March 5, 2021 --
First, please read this report from American Military News, February 17:
On Tuesday, The New York Times corrected a Jan. 8 report that originally stated Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher by a pro-Trump rioter during the violent Jan. 6 demonstration at Capitol Hill, noting “medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma.”
The original report on Sicknick’s death was used last week as evidence of “incitement” in the impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump. The paper corrected the report this week with an update notice that said, “New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.”
In the original story, the Times reported that “Mr. Sicknick, 42, an officer for the Capitol Police, died on Thursday from brain injuries he sustained after Trump loyalists who overtook the complex struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials.”
* * * *
Maureen Dowd, in her February 28 column, reported that Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger, at the Vanity Fair 2017 Oscar party, denied to "movie stars," thanking him for being anti-Trump, that it was not the paper's "mission to be part of the resistance. Rather, he said, the paper would be straight and combat lies with the truth." Nonsense Maureen. It is the paper's mission to crush Trump and all that it sees it as standing for, including fighting the truth with lies. Just consider the mendacious story about the tragic death of Office Sicknick, which the Times twisted into anti-Trump propaganda for the purpose of making it impossible for Citizen Trump to seek a second term.
Do you consider yourself, now, a newspaperwoman, or a propagandist shill for whomever is targeted by A.G.?
What hospital was Officer Sicknick brought to? What doctors artended him? Who signed a death certificate stating cause of death? Is there any such certificate? Are these questions irrelevant to the "narrative" in the paper declaring that the officer was killed by anti-Trump rioters wielding a fire extinguisher? Who, indeed, witnessed the attack? Or is it the practice of the paper, now, to report events devoid of corroborating information? Why aren't the law informants identified?
Is it because they do not exist, or if they did exist, because the paper does not want the public to know whether or not their account is truthful?
In the old days, weren't reporters on beats supposed to ask basic questions: who, what, when, where. why, and how.
Those basic questions were supposed to draw out the facts of a story. These questions are not supposed to be the pillars of political propaganda. Only the "why," seems attainable. Because the paper wanted to add additional slurs, smears, creating transparent sophistry to its practice of phony coverage of Citizen Trump.
The paper that deserves the name The New York Pravda published disinformation about the death of Office Brian Sicknick, and made matters worse by ignoring reports that he felt okay the night of January 6.
Now, on February 27, a headline appeared in the paper, at the top of page A14:
"In Breakthrough, F.B. I. Zeroes In on Suspect in Death of Capitol Police Officer"
This extension of the original January 8 "narrative" is filled with more speculation. A name for the alleged assailant of Officer Sicknick -- the instrument is now said to be bear spray -- is not given; just a report that six members of the "far-right nationalist group the Proud Boys" were indicted for conspiring to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden as president. Why is this indictment mentioned in an article purporting to provide information on the death of Officer Sicknick?
LPR believes that at The New York Pravda any disinformation to smear Citizen Trump is deemed fit to print by publisher A.G. Sulzberger -- with cover-ups required of his underlings, including columnists like Maureen Dowd.