I agree with 99% of what you said, except “accusations should carry every bit as much force absent visual proof…” I think this is a reckless standard that allows the media to try “innocent until proven guilty” citizens by the media. Obviously video proof changes this, for it removes the question of whether or not the alleged incident actually took place, and gives context to the nature of those actions. You mention one case in which this type of evidence is vitally critical, that of Gareon Conley. The allegations cost Conley millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the initial video released seemingly contradicts his accuser’s story. This does not mean that the events that took place that night should not be investigated, and if proven guilty, fans, owners, and the NFL must stand up and say that these actions will not be tolerated. But it is unfair to allow “allegations” to be held as equivalent “proof” for in some cases that is just not true. And in those cases, allegations can have severe consequences.
Keep up the great work!