[notahacker]

You honestly can't see how the remark "obviously there's marijuana in the air" might be considered bad journalism?

Observing that there's the smell of marijuana in the air is journalism, though you'd have to balance that against the relative importance of other observations he could have made within the same time frame. It's a entirely different thing to express the view that "obviously" the protests involve a lot of marijuana and push - intentionally or otherwise - the particular view that one should expect protests against alleged police brutality to be under the influence of drugs [especially with all those poor black people around?]. As the original article strongly hinted, that was probably a slip rather than an attempt to push a particular agenda... maybe he even actually meant the smell was readily detectable rather than inevitable at that sort of protest. He's far from likely to have wanted to imply anything about the inevitability of a certain demographic behaving a certain way. It's bad journalism to make those kind of insinuations for intentional effect, rank bad journalism to do it without an agenda to push or even awareness of what might be implied.