Hardly malicious, the verdict came out innocent but could have gone differently. For instance, imagine if testimony revealed that he'd been looking for a confrontation, in that case the whole self-defence thing falls apart.
That's pretty much the definition of malicious prosecution. You don't charge someone because you're hoping that maybe at some point some testimony will come out which proves that they're guilty; you're only supposed to charge them when the evidence YOU ALREADY HAVE leads to the reasonable conclusion that they are guilty.
There was enough video footage that within 3 hours of the shooting I had already seen enough to conclude that he was almost certainly acting in self defense. If I was able to make that determination in 3 hours, the prosecutor's office should certainly have been able to do it in a matter of days. Yet despite having no good reason to believe that his actions constituted murder, they decided to charge him. And despite having zero evidence of malicious intent, or of him being a flight risk, they got his bail set at $2 million. No reasonable person can look at that and conclude that they were just trying to do their job; it's patently obvious that they were engaging in a politically motivated witch-hunt.
I didn't see any evidence of Antifa/BLM often threaten anyone with a camera at their riots, and leftist outlets run hit pieces on journalists who cover these events
I don't think he was providing that video as evidence of those claims; he probably just assumed you were aware of it. This is another thing which is blatantly obvious. Antifa members who show up at protests always wear masks. This is to avoid being identified. In recent years they've started bringing umbrellas, to block cameras. 5 minutes on Google will show you hundreds of videos of them attacking reporters, breaking phones and cameras, shining lasers to blind people and cameras, ordering people to stop filming, etc. None of this should be even remotely a surprise to you if you've paid any attention to what's been going on at these protests and riots.
It's also true that Trump rallies are infamously hostile to media in attendance, and that Trump actively encourages this
This is true, but not even remotely the same thing. Trump supporters will mock and insult reporters from organizations which they do not like, but will rarely resort to assaulting them, or preventing them from filming. Antifa members regularlly order journalists from all types of organizations - and even private individuals - to stop filming, and they often use force to back up their demands. You can even find plenty of footage of them threatening people on their own side in order to prevent them from filming.
both sides have flaws but right-wing media takes far more liberties with the truth, and the right is far more hostile to media.
That's just your bias speaking. It's hard to be objective of course, but even a remotely meaningful attempt would quickly result in you acknowledging that the left-wing media is at least as bad as the right. From the "Russian collusion" nonsense to the "fine people" hoax, to the selective "kids in cages" outrage, to the Sandman incident, to the "white supremacist" in Kenosha shooting 3 white people, to the apparently self driving car running through a Christmas parade .... it's pretty clear that if you're looking at left-wing media coverage of anything even remotely political, statistically you'd be better off assuming that they're lying if you actually cared about what was going on.