I specifically stated "I'm not saying this is right or wrong", and in the previous post:
"I am not looking to belittle the issue of racism, imply that it doesn't exist, or suggest it doesn't warrant serious investigation."
"Not that I think it should be brushed under the carpet, far from it"
"Again to reiterate I'm not saying it shouldn't be talked about"
...so it's not valid for you to suggest I think the media shouldn't cover it as much. So your first two questions are null, to answer the third question however if my kids were being abused online my personal reaction would be a private matter for my family and the relevant authorities, and I wouldn't expect it to be headline news in any event.
One of the most frustrating things about discussions like this is no matter how many caveats you put in posts some people often want to jump to conclusions and twist the conversation round to a target agenda. I can't spell it out any clearer than I have in my two previous posts, in multiple places, me stating surprise at a media reaction is not tantamount to me condoning the behaviour that triggered the reaction, or saying it shouldn't be talked about, and if people just ignore that it's a bit pointless continuing the conversation as they'll be trying to engage in a debate with someone who doesn't hold the viewpoint they incorrectly perceive them to hold.
edit: The Johnson / Patel thing I don't think fully explains it, in my mind that feels more like the extra wood chucked on the fire once it's already in full swing rather than the accelerant, with Mings bringing it up and Starmer using it for political point scoring. I mean, they were out of order right? Yet it was a smaller news story back then. That's kind of what I'm getting at, the response from senior politicians to the taking of the knee wasn't such a bushfire story, it got reported on at the time and rightly so but had largely faded into the background in the past couple of weeks. It gets picked up on again because it ties in with the narrative, of course.
I guess to put it another way, and play devils advocate, why weren't previous stories of abuse covered to a more extreme level in the media? If I were to be a hypocrite and put words in people's mouths, I could ask why people thought it was acceptable for online racist abuse to NOT be headline news? Why because a few people have just played in the Euro final is it suddenly such a newsworthy story when it has sometimes just got modest coverage, perhaps a little Ian Wright interview or whatever in the past?!? Is it only heroes playing in the final that deserve the attention, never mind all the other numerous people subjected to abuse? I'm being a bit flippant here, I understand that by making an example of this they can leverage it to help more people in future, raise awareness etc, but the point remains about why previous occurrences weren't subject to more attention.