAW fighter A land more punches, and then the fight was ruled for fighter B.
His analogy was perfect - he was discussing the headlines that contradict what is actually happening in the Chauvin case, and in many instances, explicitly contradict the story they are attached to.
If the person only "heard" (read) the "commentary" (headlines) and didn't have other information to go by, they would be convinced that the outcome is unexpected when the fight result is announced.
Except there’s video evidence, so no, that cucked fake-news faggots analogy wasn’t perfect.