It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by Faiol
are u guys beeing paid to not present all the FACTS?
For nearly two hours, the interview was presented as having actually happened. The captured original page is here, which makes no mention of an "open letter." When combined with Alex's hype of a big event the previous day, the result is exceedingly disingenuous.
And even with nearly two hours of comments applauding the interview on their own site, there was no correction or apology from InfoWars.com... indicating purposeful deception.
Originally posted by AceWombat04
In my personal opinion, the ends do not justify the means, and two wrongs do not make a right.
No matter how much publicity this garners, no matter how many more people might, potentially, be exposed to alternative ideas and thoughts as a result of this gimmick, dishonesty is still dishonesty, and deception is still deception.
In my view, you cannot espouse the sanctity of truth while telling lies, however well intentioned. For me, that is the crux of the matter.
Originally posted by SonicInfinity
reply to post by schrodingers dog
But is that really the case? Other than on ATS, are there other people talking about this? ATS isn't the world, so even if every single person on ATS who listens to him suddenly stopped, I don't think it would impact him too much.
Also, the question has yet to be asked: What if the rare possibility came true and Obama was interviewed? That would be interesting, to say the least.
Originally posted by talisman
The fact the interview was PUT UP WITHOUT A DISCLAIMER FOR OVER 9() minutes.
Although libel is defined under state case law or statute, the U.S. Supreme Court has enumerated some First Amendment protections that apply to matters of public concern. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court held that in order to recover damages a public person (as a celebrity or politician) who alleges libel (as by a newspaper) has to prove that ``the statement was made with `actual malice' -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not'' in order to recover damages.
Originally posted by FightThePower
its not a hoax if it says under the interview that its fake
everyone is just mad that after reading that amazing interview that it actually didnt happen
stop bringin down alex jones
he knows what hes doing and hes doing a good job of leading the truth movement
honestly this is no big deal everyone is freaking out
so everyone just chill the **** out you sound ridiculous this is not a big deal
Originally posted by TommyG
However you look at it, Alex Jones has successfully grabbed all of your attention quite well. The top threads are about this and nothing else at the moment. I think his tactic worked well in that many people got to read through all of the main unexplained facts that were missed in the 9/11 investigation.
This is no different than a singer's clothing malfunction or an actor's private sex tape. It's guerrilla marketing and it works. It might leave a bad taste in your mouth but, the information got across whether you like it or not.
I am not in favor of the tactics but can at least see that they were deployed effectively. Alex Jones wasn't liked much to begin with, you think he's worried that you don't like him now? His passion is to convey the info and he did just that.
Originally posted by TommyG
However you look at it, Alex Jones has successfully grabbed all of your attention quite well. The top threads are about this and nothing else at the moment.