Pages

Thursday, February 18, 2021

GLENN GREENWALD: The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot

 

The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot

What took place at the Capitol on January 6 was undoubtedly a politically motivated riot. As such, it should not be controversial to regard it as a dangerous episode. Any time force or violence is introduced into what ought to be the peaceful resolution of political conflicts, it should be lamented and condemned.

But none of that justifies lying about what happened that day, especially by the news media. Condemning that riot does not allow, let alone require, echoing false claims in order to render the event more menacing and serious than it actually was. There is no circumstance or motive that justifies the dissemination of false claims by journalists. The more consequential the event, the less justified, and more harmful, serial journalistic falsehoods are.

Yet this is exactly what has happened, and continues to happen, since that riot almost seven weeks ago. And anyone who tries to correct these falsehoods is instantly attacked with the cynical accusation that if you want only truthful reporting about what happened, then you’re trying to “minimize” what happened and are likely an apologist for if not a full-fledged supporter of the protesters themselves.

One of the most significant of these falsehoods was the tale — endorsed over and over without any caveats by the media for more than a month — that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by the pro-Trump mob when they beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. That claim was first published by The New York Times on January 8 in an article headlined “Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.” It cited “two [anonymous] law enforcement officials” to claim that Sicknick died “with the mob rampaging through the halls of Congress” and after he “was struck with a fire extinguisher.”

A second New York Times article from later that day — bearing the more dramatic headline: “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob” — elaborated on that story.

After publication of these two articles, this horrifying story about a pro-Trump mob beating a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher was repeated over and over, by multiple journalists on television, in print, and on social media. It became arguably the single most-emphasized and known story of this event, and understandably so — it was a savage and barbaric act that resulted in the harrowing killing by a pro-Trump mob of a young Capitol police officer.

It took on such importance for a clear reason: Sicknick’s death was the only example the media had of the pro-Trump mob deliberately killing anyone. In a January 11 article detailing the five people who died on the day of the Capitol protest, the New York Times again told the Sicknick story: “Law enforcement officials said he had been ‘physically engaging with protesters’ and was struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

But none of the other four deaths were at the hands of the protesters: the only other person killed with deliberate violence was a pro-Trump protester, Ashli Babbitt, unarmed when shot in the neck by a police officer at close range. The other three deaths were all pro-Trump protesters: Kevin Greeson, who died of a heart attack outside the Capitol; Benjamin Philips, 50, “the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo,” who died of a stroke that day; and Rosanne Boyland, a fanatical Trump supporter whom the Times says was inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.”

This is why the fire extinguisher story became so vital to those intent on depicting these events in the most violent and menacing light possible. Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher, there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate violence by pro-Trump protesters. . . .

The problem with this story is that it is false in all respects. From the start, there was almost no evidence to substantiate it. The only basis were the two original New York Times articles asserting that this happened based on the claim of anonymous law enforcement officials.

Despite this alleged brutal murder taking place in one of the most surveilled buildings on the planet, filled that day with hundreds of cellphones taping the events, nobody saw video of it. No photographs depicted it. To this day, no autopsy report has been released. No details from any official source have been provided.

Not only was there no reason to believe this happened from the start, the little that was known should have caused doubt. On the same day the Times published its two articles with the “fire extinguisher” story, ProPublica published one that should have raised serious doubts about it.

The outlet interviewed Sicknick’s brother, who said that “Sicknick had texted [the family] Wednesday night to say that while he had been pepper-sprayed, he was in good spirits.” That obviously conflicted with the Times’ story that the mob “overpowered Sicknick” and “struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher,” after which, “with a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.”

But no matter. The fire extinguisher story was now a matter of lore. . . .

CNN noted that investigators are “vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death as he defended the Capitol during last month’s insurrection.” Beyond that, “to date, little information has been shared publicly about the circumstances of the death of the 13-year veteran of the police force, including any findings from an autopsy that was conducted by DC’s medical examiner.”

