Is ATS out to get Alex Jones?

reply to post by ExPostFacto

---

Thats true why are they disappearing????

2nd line

Thank you for your courteous and logical reply, SO.



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.



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



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,




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.



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.



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 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]

I have problems believing that Charlie Sheen even wrote the interview and would more inclined that he presented the idea to Alex Jones and AJ went from there with CS's approval.

However given Alex's over-hype yesterday of the "event", I have little doubt that leaving off the disclaimer was an intended situation and little more than damage control given that knowingly creating a fictional interview presented as factual would have a major libel suit written all over it.

While I feel it was important for the administration of ATS to let their membership know that the interview was a work of fiction, I am not so certain that ATS should have taken the position urging the members to use DIGG on the unedited original link. I feel that it would have been better to used a prepared statement thread from administration as the point to use DIGG so that information from ATS would have looked more organized and dare I say mature for presentation outside our community to the net as a whole.

Just like AJ removing comments he doesn't like. How grown-up. You might also check my reply to SO... it's not quite as soothing a picture as you'd think from what he says in the quoted paragraph.

We're just trying to contain the number of threads.

Believe me... there have been far more threads removed that are highly critical of Jones, than those that are defensive.

It's a long time since I got my degree in Law, but unless things have changed very radically there's little danger of that. IIRC, defamation requires either that the defamee is accused of a criminal offence or the publication would reasonably be expected to bring them into the average person's contempt.

So unless Obama "confessed" to eating small children like boiled sweets, there's not much chance of a libel action.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

---

Duh. Took one source (and an ATS member at that!) as fact. Sorry. I do believe admin here is in general even-handed. But I think this email business is worrying.

reply to post by rich23

---

Obama would have to prove defamation of character to prove libel. Also, people are immune from liability for stating untrue statements about elected representatives the last time I checked.

To me the U2U wasn't the worrying part. I could handle someone drawing my attention to something. It was the fact the U2U asked us to dig an article stating the whole of Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen's interview was a hoax without stipulating that the fictional interview was still highly relevant and loaded with facts.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by ExPostFacto]

Not to pick nits, but it was a U2U, not an email. When we send emails, they go out to a far wider audience.

Well... we see it differently.

It is a fake (faux) interview that was originally posted without any indication as to its fictional nature. Nearly two hours after first appearing, and hundreds of replies from the vantage point of it being real, the disclaimer was added without any apology.

We have no "evidence" other than what clearly happened (a fake interview originally presented as real), and what has not happened (an apology for an inadvertent deception). The most likely conclusion is that the disclaimer was originally omitted for the purpose of sensationalism... a conclusion that clearly fits within the confines of what we've previously labeled as hoaxes here in the past.

I hope it's not. I'd prefer to read about a logical accident.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

---

I'm glad you are trying to get an official statement. That shows goodwill.

reply to post by rich23

---

Just that it causes harm to the one defamed, not necessarily illegal actions nor loss of income from my understanding, although those are the easiest to prove.

The part about Obama being a fan of Charlie Sheen's show would be enough (or the entire "interview" if it was stated as a cause for scoring lower on Obama's popularity polls) as it could be considered an incidental contributing cause should Obama not be re-elected in 2012.

Although admittedly that is giving Alex Jones a bit more credence than he is due.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

---

IMHO the U2U and wording showed very poor judgment. And as another poster said, there is (seemingly) discrimination and favoritism showing up here and there in this site, either intentionally (by ignoring some but not others), or unintentionally (by not having superhumans 24/7/365 to ensure NO ERRORS OR OMMISSIONS are ever made or taken as one thing when they were actually another). Geez.... could be as simple as that... not a superhuman without the possibility of errors in disclaimer or forgetting, or overlooking - but for the Admin to label it a hoax is a judgment and privately asking an 11,000 membership to agree??? What is the truth of this anyway? Oh right, you're waiting to talk to him to hear his side first... be sure to send us all another U2U and let us know what to believe next.

I agree 100% rich23, the amount of people on here who are quick to jump on the boat without any incite is shocking, i now question myself even if i should be apart of this community. It's sad to hear that most of the members from 2007+ would try an make there ego larger just to call alex a hoaxer(i'm a previous member of this forum, i made a new account due to having people follow me to different threads trying to bash me)

thank god you said that,,, all these alex jones lovers,,,, apparently they aren't to familiar with his history


how can you not figure out this made his ratings(Radio) and mouse clicks (websites) go through the roof
he's laughing all the way to the bank

how many tuned in today or visited his site today that don't usually

i hope to pull the graph of it off google or the site that tracks traffic


ps----- do they know he broadcasts with stolen radio equipment,,, that he and his partner totally screwed over a good guy

didn't they pack it all up at nite and took off if i remmeber correctly
'i certainly remmeber he stole it,,, that's for sure


deny ignorance remember ats???

most of us saw this letdown/hoax coming yesterday

it's alex jones, the boy that cried wolf

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

---

You are essentially assuming. You can sugar coat all you want. I wish you would just reserve judgment until you actually know the intent. If you liked Alex Jones which i honestly think you don't you would not suspect him of such intentional deceit.

If you were impartial you would wait until you speak with him or a source close to him to determine the intent or what happenend,

If you don't get a response you will assume guilt and that is unacceptable and will diminish my opinion of this site. I know i don't matter but at least i will know that judgments on this site when not proven are made based on assumptions.

Never assume.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

---

And to be clear, I will second that sentiment as well.

Although one question remains: Why would Jones choose to pull this stunt on a day that Obama was already in the news over the controversial address to the students? You would think that he would time it with an Obama lull or since it was completely fictional anyways, state that the interview happened prior to VA engagement or after the speech Monday in Cincinnati.

reply to post by shortywarn

---

Now you've accused him of using stolen radio equipment. Care to back that one up so we all know it's a fact?

In all fairness, it was 81 minutes or less, not 2 hours, and not the 90+ minutes reported in the other big thread.

First post when it appeared:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

First post after the edit:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not, as you say, to pick nits

It is a shame, though, that we now have other sites claiming it as clear deception, and insisting Sheen was in on said deception, because of the way this was handled. I note they've been saying so for a lot longer than 81 minutes. How much better it would have been for everyone if they focused on the content, pointing out it was fictional, instead of labelling it a hoax.


[edit on 9-9-2009 by Clickfoot]

Our Site motto is Deny Ignorance not Tolerate Ignorance.

Then start denying yourself, if you can't tolerate yourself.

Seriously, the same thing could be said either way...as no intention has been proven. I think the biggest thing is ATS staff should issue their own correction of what they intended to mean when asking us to dig a article saying that the whole thing is false, when in fact the majority of the interview facts presented were true. This was nothing more than a fictional movie based on a true story, and there seems to have been some attempt to make it appear that it was. Emotions of an expected release of something ground breaking was felt, and instead of being mature and logical a rush to judgment was initiated to call the whole story invalid and a hoax.