There may be problems with the OP's argument, but your response is fallacious itself and does not address them. Linking to Breitbart isn't a great idea, but doesn't invalidate everything else that was said.
That the news lied about the January 6 event and also lied about the black lives matter protests?
In their own words 50,000 people were at the capital so they said it would be statistically likely for people to die. That is ridiculous otherwise large concerts would have deaths associated with it.
But they don't apply their logic to the BLM protests where estimates of 15 to 26 million people protested [1]. They don't think that of those millions it would be a very small group causing trouble.
Also. Breitbart is a "news" outlet which has a "black crime" section. They are objectively a racist publication and it's laughable to use that as a source when calling out bias in NPR and Fox news.
It's a transparent if they say "oh it was the first article I saw when I searched" they don't think that it's indicative of it being untrustworthy reporting but instead some truth the "MSM" don't want to tell.
Likewise the Nypost is very much a outlet that spins facts to suit their narrative. That isn't a secret.
So OP's argument is just that they prefer when people tell them what they want to hear.
These are reasons why it is extremely sad that the larger and more consumed outlets are collectively deciding to not report on stories, or on each other. If Breitbart is the only major outlet reporting on a factually correct story, that's a failure of the institution of journalism, not a success for Breitbart.
The two protestors that died on the day were reported as the two deaths. And the outlet who reported about the officer death posted a retraction about the police officer being killed by the fire extinguisher.
It's a straight up lie to say that only Breitbart was the only website that reported it.
A mistake was made, it was corrected afterwards.
But people that want to downplay Jan6 have jumped on it and use it as "evidence" of lies.
If you browse social media you will find that many of the users there still believe that Officer Sicknick was murdered by Trump supporters.
Shout the lie, whisper the retraction is SOP for the New York Times and it's a effective strategy. Once the US was committed to occupying Iraq admitting that their WMD justification was a lie doesn't really matter.
> If you browse social media you will find that many of the users there still believe that Officer Sicknick was murdered by Trump supporters.
The felonious mass attack on the Capitol, and acts taken by particular participants in the course of that mass felony, seems nearly certainly to be a but-for cause of his death, so everyone engaging in that mass felony likely murdered him under the felony murder rule; the people who directly assaulted him, whose acts are most direct contributors to his death, probably committed something between voluntary manalaughter and depraved-heart murder even disregarding the felony murder rule.
People have been convicted of murder when the person murdered ied of a heart attack nearly a month later in which the stress of the criminal act as well as preexisting conditions were factors; that the immediate cause of death appears to be a heart attack doesn’t make this not-murder.
Right. The officer just randomly died the next day. People tend to randomly drop dead.
So what about the officers that weren't killed?
Plenty of videos of them being beaten with pipes.
One officer crushed against a door.
What do you think of the officer that was hit.with a stun gun 6 times and lost the tip of their finger? [1]
The police union says that one officer got their eye injured so bad that they lost it [2]
At the end of the day I presume Trump supporters don't care.
What justification to say it was bad do you have for the video where Babbit was shot? The people there were trying to smash a door on which the other side were politicians.
When people were protesting police brutality they were quick to shout #BlueLivesMatter.
But when Trump decided that he could pretend that millions of votes were fake and try and steal an election, his supporters were the "good guys" breaking into the capitol.
All their challenges failed in the courts but curiously they were only challenging results in districts which were majority minority. Not white majority districts which used the same voting methodology.
You say that it's SOP to manufacture consent. But every speech about taking the capital from Trump to Cruz on that day did exactly that in the minds of these people.
They talked about storming the capital. And that's what they did.
The New York Times retracted their Sicknick story because it was false. All current indications are that Sicknick died of a heart attack, perhaps the stress and anxiety he felt that day aggravated his pre-existing issues but calling that murder is an impossible stretch.
> All current indications are that Sicknick died of a heart attack, perhaps the stress and anxiety he felt that day aggravated his pre-existing issues but calling that murder is an impossible stretch.
No, it is well within the established caselaw surrounding ‘homicide by heart attack’, where other factors (such as the felony murder rule) establish that if the death was homicide, it would be murder.
