Rense & Alex Jones: Caught Red-Handed

Jeff Rense and Alex Jones have censored materials in numerous occasions but the last one has meet a very strong dissapointment from the part of Doug Thompson, editor of Capitol Hill Blue who has been publishing articles that deal mostly with conspiracy theory. The fact that both Rense and Jones who are "liders" of the free speach and stand for the right of uncensored posting are the same involved in censoring somebodys else material is astonishing. As one ancient and long-forgotten Chinese wise-man once said: "Beware when fighting a dragon that you do not become one.!"




Well if the analysis done on behalf of Jones and Rense shows in a certain level their complicity in altering the materials at the censorship level I cant stop thinking and asking my self; why would Alex Jones, even though self proclaimed grandfather of 9/11 Truth Movement or Jeff Rense felt so necessary to censor contents from articles that were so let say substanstial to prove the government lies about 9/11.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Telos]

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Telos]



[edit on 11-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 19-4-2006 by asala]

Perhaps because in order for any masterful feat of misinformation to be effective, a polar opposite agenda must likewise be fashioned that galvanizes the other side of the equation. This provides both sides of the political spectrum with fodder and "evidence" of the other side's misdeeds. Both are extremes. The truth likely dwells somewhere between the two, or more to the point, represents a collaboration or lack of distinction between the two.

Can we be sure that the original Capitol Blue article from Dough Thompson was either satiral or under duress due to the fact that his office was being bothered by the USG?

Otherwise it is difficult to see anything major happening here from the alleged "censorship," in this piece here. It seems like a kind of straw man argument, involving some extremely tiny percentage of the data. So far there is nothing from either Jones or Rense in reply, but compared with the sheer volume of data it seems to be an argument about the miniscule. The points raised could be about cut and paste jobs of the work of others? That would be a good reason to pull the data, but not really knowing, how can anyone comment? Perhaps the whole subject is unity on the "points we can prove," as Jones puts it. Sorry but I cannot envision what the big deal is all about since there is not enough data.

Jones always seemed to be too liberal to me and I think that influences his portrayal of what is going on. He is also really gung ho and sometimes it makes me feel uneasy like he was trying too hard. So I don't find it surprising that he may be carving up the news to suit his purposes.

Rense on the other hand just seems to be a dust disturber to me. He cycles madly from left to right extremes in his views and he is just out to cause as much angst as he possibly can.

I have to agree with the guy when he says that the slave can become the slave driver too if they don't see themselves for what they really are on a regular basis.

Censorship... Come on...

Alex jones may have a knack for unproffessional editing, but the cry of censorship is a poor attempt to divert support from one conspiracy group to another...

Divide and conquer... hummm... wonder who thought of that?

9-11 conspiracies are controversial, and many times are obvious disinfo attempts to slam the reputation of any ignorant enough to beleive/support them...

editing of any theory at this point, is required to get to the truth inbetween the lies...

I notice that ATS does the very same thing in regards to editing material (that is already published) mainly for space, and sometimes for non-contextual information.

The WingTV folks are constantly bashing Jones and Rense. Its like the kid in junior high who thinks he deserves the attention of the cool crowd, but isn't getting it. Although Jones is sometimes over the top and Rense will allow pretty much any whacko to post on his site, they still get a lot more respect from me than WingTV. WingTV just says "We're right! There wrong! I'm perttier than she is! Look at ME! Why don't you LOVE ME?"

I read it all over to see what was going on and here's what I noticed:

The Wing site is complaining because when the article was censored, the bit that was censored was the part that mentioned the Wing site authors. This bothered them because it seemed to them that they were being excluded from the article because they don't agree with each other on every single issue. Who cares if someone agrees with you 100% or not? Even scientists don't agree with each other, 100 percent of the time. They still quote each other's work.

Alex Jones,

Has this man been wrong at least 1 time in the last 500 yrs he has been on?
Has this man actually fudged any news article that we have seen on his site?


The simple answer to these questions is no and no.

I have not seen any point in where AJ has did anything wrong, or gave out misinformation.

Therefor I am voting no on this article, because I agree with above people..

Junior High all over, just in the net this time.

uuu look at me look at meeeee!!!!

