kraftiekortie wrote:
What would be the impact if Slotnick died of a stroke, instead of by being hit by a fire extinguisher?
That's an interesting question...
To begin with, it provides an insight into the media's (and other's) integrity relating to how it is discussed\referenced, both looking forward, as well as with what was reported when the facts around it were (or should have been) known to have been different by those discussing it.
Given, according to the article:
Quote:
In fact, the very day that The New York Times account ran, Sicknick’s own brother, Ken, spoke with ProPublica and said that his brother had been in good spirits and had texted him after returning to the department.
He said, ‘He texted me last night and said, “I got pepper-sprayed twice,” and he was in good shape.’
That same day, January 8, Sicknick’s father, Charles, 81, told Reuters that on January 7, as they rushed from their homes in New Jersey to DC, the family were told that Sicknick had a blood clot on his brain and had suffered a stroke. He was being kept alive on a ventilator but was dead by the time they got there.
Yet these few publicly available facts were bulldozed over by political fervor and it was the unattributed account of a brutal attack, also reported by the Associated Press, that gained traction.
It also demonstrates the way many people rush to judgement, ignoring available but inconvenient facts, in order to push false narratives...