innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,028
The thread about the Capitol Breached thing got closed here on mid-January. That had the unfortunate effect if preventing the debunking there of two now known lies told by the media at the time, and which featured preeminently on the discussions.
But it occurs to me that these lies are a story by themselves, and more, a test of where that country is headed.
Lie #1: the NYT claim that a police officer had been killed by being bashed on the head with a fire extinguished and "with a bloody gash in his head" was "rushed to the hospital and placed on life support".
This was published on January 8, without evidence, and uncritically repeated in numerous other media. All of this narrative were lies.
The only fact was that Sicknick indeed died hours after the events, without wounds and without any established correlation with what had happened in the Capitol.
Why was this story planted? Was the NYT merely naive? If so why didn't they check in the following days, and instead kept up the lies?
Lie #2: the plot to kidnapp congressmen: the zip ties that motivated those conspiracy theories had been picked up within the building, not brought by any of those who invaded it.
So, based on these lies, shamelessly fed by most mainstream media when the subject was "hot", people here talked about "terrorism". About killing the invaders of the building, as indeed one was killed. Rather nasty things that without those excuses of being a "fight against an insurrection" would be considered dangerous hate speech. But because one party had already been falsely demonized as organized coup plotters and murderers, they were fair game?
Most didn't even pause to consider "is it true?". Did you? Even though the media has been lying shamelessly about politics, since like forever? If someone could carry the Gulf of Tonkin incident and subscribe to the manufacture of a war that killed millions, if decades later they carried the "iraqui WMPD" lies, what's a little lie and incitement to keep sliding into a domestic police state with more home terrorism laws?
So, to those who few for these two lies in the narrative presented then: do you regret having fallen for these lies? Will you exercise more caution on opinion in the future around controversial or suspicious matters until the dust clears, avoiding reaction on the hot media takes?
Or can you rationalize away the examples because "Trump is bad and these deplorable deserve to be punished regardless"?
Making a poll because I really think that this is the question which can best predict whether the US will keep its slide into a hellhole or will manage to reverse course and get out of it.
I don't know whether this is still black humor or an accurate depiction of the mood there in February 2021! But I suspect it's becoming reality soon.
But it occurs to me that these lies are a story by themselves, and more, a test of where that country is headed.
Lie #1: the NYT claim that a police officer had been killed by being bashed on the head with a fire extinguished and "with a bloody gash in his head" was "rushed to the hospital and placed on life support".
This was published on January 8, without evidence, and uncritically repeated in numerous other media. All of this narrative were lies.
The only fact was that Sicknick indeed died hours after the events, without wounds and without any established correlation with what had happened in the Capitol.
Why was this story planted? Was the NYT merely naive? If so why didn't they check in the following days, and instead kept up the lies?
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.”
Lie #2: the plot to kidnapp congressmen: the zip ties that motivated those conspiracy theories had been picked up within the building, not brought by any of those who invaded it.
In the days after the protest, numerous viral tweets pointed to a photograph of Eric Munchel with zip-ties. The photo was used continually to suggest that he took those zip-ties into the Capitol because of a premeditated plot to detain lawmakers and hold them hostage. Politico described Munchel as “the man who allegedly entered the Senate chamber during the Capitol riot while carrying a taser and zip-tie handcuffs.”
The Washington Post used the images to refer to “chatters in far-right forums explicitly discussing how to storm the building, handcuff lawmakers with zip ties.” That the zip-tie photo of Munchel made the Capitol riot far more than a mere riot carried out by a band of disorganized misfits, but rather a nefarious and well-coordinated plot to kidnap members of Congress, became almost as widespread as the fire extinguisher story. Yet again, it was The New York Times that led the way in consecrating maximalist claims. “FBI Arrests Man Who Carried Zip Ties Into Capitol,” blared the paper’s headline on January 10, featuring the now-iconic photo of Munchel at the top.
But on January 21, the “zip-tie man’s” own prosecutors admitted none of that was true. He did not take zip-ties with him from home or carry them into the Capitol. Instead, he found them on a table, and took them to prevent their use by the police:
Eric Munchel, a pro-Trump rioter who stormed the Capitol building while holding plastic handcuffs, took the restraints from a table inside the Capitol building, prosecutors said in a court filing Wednesday.
Why does this matter? For the same reason media outlets so excitedly seized on this claim. If Munchel had brought zip-ties with him, that would be suggestive of a premeditated plot to detain people: quite terrorizing, as it suggests malicious and well-planned intent. But he instead just found them on a table by happenstance and, according to his own prosecutors, grabbed them with benign intent.
So, based on these lies, shamelessly fed by most mainstream media when the subject was "hot", people here talked about "terrorism". About killing the invaders of the building, as indeed one was killed. Rather nasty things that without those excuses of being a "fight against an insurrection" would be considered dangerous hate speech. But because one party had already been falsely demonized as organized coup plotters and murderers, they were fair game?
Most didn't even pause to consider "is it true?". Did you? Even though the media has been lying shamelessly about politics, since like forever? If someone could carry the Gulf of Tonkin incident and subscribe to the manufacture of a war that killed millions, if decades later they carried the "iraqui WMPD" lies, what's a little lie and incitement to keep sliding into a domestic police state with more home terrorism laws?
So, to those who few for these two lies in the narrative presented then: do you regret having fallen for these lies? Will you exercise more caution on opinion in the future around controversial or suspicious matters until the dust clears, avoiding reaction on the hot media takes?
Or can you rationalize away the examples because "Trump is bad and these deplorable deserve to be punished regardless"?
Making a poll because I really think that this is the question which can best predict whether the US will keep its slide into a hellhole or will manage to reverse course and get out of it.
I don't know whether this is still black humor or an accurate depiction of the mood there in February 2021! But I suspect it's becoming reality soon.