Think Clinton.
Notice that there is no apostrophe in "supremacists." Therefore it is not their riot, by them. It is a riot about them. It's like when they talk about draft riots or food riots. It's not the food or the draft that is rioting. That is the subject of the riot.
Of course, you know the reason they worded it this way was to convey the false information that it was WS who were throwing rocks and attacking police.
Accurate, but a lie.
So what do they call when the KKK riots, "Black guys riot" ?
That's where your logic takes it.
Read the sub-headline:
"Hundreds of white supremacists riot. "
The error was is pluralizing "supremacist." I did take note that the word black only appeared once in the article and that was to describe the race of a witness.
Are these big city Blacks feeling 'protected' now that it is not politically correct to describe their race when the article is not favorable towards their race?