seemingly

The only reason it 'seems' to you that I haven't done any research is that I disagree with you, and you think that must mean I'm ignorant. That is of course true of some people who disagree with you, but it's arrogant and counter-productive to assume it. You don't know what I've read and what I haven't read, or indeed what I think about virtually anything.

Dismissing these claims because they're made by 'mainstream media' (an ill-defined term) even though Polanski has apologised for his actions and thereby acknowledged the veracity of the accusations is just nonsensical. What I see in Polanski is a guy who makes inaccurate, self-aggrandising statements and then lies more when called out. The press are reporting on the fact that he does it, and that he keeps doing it. You may feel it's worth voting for him anyway; that's your prerogative. But facts are facts.

Something you could reasonably say is: 'He shouldn't have done that and it worries me that it's becoming a pattern but he's a damn sight less corrupt and evil than Nigel Farage*. His politics are basically aligned with mine, I think his heart's in the right place and this doesn't change my overall view of him'.

What you can't say is, 'None of these things that this guy acknowledged happened and apologised for count/are real because I read about some of them in the Guardian'. That doesn't make sense.

*Links because you seem to believe the 'mainstream' press doesn't report on right-wing corruption and this also... isn't true.