Editor's note: Tom Fowdy is a British political and international relations analyst and a graduate of Durham and Oxford universities. He writes on topics pertaining to China, the DPRK, Britain and the United States. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On Monday, the world witnessed the footage of a man being set on fire in Hong Kong circulate the internet. Despite the overwhelming media bias in favor of the movement, the magnitude of what happened could not be ignored. It signaled a devastating new low in the onset of violence in the city, and accordingly has raised new questions about the ethics, rationality and merits of the movement.

Such a shift in perceptions is not mere speculation or exaggeration. For the first time, a White House statement and later, a press release from the US Department of State, condemned violence "on all sides" rather than simply scapegoating the police, thus for the first time acknowledging that protesters have a stake in the disruption in the city. For an American premiership that has been hysterically anti-China, that is a huge shift in tone that is not to be taken lightly.

In this case, one thing is clear. Public opinion is starting to turn against the movement in Hong Kong. For the past few months there has not been any positive, optimistic or praiseworthy message from the activists responsible, but an unending, perpetual and unrestrained cycle of violence, with key figures such as Joshua Wong having repeatedly refused to condemn this behavior. Now their credibility is diminishing rapidly. The truth is prevailing.

Despite the overwhelming media and political backing, to portray the Hong Kong protests as something they weren't has become an increasingly tenuous task, but it's also part of the reason why we are at this point now.

Owing to the Western press, the activists had come to believe that no matter what they did, they could do no wrong in the eyes of Western audiences and would, merely on each occasion, receive favorable publicity with condemnation targeted at the authorities for daring to respond, subsequently marketing it as oppression.

This gave them political space and legitimacy to pursue increasingly violent behavior, espousing the narrative each time that it was merely "the police" that forced them to pursue such decisions as a mechanism of self-defense.

Leading figures such as Joshua Wong, Joey Siu, Nathan Law and Denise Ho all peddled this line, dismissing, playing down and negating the increasingly barbaric nature of the movement. For a long time, this worked, hence the extraordinary lifespan of unbridled violence week in week out, the scope of targets widening accordingly.

However, the flaws embedded in this strategy were that inevitably, their own violence became the forefront of rolling coverage and the defining characteristic of the movement itself. Anything seemingly positive, civil, admirable and tolerable was nowhere to be seen, thus the original media line of benevolent, civilized and progressive Hong Kongers wanting mere "freedom" became impossible, and outright dishonest, to sustain.

As this happened, the one sided narrative of a police force attacking peaceful protesters for "no reason" started to become dubious. The first sign this was backfiring emerged in late October when the UK government explicitly condemned a "hardcore minority" pursuing violence in the city.

But, of course, the ultimate turning point in events was on Monday: the scene of a man doused in flames for merely arguing with protesters effectively woke people up to what some had already sought to notice, that the movement was absolutely out of control.

Thus, the White House also changed position. The significance is huge. Such a change in tone indicates US President Donald Trump is less willing to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, something which has not yet been given a vote in the Senate, a sign that Senator Mitch McConnell is cooperating with the White House to keep it from the floor.

Despite the fact several high profile Senators continue to back it, open support for such violence at this window would prove seriously damaging to America's own credibility and would give a green light to criminal attacks such as what we witnessed. It would also ruin Trump's trade talks with China, which is serious in closing in on a "phase-one" deal.

Thus, as a whole, the narrative is now slowly yet significantly starting to shift against the radical demonstrators. Their extreme pursuit of violence has become impossible to ignore, and is starting to alienate the international community. The failure of protest figures to condemn and distance themselves from it is a hammer blow to their credibility and respectability.

Activists were ultimately led in a trap by the Western media under the impression they could push any limit within the city and get away with it, now they are reaping the whirlwind. The unraveling of a movement has begun.