The Brian Sicknick Case Shows How the Media Make Their Own Reality

Not a single journalist at America’s paper of record asked anyone with first-hand knowledge whether the late Brian Sicknick, a Capitol Police officer, was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher before they reported it. They took the word of “law enforcement officials.”

The initial Times report about Officer Sicknick’s death, from January 8, was paved over with caveats on February 12. In between that time, we got the big feature story that was premised on the original lie: “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob.” That article, too, now has a note appended to the top: “New information has emerged.”

And what is that “new information”? The D.C. medical examiner now says that Sicknick showed no signs of internal or external injury, and that he died after suffering two strokes. People are free to speculate that the stress of the Capitol riot may have contributed to his strokes. That seems plausible. But why did this take months to figure out? Why did people keep repeating that Sicknick had been bludgeoned to death for so long, despite the fact that there was enough reporting in the first two days after the riots to cast doubts on the story?