"Infowars Catches Border Drug Smuggling Operation On Camera!" Seems staged?

a reply to: Informer1958

Would you care to explain to the casual ATS readers about Jones video that is so bias and gullible?

A more appropriate word would be "biased" but the term "confirmation bias" has a specific meaning. A video cannot have confirmation bias (though it can prey upon the confirmation bias of viewers), nor can it be gullible.

Confirmation bias and gullibility are characteristics of people, not videos.
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.thefreedictionary.com...

a reply to: Phage

So what you are trying to say is that people watching Jones drug smuggling video are gullible and that Jones video is bias, am I correct?

a reply to: Informer1958
No, you are incorrect.
I am saying that Jones knows his audience. He knows that they are highly subject to confirmation bias and are gullible. (Remember that "Amero" thing?)

I am saying that Jones has used that knowledge to present a video of an (alleged) smuggling operation to attack the current administration knowing that his audience will eat it up because it is exactly what they want to hear.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Doesn't mean I have to trust anything from Infowars or Alex Jones.

Absolutely.
But is the source of the video of the event even provided? And again, even if the video were found to be fake, what's the point? Smuggling happens, doesn't it? Jones want to blame it on the administration. Big surprise.

Why are you asking us questions that are answered by simply watching the video yourself? Moreover, why are you commenting to this extent on a video you haven't even bothered yet watching? The cameraman works for Infowars.

a reply to: sheilala

The cameraman works for Infowars.

According to whom?

a reply to: sheilala

Those could be smugglers, but there is one thing I don't understand about the video. If they're so frightened by this cartel and are in hiding, why does he use the camera man's full name twice in the video? That part struck me as odd.

a reply to: Phage

The video is on the Alex Jones Channel so, according to Alex Jones.

a reply to: daskakik

Thank you for stating the obvious. So, does Alex pay these guys or what?

a reply to: Phage

I am saying that Jones has used that knowledge to present a video of an (alleged) smuggling operation to attack the current administration knowing that his audience will eat it up because it is exactly what they want to hear.

What they want to hear? Now you are being sarcastic.

You say "alleged smuggling" as if you know personally it is not drugs. What do you think was in all those bags the smugglers put in the back of the SUV dirty laundry? To say that Alex Jones viewers only watches his radio show to hear bias information because they want to, is ludicrous to say the lease.

a reply to: Informer1958

What they want to hear? Now you are being sarcastic.

No. Jones has a quite specific audience. Those who believe everything he says.

You say "alleged smuggling" as if you know personally it is not drugs.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word alleged.

What do you think was in all those bags the smugglers put in the back of the SUV dirty laundry?

I see no reason not to think it could be drugs. I know that drugs are smuggled. I also know that drug smuggling has been going on for a very long time and will continue to, no matter what the administration is.

To say that Alex Jones viewers only watches his radio show to hear bias information because they want to, is ludicrous to say the lease.

Why else do they watch? How much did the lease cost?

a reply to: Phage

Unless he is into the habit of using other peoples work without paying for it then, the answer is probably yes, in some way.

a reply to: daskakik

Unless he is into the habit of using other peoples work without paying for it then, the answer is probably yes, in some way.

All he needs is permission.
I'm sure a truefan would be more than happy to become a "reporter" for no compensation.

a reply to: Phage

But they would still be working for him.

Not sure what your point is.

a reply to: daskakik

But they would still be working for him.

No they wouldn't. They would be saying "Hey Alex! Look at this video of smugglers! Want to use it?"

The word "employee" has a meaning, as does "contractor." Any evidence this video was taken by either?

a reply to: Phage

No. Jones has a quite specific audience. Those who believe everything he says.

A specific audience?

You mean people who are fed up with mainstream medias lies. People who are looking for alternative media that loves to show their sources.
The only people I know who demonizes Jones is the mainstream propaganda media is that what you watch for your information
on currant affairs around the world? Because you are demonstrating that you do.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word alleged.

I know what the word "alleged" means. So you believe that it is not drugs, how do you come to that conclusion?

Why else do they watch? How much did the lease cost?

Your argument is baseless, and bias. You are convince from watching too much propaganda media that every one who watches Jones show wear tin foil hats. I watch his shows and I don't wear a tin foil hat, perhaps you "assume" that I do.

So you "assume" that everyone that watches Jones show is ignorant, gullible, misinformed and cannot think logically or critically. So ridiculing people who do not believe your views says a lot about you doesn't it.

a reply to: Informer1958

A specific audience?

Yes. One prone to confirmation bias.

So you believe that is is not drugs, how do you come to that conclusion?

I didn't. Have you read my posts?
Posts in Thread

So you "assume" that everyone that watches Jones show is ignorant, gullible, misinformed and cannot think logically or critically.

No. I'm pretty sure some watch for entertainment.

a reply to: Phage

Nobody used either of those terms.

Did you have a point or are you just nitpicking?

a reply to: daskakik

Did you have a point or are you just nitpicking?

Yes. My point is that being an "infowars reporter" doesn't mean crap. It means someone sent a video in.

originally posted by: Phage
Yes. My point is that being an "infowars reporter" doesn't mean crap.

Are there any "infowars reporters"? If so, then, it means something.

It also doesn't change the fact that infowars used their report.

ETA: What's the difference if an in house reporter or a correspondent does the piece? Infowars backed it up.

a reply to: daskakik

Are there any "infowars reporters"?

Apparently. If you believe Alex, there are. I don't.

It also doesn't change the fact that infowars used their report.

Nor does it change the fact that drug smuggling has occurred and will continue to occur, no matter what administration is in the White House. Nor does it change the fact that Alex would have you think it is all the fault of the current administration.

So silly.