The media is making it out to be much more than it was, that’s hyperbole, what’s dishonest about that?
Because in the same breath as calling it hyperbole on one side, you are massively minimizing what actually happened, as well as the president of the United State's culpability.
There are a lot of crazy people who try crazy things every day, but they don’t have the resources and organizational skills to pull it off, so you don’t hear about it. We only know about the “successfully” ones, like the assassins who actually shot presidents, the Unibomber, etc.
The only reason we still remember these fools who had 0 chance of success (because even in Belarus, Myanmar and Kazakhstan it isn’t a given that these efforts will succeed, and they have a gazillion times the resources and organization as the 1/6 crowd) is because the media has made sure of the fact because it suits their political agenda.
There was a group (groups?) who planned to violently take over Congress and stop the certification. They weren't successful in the end goal, but they did succeed in violently breaching security, and we came within minutes (seconds) of perhaps having the vice president killed to achieve that goal. You are minimizing how much success they actually had. Our country's most high-ranking lawmakers were in hiding, under very real threat, and they had their offices ransacked.
Of course, most of the crowd that entered the Capital had no such violent intentions, but some did, and not sufficiently acknowledging that is just as distorted as media hyperbole.
And Trump was the president. Being a baby isn't an excuse. His incessant rhetoric was what provoked those people to plan the attempt. He didn't even try to stop it when many of his trusted supporters were begging him to. If you want to accuse the left or the media (redundant, I know) of exaggeration, that's understandable, but you're doing the same thing exaggerating the other way.