This is not the first time wingtv tries to discredit Jones, and i bet its not the last time either. However, 99% of his stuff still stands, instead of bashing Alex try to add something to the fight weenies.

The WingTV folks are constantly bashing Jones and Rense. Its like the kid in junior high who thinks he deserves the attention of the cool crowd, but isn't getting it. Although Jones is sometimes over the top and Rense will allow pretty much any whacko to post on his site, they still get a lot more respect from me than WingTV. WingTV just says "We're right! There wrong! I'm perttier than she is! Look at ME! Why don't you LOVE ME?

Thats spot on.
Wing TV attack everybody in the community, almost as if it was their primary reason for being there...........

Anyway, they have written a ridiculously long article about something almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things, their names being removed from an article. I think its beyond stupid to accuse Alex Jones of censorship, a man who censors nothing, based on this. They know that as well.
Propaganda matirx is Paul Joseph Watson in any case

Beware those two, they are out there to cause trouble either because they are idiots or becasue they are US contel disinfo paid idiots.


[edit on 12-4-2006 by AdamJ]

Ok guys.

I've posted this material over here because ATS is the place where critical thinking leads. Anyways this post doesn't represent my personal opionion about AJ or Rense. And as much as funny can sound, at home I have more Alex Jones dvd's then other movies and songs together.
I know Lisa Guliani (not as a person) because we both are part of the same news group but honestly when I read that article (trust me I peruse word by word) I didn't know what to think.

Thanks for answering to my post and for sharing your opinions. That's what I love about ATS, the diversity of opinions and the knowledge somebody gains in here

thanx for posting the story, definately not having a go at you.

I just dont like those who run around critcising others.

A few days later, we noticed that the two sentences referring to Lisa Guliani had been completely deleted from Herman’s article

And those sentences were about two comments about another article. The comments were favourable to 911 being a cover-up.

Is this guy actually claiming that alex jones and jeff rense don't beleive in the 911 conspiracies?

Actually, and intersting thing here, why did both of these ostensibly independant people make the same somewhat random edits? Are they working together? Though it notes that the Jones version has more information removed.

Also, the article here seems to suggest that one of the comments proved that there was a conspiracy.

Lisa Guliani and her 17 points refuting Doug Thompson

But in reality the 'censored' portions merely state that

Lisa Guliana (sic), of WING TV, posted 17 well-researched points disputing, or destroying altogether, Thompson's conclusions they evoked no response. Not a peep.

And, also, notice that this person works for the same page that is hosting this article, Wing TV.

neither Rense nor Jones received permission from the author to alter this work after it had already been published in its original form (by Jeff Rense himself).

Then its the property of Rense, and they can edit it however they want.


It looks like the entire article is really just hoping to smear WingTv's competition. The iterative bolding and use of 'censorship' seems intended to really put the association in your mind that rense and jones are 'the bad guys' who hide the truth.

Why would Jeff Rense deliberately delete a reference to the above points, all of which are essential elements of 9-11 truth?

Indeed, why would they, since they regularly promote those basic points and push the conspiracy theory already anyway.

Again, seems like dirty politics and smear campaigns between rense, jones, and wingtv.

Also, while the page distracts you wither 'over proofing' things like what was originalyl in the article (and in the end they ask the author, who tells them, so...wtf what was the rest of that all about), it seems to leave out the basic question, who altered the articles? Rense.com, as far as I understand it, doesn't write its own articles, peopel send stuff to rense, and then it gets put up on a page in their domain. SO who's to say Jeff Rense was sitting there and editing the page? Or Jones, for that matter?


[edit on 12-4-2006 by Nygdan]

Therefor I am voting no on this article, because I agree with above people..

Thats a poor reason to vote down an article, that you disagree with the import of the quoted article. I voted no here because the opeing statement is clearly biased and the write up in general is not clear about what actually happened.

