Is ATS out to get Alex Jones?, page 2

Thank you for your courteous and logical reply, SO.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by rich23
My point is, ultimately, that despite a lack of any evidence to suggest a malicious intent, ATS is labelling Jones a hoaxer. And then mounting a campaign against him.

Perhaps the wording of the messaging may have been improved upon, but the intent was clear, making the point that the interview was not real... at a time when many still believed it was.

I can't help but find that a little disingenuous. There was a backlash on ATS which was then mobilised by the email. The choice of words is important, and if you seek to upbraid AJ for his journalistic shortcomings (which are legion, let's be honest) then your own house should be in apple-pie order.

Here's the email, which came under the title help spread the truth.

An unfortunate event has occurred today that has the potential to harm the credibility all people and sites seeking to find the truth in a broad range of conspiracy-related topics... the The Alex Jones Interview Hoax.

Some hours after the deception was exposed, several dozen online sources have not yet fully come to terms with the fictional nature of the "interview." Help raise awareness of the reality by DIGGing the ATS thread that contains the link to the original, unaltered version.

So, without conclusive evidence, the words "hoax" and "deception" were both used... but here's the thing: you're saying

the intent was clear, making the point that the interview was not real... at a time when many still believed it was.

but the email is clearly making the point that the interview had been altered to include the disclaimer. That is NOT the same thing as alerting people to the fact that it was a "faux" interview: it's taking the one- or two-hour gap (reports vary) and making it the centre of the story.

Sorry, SO, but I have to say I'm disappointed,

If the faux-interview was accidentally posted without the disclaimer, we'd have heard a reasonable explanation by now... and I'd sit down to a plate of crow.

Here's where we disagree, and it's down to my personal impression of AJ as someone who will bluster his way through situations like this giving way as little as possible. If he's been removing negative comments from his site as other posters are saying, it's hardly an encouraging sign.

However, it's exactly the reaction of most of the MSM when they get something wrong, which, you know, happens now and again. They stonewall and bluster until it all goes away.

If it was so major and important, should there have been:
1) greater care in the posting of the complete piece written by Mr. Sheen?
2) swift response and apologies for accidentally omitting the disclaimer?
3) a disclaimer at the top, indicating the "open letter" nature of the "interview?"

Yes, yes and yes. Everything you say about the presentation of fake interviews is granted, and I hope there's nothing in any of my posts that suggest otherwise.

It's unfortunate that the style of delivery is overshadowing an otherwise interesting development in the 9/11 conspiracy arena. Someone of Mr. Sheen's stature can do much... and teamed with Mr. Jones, may actually result in some outcomes for which we may be pleased.

The thought has occurred to me that if someone wanted to discredit the two of them, omitting the disclaimer would be one way of doing it. It's not entirely impossible, but I'd assign it a low probability.

I've sent several emails today to various contacts to see if I can speak directly with Mr. Jones, by phone or email, in an effort to get his side of the story. Hopefully, we can discover that a series of unfortunate stumbles resulted in an apparent deception... if so, as I've said, I'll gladly dine on crow.

I doubt that Jones will do more than bluster on the subject, if it's addressed at all.

Not entirely unlike the way you tried to make out that the email was intended to ensure people understood that the interview was a fake, whereas when read as a simple piece of English text, the intent clearly goes to showing deception on Jones' part.

Edit to add:

I forgot to address the issue of the email on a more general level. How do you square this email with the prohibition on campainging in the T&Cs? You know them better than I. I personally think it goes against the spirit at least.

There is a lot of potential power available through emails like that. Do you think ATS admin are sufficiently spiritually advanced to wield such power justly?

I can see that ATS admin need all sorts of powers to do their job. I'm not convinced this is not an abuse of that power.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by rich23]