I wanted to look at a spectrum of fact-check sources, myself, as it looked to me like what I was generally seeing on either side was so biased and/or selective as to be questionable. I feel like I better understand now what's been going on, and what makes now different.
I will say, it's seemed bizarre to me that the immediate right-leaning response hasn't so much been to say this was OK, as to immediately jump to "OBAMA STARTED IT," without acknowledging that regardless of how accurate that is or isn't, it's a legitimate problem. (Is the assumption that invoking obama's name is like invoking god's name or something? I think it's pretty obvious that I'm pretty liberal, but I was really upset at plenty of stuff that happened under him, too. Invoking his name doesn't suddenly make me think something bad is good.)
And it does look like the press coverage was different because the situation up until a couple of months ago was different, but even if biased coverage were more blatant here, why would that be a reason to totally drop the human rights aspect??? Like, if the argument is that the press is just straight-up lying about the whole thing, that's one argument, but then you lose the "but obama" part of it, too. A friend of mine who I'd expect to be more compassionate posted a right-leaning article (from the dailywire, sadly) with the "obama did it too" argument and I was really confused about whether she'd missed the point or just felt like she needed to be a counter to all the liberal people in her feed or what.
I should really no longer be surprised by anything anyone says in the political arena.