This is very good constructive criticism. I agree in respect to having a preconceived idea of what was going to be published-lean towards the side of disagreeing with Trump. And the photographs were great, yet without context they can only mean so much.

Take the photo of the bloodied man on the ground for example. From the article, none of us can say why he was in such a situation. Maybe he hit a Trump supporter. Maybe he had an accident. Maybe Trump supporters assaulted him. Maybe an officer causes the injury. The list goes on. Yet without any clarification, the reader most likely assumes that the man on the ground is in the wrong, when in reality the information provided no facts as to whether he was a perpetrator or a victim.

This type of reporting causes vast misconceptions about the great photographs taken, and lead people to assume a plethora of things that have no factual evidence. Having a caption providing context as to why this man was in his situation would improve the reporting by far.

Nonetheless, fantastic photography!