There's a big difference between Censorship and Editing as well, I have first hand knowlege of how that works as I have seen a four page interview literally sliced apart to fit into a single column in a major national magazine, but they printed it and paid the writer (a meager sum). My first impression was that they had censored the information, but later in life I came to realize that once you put information out there, what other folks do with it is (outside of plagarism) really out of your control. They even added a photo of their own and missed the entire point of the original material, but the fact that the information hit the mainstream was the ultimate reward. I've seen local press releases get completely blown out of proportion, or angled to the point of being counter-productive, but then I have seen them get ignored all together. The guy should be thankful really that his information got picked up at all. Censorhship implies a willfull exclusion of information to achieve some alterior motive, while it is easy to confuse the two, editing is often a nessecary evil.

I cannot totally agree with you Twitchy. Look censorship is a very specific word and cannot be confused with editing. I've been a journalist in the past (I wasn't born in Canada and English is not my first language - -in case you have noted the lack of perfection and few mistakes in writing and building the paragrafs) and I know very well what does it means to edit a material. Editing is used only to cut unecesary word and sentences and sometime for the effect of the room in the page to make the article fit but never things that can change the whole idea of an article. Censorship is an act done with the only purpose of changing the real meaning or hidding facts in an article.
Anyways in this instance I'm not advocating at all Lisa Guliani neither opposing her claim. The fact that Jones is who he is doesn't mean that is immune of common people's mistakes and as a human being is open to errors. I'm still a strong believer of that wise man's proverb Beware when fighting a dragon that you do not become one.

Thats a poor reason to vote down an article, that you disagree with the import of the quoted article. I voted no here because the opeing statement is clearly biased and the write up in general is not clear about what actually happened.

Look man, I don't need a site to tell me someone has edited something. I am not speaking for Rense because i don't go on that site. I will be speaking as a AJ person here.

I have yet to see someone show me something that isn't not true on AJ's 300 sites.

I have yet to actually see him edit something out of content.

and i miss typed something.

i didn't write what i wanted to say. I mixed it up. I did however did say above what I thought and still you edited out what I did say..

I will say it now.

I Voted no for the simple fact I find AJ's articles to be worth while and can be backed up by at least 3 other sources, whether it would be CNN or bobs fish farm site. It can be backed up.

Telos, the reason why Alex has cut away that section, is the length and the fact that EVERYONE knows these things, so they are not worth mentioning anymore. I can't speak for Jeff Rense, because I don't know anything about him. Alex was done with the subject of WTC several years ago, and is, I expect, NOT interested in regurgetating his own material ad nauseum!

When has the U.S. government, CIA, FBI, ANYONE, NOT censored ANYTHING? I think the people who wrote the articles that we find the links to in this thread are either lying, or you are not seeing what is right in front of you.
Are you put here to spread negative propaganda to make people doubt Alex Jones, who has come up with some of the best weapons in this information war? That's what it looks like to me. Because an information war is what this is, and MAY NOBODY FORGET THAT!

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Christian IX]

Rense writes about this Wing TV problem. Have they have been from the start an intel setup?

Since their tactics look identical to NWO divide and conquer strategies, a deeper look is advised. Can't anyone see the resemblence to O'Reilley in the literary tone, in a political smear campaign lacking substance but containing ample vitriol?

These ugly little wings have cleverly...and they are good at their craft...also attacked and baited
others in the alternative in attempts to start net 'wars'
which, of course, would achieve two things:

1. It would give the chicken wings free publicity if the targets were to respond to being defamed,
libeled and slandered, and, 2. It would drain the energy and time of the target.

These are probably the two most important goals for all intel assets and
anti-American operatives working the net.

The malignantly clever wings recently used the cover ruse of an 'interview' with a brazen
net nutcase as a platform to launch yet another attack on me. The 'interview' of this person
accomplished several things, not the least of which was to repost and spread the guest's own
psycho-maniacal assault on me.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by Christian IX
Telos,
Are you put here to spread negative propaganda to make people doubt Alex Jones, who has come up with some of the best weapons in this information war? That's what it looks like to me. Because an information war is what this is, and MAY NOBODY FORGET THAT!

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Christian IX]

You are not serious, are you? This so called propaganda doesn't come neither from my fingers or my website. I made it clear in my previous post. This article doesn't represent my personal opinion about Alex Jones. Was just something I've read and I wanted to share it with you.
Any ways. Bo cool man. I don't think A J's reputation is beign ruined from the link I've posted, neither from my bad intention .