MSNBC's Chris Hayes Gets Set Straight After Gaslighting Media Reports on Officer Sicknick's Death

Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP

As Bonchie reported yesterday, the long-awaited medical examiner’s report on the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was released Monday.

To quickly recap, Washington, D.C. chief medical examiner Francisco J. Diaz ruled that Sicknick “suffered two strokes and died of natural causes a day after he confronted rioters at the Jan. 6 insurrection,” according to a Washington Post report. In addition to that, Diaz told the Post that there was no evidence Sicknick had an allergic reaction to “chemical irritants” and that he saw “no evidence of internal or external injuries.”

Though Diaz did state that “all that transpired” during the Capitol riots between rioters and police officers “played a role” in Sicknick’s condition, his findings dealt a serious blow to the left/media’s “murder” narrative concerning the officer’s death.

The news of Diaz’s official findings did not sit well with some on the left, who began insinuating that there was something not quite right about the “revision” between the initial reports on Sicknick’s death and Diaz’s official report. The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer and MSNBC’s Chris Hayes were two of the more notable examples:

The problem here is that some early reports on Sicknick’s death, such as one from ABC News, were already noting that “authorities believe Sicknick’s death was driven by a medical condition” but were also looking into the possibility he was hit with a fire extinguisher or another object.

Also, the New York Times initially reported Sicknick was struck on the head with a fire extinguisher, but they filed an updated report a month later to note that “police sources and investigators are at odds over whether he was hit.” That same piece from early February also pointed out that investigators “increasingly suspect” one factor that played into Sicknick’s death may have been a chemical irritant:

Investigators have found little evidence to back up the attack with the fire extinguisher as the cause of death, the official said. Instead, they increasingly suspect that a factor was Officer Sicknick being sprayed in the face by some sort of irritant, like mace or bear spray, the law enforcement official said.

Sicknick’s family also told ProPublica a couple of days after the riots that they had been in contact with Sicknick the night of Jan. 6th. His brother Ken Sicknick said Officer Sicknick told him that other than being “pepper-sprayed twice” that he was doing fine.

“But the day after that text exchange, the family got word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke; a ventilator was keeping him alive,” ProPublica also reported at the time.

In other words, there were already conflicting reports, within days, of outlets like the NY Times claiming he’d been attacked with a fire extinguisher. In fact, for several weeks, various media outlets including the Times and CNN were having to file new reports noting that there had been a shift in thinking as to what might have caused Officer Sicknick’s death. Was it a fire extinguisher? Chemical irritants? A medical condition?

Chris Hayes being a political commentator and someone who presumably keeps up with news reports on a daily basis, especially on a significant story like this one, surely would have known that the narrative didn’t just suddenly shift from being one where Sicknick died from being struck to Sicknick having died from natural causes, right?

Wrong. Twitter user Pradheep J. Shanker set him straight:

Also, let’s take a look at Hayes’s rushes to judgment before all facts were known:

Apparently, Hayes chose to deliberately ignore later media reports that contradicted the early ones from the New York Times and others as to what might have caused Sicknick’s death. This was likely due to the fact that the shifting narratives that were emerging didn’t tell Hayes and his audience what they wanted to hear about the “murder” of a Capitol police officer by rioters that day.

This was a serious dereliction of duty on his part because no matter if you are a straight news reporter or an opinion commentator, you have an obligation to your audience to set the record straight on stories you’ve reported on regardless of whether or not they ultimately “prove” a narrative you’ve been trying to sell. It’s the right thing to do. Unfortunately for Hayes, he chose not to do the right thing and his credibility will take a further hit because of it.

Flashback –>> Parler to Democrats: We Warned FBI in Advance of Capitol Riots, and Here Are the Receipts to Prove It