DailyMail Repeats Sicknick Killed by J6 Protesters Smear
- Politicized death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick continues: Daily Mail makes it seem as though its possible Sicknick died from J6 protesters
- Every investigation has concluded Sicknick died from natural causes, and no ‘bear spray’ was used on him.
- Continuous lies about Sicknick’s death by the government and its defenders are obscene, especially compared to the shooting death of unarmed Ashli Babbitt
OUR RATING: Trash Journalism, aka the Daily Beast.
Indicted Outlet: Jennifer Smith, Rachel Bunyan | Daily Mail | Link | Archive | 6/17/22
We keep debunking the fabled death of Brian Sicknick, such as when Biden lied about it last month, [1] and when the NYT refuses to update their reporting [2] to reflect the fact this was a media hoax from the very beginning.
There was no ‘fire extinguisher’ that killed Brian Sicknick.
There was no ‘bear spray’ or ‘chemical spray’ that killed Brian Sicknick.
There were no visible external or internal injuries that were present on Brian Sicknick when he died.
Every governmental body that has researched this issue, including the DC Coroner and the Department of Justice, have concluded that Brian Sicknick died from natural causes.
So what does the DailyMail do, given this incontrovertible fact? They use sophistry to imply that he died from being attacked. They go out of their way to leave readers with the distinct possibility that Sicknick died from attack even though there is zero evidence to support that, and every bit of evidence contradicts this fact.
This is major media disinformation at work.
It is absolutely shameless, it is major media malpractice, and given the ongoing political trials of January 6 protesters, runs the risk of sending innocent people to prison because juries are tainted by this repetitive media misinformation.
Major Violations:
- Some People Say
- Unbalanced
- Opinion as Fact
- Misrepresentation
- Smear
There is no good faith dispute as to what killed Brian Sicknick: he died from natural causes.
Here’s how the Daily Mail tries to get around that fact:
Sicknick’s death has been the source of fierce political debate – Democrats have routinely claimed that he was ‘killed’ by the rioters and it was falsely claimed at first that he was hit over the head with a fire extinguisher
Democrats saying something is not evidence of anything. This is the ‘some people say‘ trick. It’s also a form of opinion as fact.
Some people also say that Antifa were all the real violent actors on site. So why not include that in the reporting? Some people say that there were Ukrainian secret agents provoking officials in order to hurt Trump. Why not report that too? Some people say all sorts of things. Liberal reporters use this trick to get around reporting things they cannot factually back up: they source it to a person’s opinion.
But is that opinion grounded in any reality?
Is there any authority that has said Brian Sicknick was killed by, or whose death was in any way influenced by, January 6 protesters? No.
There is also no good faith dispute as to whether he was sprayed with ‘bear spray’ either: bear spray was never used.
People are being criminally prosecuted for these hoaxes right now, and the jurors who will be serving at their trials will no doubt be influenced by this enormous journalistic malpractice.
Here’s the Daily Mail again:
A medical examiner ruled last year that Sicknick died from two strokes but they couldn’t prove whether the strokes were brought on by the riot
This is a complete and fundamental misrepresentation of the autopsy.
Here’s what NBC News reported, [3] relying on Washington Post reporting [4]:
The formal finding was that the death [of Brian Sicknick] was caused by “acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis” and that the manner of death was “natural.”
Diaz told The Washington Post that the autopsy found no evidence that Sicknick experienced an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. He also said there was no evidence of either external or internal injuries.
How much clearer could that possibly be?
- the manner of death was natural
- no evidence of an allergic reaction to irritants
- no evidence of external injuries
- no evidence of internal injuries
Yet, here’s the Daily Mail again, repeating the smear, using the some people say trick where they use opinion as fact, despite there being absolutely no evidence to support the claims:
Sicknick’s death has been the subject of ferocious political debate. Democrats blamed the rioters for his death and in the immediate aftermath of the riot, it was claimed he died as the result of being hit over the head with a fire extinguisher.
A medical examiner last year ruled that he died of natural causes brought on by two massive strokes, but they could not prove whether the strokes were the result of any injury he suffered in the riot. Sicknick’s family say they are convinced the strokes were caused by him being pepper-sprayed.
This is trash journalism by the Daily Mail. It’s notable the first published version of this story was edited by the Senior Editor and then republished, but they still couldn’t save this trash from being wrong on fundamental facts.
OUR RATING: Trash Journalism, aka the Daily Beast.
Bibliography:
1 ] https://tgpfactcheck.com/biden-keeps-repeating-lie-that-jan-6-protesters-killed-brian-sicknick/
2 ] https://tgpfactcheck.com/nyt-invents-facts-refuses-to-correct-lies-about-brian-sicknicks-death-after-j6-capitol-protest/
3 ] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-died-natural-causes-after-riot-n1264562
4 ] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/brian-sicknick-death-strokes/2021/04/19/36d2d310-617e-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html
Join the conversation
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.