The first link in the article is not a "lie". "Portland Protesters Burn Bibles, American Flags In The Streets" has a RT video that shows exactly that, and links to several other confirmed Twitter accounts all stating the same thing. How is that a lie?
That may perhaps not be the best example – although the linked Breibart article is hardly a stellar journalism and some of the commentary is wildly off-base – but the general pattern described in the article seems to be mostly right to me. IMHO dismissing/criticising a rather lengthy article just on one less-than-ideal example is not really good form.
I actually up-voted the article, and started reading, then removed my up-vote when I realized the very first article linked contradicts the entire headline. If the headline is true, the author could have picked dozens of other links of obvious lies, but clearly didn't attempt to validate their own work