So you believe the questions were bad or they are lying about what the Medical Examiner said? Seems that would be going out of your way to keep from admitting the events of January 6th played a role in his death.
I believe they are doing what they always do and have done with this exact story.
The better question here is why do you not have skepticism when the obvious tell tale signs are there?
The post often provides transcripts of interviews as do many outlets. That didn't happen here. That's important, especially because they have already bungled this story. A reputable journalist would make sure everything for this story was 100% on the level.
Another sign is that such a statement is pretty much in direct contradiction to what the meat of the story is. That he died of natural causes. Had no injuries, internal or external. No reaction to chemicals. Then there is a parsed broad statement thrown in at the end? Even the hackiest of hacks should at least look at that with a bit of skepticism.
“all that transpired played a role in his condition.”
Why would they cut off the beginning of the sentence? If the ME thought the riot contributed to his death he is free to put that in his report. Why does he say condition? Why is he free to answer questions about some things, but then claims right to privacy when asked about underlying conditions? If this answer was to a direct question about the riots contributing why would they right before this say
Diaz’s ruling does not mean Sicknick was not assaulted or that the violent events at the Capitol did not contribute to his death.
If he said they did, they wouldn't be framing it that way.
I get that sometimes headline writers will parse something to make a splashier headline and of course its a headline, so there is less space. But there is literally no reason to not include in the story the whole quote. Especially on the heels of bad reporting.
If you read the
reuters piece based on the post reporting, they leave that part out completely and I highly doubt that was because they ran out of space.
If I had to make a gut guess as to what was asked and answered I bet it went like this...
Is it possible that everything that happened on January 6th could have contributed to this condition? and then the answer probably was something like I cant rule out the possibility entirely that all that transpired played a role in his condition. But the only thing that makes logical sense about leaving ot the beginning of the statement is because it makes it less meaningful for the intent of the reporter.
I highly doubt the guy started off saying "Well some butterflies are orange, I like tacos, and all that transpired played a role in his condition."