Did the opinion network really just ask why one side mocked a child on the opposite side, when they and their own have gone to the very same depths with far coarser methods, and at a time not so far removed from the present? Never mind that the kid's got a point, it's another reason I don't accept the network and any affiliates at face value anymore - has it been as willing to provide an equal check to the political figures on its own side of the divide before being placed under examination? Because I haven't seen that to be the case, and a check of its archives, both text and video, should provide ample evidence.
From an organization that's had the gall to claim the position of arbitrating when it has a bias as blatant as the side it opposes, such a statement is another reason for the wrong kind of attention - not because of the benefits the organization provides, but to the damage it causes. Remorse and change are more alien to it than hat-screeching and the fear of falling out of favor with their own benefactors.
Speaking of fear and favor, considering the environment, the person voicing that opinion is more likely to survive the statement made, despite the existence of cancel culture. Among the resources available in that field, I think it's worthwhile to examine which are more likely to share the speaker's opinion and accept them should they leave their position for whatever reason (or is that improper pronoun usage?).
If there's anything about lackwitted behavior and diminished self-awareness in this situation, I think it's well past time to remedy that with a look in the mirror at the misdeeds such a community is capable of, what it drives (can drive, has driven) people to do, and why people would refuse to be part of it, because focusing on such a community to one's own detriment is a waste.
To that end, I think I'll keep the joys of tree-book to myself.