On the first level, the 'dumb babbies can understand this level' level, you have: "The picture is saying that peaceful protests a mile long will be ignored by the media because they want to film the one guy smashing a car for no reason." à la:

and its uncropped friend:

But let's look further! The cartoon contrasts the large mass of protesters - who are peaceful and are protesting in the traditional way - with a single, masked violent protester. The single protester is the one getting all the attention. Now, I guess you could interpret this in two ways. You could say that this image only wants to say that it's unfair that the violent protesters get all the attention, while they get none. But considering the framing, the way the violent protester is depicted and the general narrative around violent protests, it seems fairly obvious that this picture is distancing the peaceful protesters from the violent protesters and is condemning them. In fact, merely the act of distancing themselves and putting the two types of protest in such clear contrast is playing into a narrative they should be objecting to. They're trying to depict themselves as 'the good ones', worthy of your sympathy. They're not one of those ruffians! They're essentially conforming to the 'proper, accepted' form of protesting. Queue up, get a permit, sign the petition and achieve nothing. You can't protest the system if you're going to explicitly conform to its rules and reject any other methods a priori. Then there's the other part. A core part of the cartoon objects that the media - depicted by all the dudes with cameras - focus only on the violent protesters but ignore the mass behind them. This operates on the assumption that it's possible for the situation to be reversed, with the mass getting all the attention and the minority being ignored. This is a mistake. The media is mainly liberal (In the classical sense of the word, what with them being capitalist entities themselves. This is especially true in Italy, where I assume this cartoon originates) and will thus rarely - if ever - support non-liberal causes. This isn't always a conscious choice, there's a lot at work here (read Flat Earth News to find out why), but when presented with the option 'violent vs non-violent protest', they'll always give their attention to the violent one. If there's only a peaceful protest, they'll still do whatever they can to discredit or minimise the movement (by smearing the participants, by giving more airtime to government officials, by enforcing the middle road, etc.) This cartoon wants this ever-hostile media to be fair to these protesters, but this is a lost cause and any effort spent in pursuit of this goal could have been spent in finding alternative ways of getting attention/spreading their message. Thus, a cartoon that seems fine superficially, turns out to be weak-kneed, handwringing liberalism at its finest. I thought this was pretty clear from my earlier post, but it seems like you thought I just didn't 'get' the cartoon? Don't worry, friend, I get it - I just think it's making a bad point.