which is the most confounding thing about it ALL to me. I'm not even asking people to convict the dude, but to think critically about it at the very least.

the closest takes I've seen to yours are John Ziegler, whose notoriety over skepticism over the coverage of the Penn State/JoePa/Sandusky matter has got him the "stamp of tinfoil" may discredit him in the eyes of some, and Stereo Williams, who appears to have quit his job at the Daily Beast (who is towing a very Hillary Clinton-or-else type line on this topic), possibly because of the fall-out related to coverage of this matter.

in Ziegler's case (who has said he wasn't a fan, or even someone who paid much attention), he came into the whole thing, and even after watching it, convinced of MJ's guilt. then he learned/investigated more, and he's become far more skeptical, and even flipped the other way. he was one of those who thought the whole Jussie Smollett situation was BS, and has compared this situation to that, only he says there's more to corroborate Smollett's claims than Wade's at this point.

Williams's take published on Medium seemed very much a mea culpa, even with reminders of the necessary discussions and his "no dog in the fight" stance.

this seems to be very much limited to the US media. in the UK, there is a much wider range of reaction, and in Italy (where it flopped the hardest), one piece in Panorama goes all the way in, dissecting some of the most graphic claims as they were presented.

(granted the Italians DO have a bit of a problem with the topic if recent stories are any indication...)

Again, regardless of where people stand, I expect there to be more of a spectrum of opinions, not this unilateral bullshit. especially in the "liberal" space.