I think these comments are exaggerated and misrepresent the situation, and no basis in fact is provided:

> the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" ...

> the media collectively decided that it was a good idea to promote abandoning the principle of "innocent until proven guilty,"

The stories I've read have done a good and careful job of corroborating and verifying their stories. Those that don't are subject to massive libel lawsuits like the one that shut down Gawker.

> smugly righteous

> hysteria

This is name-calling, which doesn't add to the discussion, and it's against nobody in particular, which makes it meaningless. Who, by name, is smugly righteous or hysterical? And do those people affect us? Are they representative or influential somehow?