Turns Out Officer Sicknick Died of Natural Causes (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Beyond the usual media argument (boring, predictable, and untrue as usual) the point here seems to be that because Sicknick didn’t die as a result of the rioting, the rioting is not as bad or serious as presented, and the police weren’t really in danger. That’s simply false, revisionist history, contradicted by a ton of witnesses and video. 

 

[tonydead]

Beyond the usual media argument (boring, predictable, and untrue as usual) the point here seems to be that because Sicknick didn’t die as a result of the rioting, the rioting is not as bad or serious as presented, and the police weren’t really in danger. That’s simply false, revisionist history, contradicted by a ton of witnesses and video. 

Link?

 

[ekbeats]

The story was changed when officials changed the details.   Which was early February.

Wrong.

 

[ekbeats]

Beyond the usual media argument (boring, predictable, and untrue as usual) the point here seems to be that because Sicknick didn’t die as a result of the rioting, the rioting is not as bad or serious as presented, and the police weren’t really in danger. That’s simply false, revisionist history, contradicted by a ton of witnesses and video. 

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/796192-turns-out-officer-sicknick-died-of-natural-causes/?do=findComment&comment=23357450

 

[sho nuff]

So #2 then. Just rephrased to fit inside your head. 

 Law enforcement officers are trained especially not to say those things. 

FAIL 

Nope.  Not calling the cops liars at all.

no need to claim things Im not saying.

Good night.   

 

[sho nuff]

Wrong.

Ok. Whatever you say.  This is ridiculous at this point to try to convince you all of anything.

You all think the NyT lied...whatever.

 

[tonydead]

Nope.  Not calling the cops liars at all.

no need to claim things Im not saying.

Good night.   

Back on the beat and try again tomorrow!  

 

[ekbeats]

Beyond the usual media argument (boring, predictable, and untrue as usual) 

You have such a huge blind spot on this issue.  This is the perfect illustration of Liberal bias at The NY Times.  They reported that the protesters murdered a cop by bludgeoning him with a fire extinguisher, and the source for this accusation?  Two unnamed sources at the Capitol PD, right in the middle of the fog of war.  They did no further vetting.  They didn’t call Sicknick’s family who had the truth on January 7th and were telling other reporters that a) he was only pepper sprayed, and b) that the doctors said he died of a stroke.  You’re a smart guy tim - why do you think they didn’t follow up to obtain truths that were so readily available?  And why didn’t they correct their main bogus story for over a month?  And why are there two NYT articles with that bogus claim still out there and uncorrected?  I’ll give you a hint, it begins with a “b” and ends with an “s”.

 

[parasaurolophus]

3.  In the heat of the moment two sources hear the guy was hit with a fire extinguisher...(especially since video of the day shows them being used as weapons) and they tell a reporter.

How many times do I have to say it?

This isnt vetting. This isnt following the rules. You are literally advocating yhat hearsay is quality reporting. A first year journalism student would throw their tofu at you if they heard such a dumb defense. 

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy(and another guy) who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

The bold is your threshold of accuracy. 

 

[jon_mx]

To me, this story demonstrates the problem with conservative distrust of the media. If the media gets it wrong they were obviously lying to pursue a political aim. If the media reports something that conservatives like, the veracity of the story is never challenged. If the media corrects a story that conservatives did not like it, as in this case, that’s proof that the media was lying in the first place and can’t be trusted, and the fact of the correction is never credited. 
 

Under this formula there is no way to ever convince a conservative that the media can be trusted unless a story is reported that conservatives want to hear. 

The media is not trusted because they always twist a story to fit their narrative. You will always be oblivious to this and stay in denial. The media absolutely sucks with its gross bias and the vast majority of people see it.  You can see it in fox News and conservative media, but not otherwise.  It is so stupid to even have to argue something which is so obviously true. 

 

[FairWarning]

The media is not trusted because they always twist a story to fit their narrative. You will always be oblivious to this and stay in denial. The media absolutely sucks with its gross bias and the vast majority of people see it.  You see it in fox News and conservative media.  It us so stupid to even have to argue something which is so obviously true. 