Few noticed this remarkable admission buried in this article. None of this was seriously questioned until a relatively new outlet called Revolver News on February 9 compiled and analyzed all the contradictions and lack of evidence in the prevailing story, after which Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, citing that article, devoted the first eight minutes of his February 10 program to examining these massive evidentiary holes.

That caused right-wing media outlets to begin questioning what happened, but mainstream liberal outlets — those who spread the story aggressively in the first place — largely and predictably ignored it all.

This week, the paper that first published the false story — in lieu of a retraction or an explanation of how and why it got the story wrong — simply went back to the first two articles, more than five weeks later, and quietly posted what it called an “update” at the top of both five-week-old articles.


8 comments:

  1. I did see a video of some asshole tossing a fire extinguisher across the barricade and hitting one or two police. Did not appear to more than glancing blows. The thrower was easy to see and ID so why is he not in custody? And how did a random fire extinguisher appear in the crowd of ruffians OUTSIDE the Capitol building?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Outside the Capitol Building?

    I beliieve Sicknick was stationed inside the Capitol Building, wasn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, the event I described took place outside. I am not aware of any other. There are still videos available on-line, just search it. I don't know if Sicknick was part of this event.

    I was mistaken about the perp. A guy from PA has been arrested and charged for the toss. I made the erroneous assumption that since no "Trump supporting White Super-Nazi" was perp-walked across the media 24/7 that no one had been identified. Maybe the guy doesn't fit the narrative and no one had time to gin up a conforming legend. Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, that is interesting.

    It's more interesting because we don't know all about that guy.

    Have you noticed that in the last five years, or so, MAJOR EVENTS happen, and we never find out about them afterward?

    For instance, the Las Vegas Shooting.

    Why has no one did deep investigative reporting on that?

    WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is one thing I know with certainty. After the shooting of Gabbie Giffords, the left media went berserk throwing blame on the right, Republicans, and Sarah Palin specifically. That narrative went down the tubes quickly as people went over the shooters background (people who new him) and scoured his social media presence.

    After that event Fedgov changed the protocol. Any time there is a mass casualty event the DHS puts the bigfoot on local LEO until THEY have had a chance to shape the narrative to the extent possible. The ID of the perp is gagged while DHS reviews and scrubs what they don't want the general public to know.

    The Las Vegas event is close to me based on my professional background. There is no reason we don't no know more except that the Fedgov doesn't want it.

    I believe Paddock was laundering money and was not wealthy at all. He was nabbed and turned by the FIBS. He was ordered to set up a "gun sting" at the Vegas hotel. I firmly believe he was NOT the shooter. The implications are ominous but then Epstein didn't kill himself either. The rest I leave to you imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It sounds like we should do a post on this subject specifically.

    And it sounds like you might be able to provide me information.

    I do not mean information that would pin a target on you as a leaker.

    I simply mean, maybe you could direct me to links from which I could collate information, and try to capture the changes that have occurred, and the disappearing of truth in favor of government-media manufactured narrative.

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The info on narrative control came from a source inside verbal so no links or anything. I trust the source and I don't see any contradictory evidence in the subsequent behavior of Fedgov. For example, look how long it takes to publicly ID a perp on average.

    On the Paddock story, everything is an educated guess on my part. I have experience in forensic accounting and know for a fact that a decent three person team, given 6 -10 years IRS filings and bank/credit card statements could profile Paddock's financial life in a fortnight with near perfect accuracy. I am sure this was done but why no release of any info to the public. Only thing I can assume is cover-up and protection of the narrative. It is exceeding strange that NO motive was ever determined. Mass shooters don't come from nowhere. But Paddock did. It makes no sense.

    BTW, I have not seen anything that convinces me that there was more than one shooter. If you are under fire from one shooter it can sound like a gang. The first thing you hear is the supersonic crack, followed by the report of the rifle, followed by the echoes (in a manmade cavern like the Vegas strip), possibly followed by the sounds of ricochet. I believe multiple shooters was a rabbit trail. Still, I don't believe it was Paddock. Just no reason to suspect he would do this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't have a theory of what happened. But I do agree that what you say is very plausible.

    ReplyDelete