This

 

[BladeRunner]

The media is not trusted because they always twist a story to fit their narrative. You will always be oblivious to this and stay in denial. The media absolutely sucks with its gross bias and the vast majority of people see it.  You can see it in fox News and conservative media, but not otherwise.  It is so stupid to even have to argue something which is so obviously true. 

Double this. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

The media is not trusted because they always twist a story to fit their narrative. You will always be oblivious to this and stay in denial. The media absolutely sucks with its gross bias and the vast majority of people see it.  You can see it in fox News and conservative media, but not otherwise.  It is so stupid to even have to argue something which is so obviously true. 

Perfect example.

"Police release edited bodycam footage" attachment. 

The tweet itself is a joke too. As if those are the important details. 

It should say "Police prevent 16 year old black female from stabbing someone during crazy brawl. Also a black male kicked a black female in the head right in front of police." 

 

[sho nuff]

How many times do I have to say it?

This isnt vetting. This isnt following the rules. You are literally advocating yhat hearsay is quality reporting. A first year journalism student would throw their tofu at you if they heard such a dumb defense. 

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy(and another guy) who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

The bold is your threshold of accuracy. 

You can say it many times...we will never agree...as I won't ever agree to the, IMO, illogical conclusion that "law enforcement officials" are the equivalent of "this guy (and another guy)".  That is where your version fails every time.

Moving on.

 

[crackattack]

Beyond the usual media argument (boring, predictable, and untrue as usual) the point here seems to be that because Sicknick didn’t die as a result of the rioting, the rioting is not as bad or serious as presented, and the police weren’t really in danger. That’s simply false, revisionist history, contradicted by a ton of witnesses and video. 

I don't think anyone is saying it wasn't a dangerous situation for the Capital Police. What I'm saying is the media ran with a "beat to death with a fire extinguisher", when the family was saying otherwise. The family said they wasn't sure how he died, and the mom thought it was a stroke. Yet that didn't stop the false reporting by the media.

Even members of the House and Senate was spreading this unverified lie. Why not use the families words? Why not say we have conflicting reports? Why pass on the "beat to death" narrative when they had obvious conflicting, unverified, anonymous sources. I'll tell you why. It fit the narrative needed.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Please be more cool

 

[parasaurolophus]

You can say it many times...we will never agree...as I won't ever agree to the, IMO, illogical conclusion that "law enforcement officials" are the equivalent of "this guy (and another guy)".  That is where your version fails every time.

Moving on.

Person A tells reporter that person B told them about event xyz. 

Person B is the source, not person A. Printing what person A told them isnt reporting. It isnt journalism. It is playing a game of telephone. It is ferris buellers day off. 

The 16 time oscar winning film Madagascar 2 illustrated the unreliability of passing on info beautifully

Alex : She's got a gun! Let's get out while we can! Pass it on!

[monkeys chain whisper the message up to the plane] 

Mason : He said, 'Let's have some fun and take out the dam. Basset hound'.

 

[BladeRunner]

Person A tells reporter that person B told them about event xyz. 

Person B is the source, not person A. Printing what person A told them isnt reporting. It isnt journalism. It is playing a game of telephone. It is ferris buellers day off. 

The 16 time oscar winning film Madagascar 2 illustrated the unreliability of passing on info beautifully

Alex : She's got a gun! Let's get out while we can! Pass it on!

[monkeys chain whisper the message up to the plane] 

Mason : He said, 'Let's have some fun and take out the dam. Basset hound'.

Some men, you just can't reach.

https://youtu.be/452XjnaHr1A?t=20

 

[tonydead]

Person A tells reporter that person B told them about event xyz. 

Person B is the source, not person A. Printing what person A told them isnt reporting. It isnt journalism. It is playing a game of telephone. It is ferris buellers day off. 

The 16 time oscar winning film Madagascar 2 illustrated the unreliability of passing on info beautifully

Alex : She's got a gun! Let's get out while we can! Pass it on!

[monkeys chain whisper the message up to the plane] 

Mason : He said, 'Let's have some fun and take out the dam. Basset hound'.

Chinese whispers.

They must have stopped teaching this concept to small children because the name of the game was offensive or something.