Alex Jones

[digamma]

How is Alex Jones a partisan issue?

Somewhat mystified by Megyn Kelly interviewing him on her new show. Ratings, right? Maybe the angle is to show what a kook he his, but seems like unnecessary pain for the hundreds of victims of crimes he says are a hoax or brought about by conspiratorial forces.

[albionmoonlight]

Ratings.

And it's working. The only places I have heard that it is happening is posts from people complaining about it.

Advertisers don't care if the eyeballs are hate-watching.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Ratings.

And it's working. The only places I have heard that it is happening is posts from people complaining about it.

Advertisers don't care if the eyeballs are hate-watching.

Exactly. The local sports talk radio guys are a dime a dozen except for the guy who takes outlandish views on the Cardinals, Mizzou, Blues, and Rams. Four distinct groups of fans all calling for his head who listen and call in to his show only to "call him on his bullshit".

Alex Jones knows exactly what he is doing. For every "kook" Alex Jones discussion there are thousands of sane people who never even Get mentioned.

[cuervo72]

Have to say, I'm a little concerned that Kelly is going to further mainstream a lot of the wacky stuff that passed as legit news from Fox.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by digamma

How is Alex Jones a partisan issue?

Simple. Liberals (correctly) find him completely despicable. And for far too many of today's conservatives, the only value that actually matters is "not being on the same side as liberals".

If being OK with a monster like Jones is the price for being able to say "Her her, look at all the triggered libtards" then it's a price some find worth paying.

[nol]

Gotta hear both sides.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

How is Alex Jones a partisan issue?

Somewhat mystified by Megyn Kelly interviewing him on her new show. Ratings, right? Maybe the angle is to show what a kook he his, but seems like unnecessary pain for the hundreds of victims of crimes he says are a hoax or brought about by conspiratorial forces.

Trump has praisednhim and appeared on his show. His organization has received press credentials from the White House and many conservatives trust him as a news source.

[Ben E Lou]

How in the world can a mainstream news organization report on Alex Jones, given the awful things that he has said??? Ugh.

How in the world can a mainstream news organization ignore Alex Jones, given the following he has of the awful things that he has said??? Ugh.

For me, both statements above are equally true. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, but it's a symptom, not the problem.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

And for far too many of today's conservatives, the only value that actually matters is "not being on the same side as liberals".

Pretty much calling out JiMGa here. The truth hurts.

I mean pretty much the only thing he ever says in the Trump thread is "at least this is better than that damn Obama, who should've been strung up by his thumbs!" Or some other physical threat against Dem lawmakers. It's amusing.

[Ben E Lou]

I'd add this one thought: I wonder how many decent people, ranging in political thought from center-left to center-right, who don't follow politics as closely as many of us here do but who will watch this show out of curiosity, have no idea who he is and from whence many of the far-right conspiracy theories arise. Is it a good thing or a bad thing to expose that crowd to him?

[Toddzilla]

Despite how I feel about him, he is completely news worthy and I think NBC is totally justified having him on. He's not on a sit-com or a show where he has any kind of creative control (we hope) so let's hope when they "shine a light" on this guy they do so in a way that exposes him. Daylight is the best disinfectant.

That being said, people protesting have the absolute right to scream and yell, and advertisers have the right to pull support which they already have started I see.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'd add this one thought: I wonder how many decent people, ranging in political thought from center-left to center-right, who don't follow politics as closely as many of us here do but who will watch this show out of curiosity, have no idea who he is and from whence many of the far-right conspiracy theories arise. Is it a good thing or a bad thing to expose that crowd to him?

Depends on how he's exposed, I guess. The Fox News side would probably hold this guy up on a pedestal as a voice of reason while the MSNBC side would tear the guy down as a lunatic. Put those two together and I think everyone is going to have issues with some or all of it.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

For me, both statements above are equally true. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, but it's a symptom, not the problem.

Agree with this.

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'd add this one thought: I wonder how many decent people, ranging in political thought from center-left to center-right, who don't follow politics as closely as many of us here do but who will watch this show out of curiosity, have no idea who he is and from whence many of the far-right conspiracy theories arise. Is it a good thing or a bad thing to expose that crowd to him?

I think the problem for me is that the center-left and center-right folks aren't really going to do anything about hearing the information. Just another crazy.

But the fringe who tunes into him is emboldened and sees this as legitimizing him. I think that's the problem. And you have a real consequence in the activity of his audience on social media or elsewhere. Just last week one of his supporters was sentenced for harassing a Sandy Hook parent.

In the legal world, when you seek an injunction you weigh the chance of success on the merits versus the chance of causing real harm by not granting the injunction. It's not a perfect comparison by any means, but for me the continued and chance of increased harm here makes me side on the it's a bad thing to expose him on a primetime network.

[Butter]

Problem is there is no way to disprove a conspiracy theorist... anybody that tries is just lumped in as "part of the conspiracy". At some point, people are too far gone to reason with.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Butter

Pretty much calling out JiMGa here. The truth hurts.

I mean pretty much the only thing he ever says in the Trump thread is "at least this is better than that damn Obama, who should've been strung up by his thumbs!" Or some other physical threat against Dem lawmakers. It's amusing.

I tend to stay out of politics threads here so no idea if what I said applies to anyone specific. But I'm sure it does, if only because there's so much of this out there and I don't see why this place would be any different.

You can see it whenever you go to any conservative news site; half the headlines are all about how the left (or the media or the elites or whatever other code word) is reacting to something. Not the thing itself -- just that somebody somewhere is unhappy with it, which means it must be good.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by digamma

Agree with this.



I think the problem for me is that the center-left and center-right folks aren't really going to do anything about hearing the information. Just another crazy.

But the fringe who tunes into him is emboldened and sees this as legitimizing him. I think that's the problem. And you have a real consequence in the activity of his audience on social media or elsewhere. Just last week one of his supporters was sentenced for harassing a Sandy Hook parent.

In the legal world, when you seek an injunction you weigh the chance of success on the merits versus the chance of causing real harm by not granting the injunction. It's not a perfect comparison by any means, but for me the continued and chance of increased harm here makes me side on the it's a bad thing to expose him on a primetime network.

What is the percentage of the lunatic fringe which doesn't already know about him, loves what he stands for and isn't already emboldened either by Trump's election or the far right dingbat circles that support him? I have to think this number is extremely tiny.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter

Pretty much calling out JiMGa here. The truth hurts.

I mean pretty much the only thing he ever says in the Trump thread is "at least this is better than that damn Obama, who should've been strung up by his thumbs!" Or some other physical threat against Dem lawmakers. It's amusing.

Like you don't think I can constently tell you why X is better than Y on a given topic? Puh-leeze. Just because I don't always bother to state the obvious doesn't mean it isn't there, I simply don't always have the time, energy, or patience to explain it in detail to those incapable/unwilling to accept reality anyway.

Anyone paying attention surely has seen my consistent disappointment with Trump YTD. "Better" isn't a particularly enraptured endorsement when you're comparing to the second worst president in history. I'd rather eat cold McNuggets than fresh chicken manure, that doesn't mean the former is appetizing.

If you're gonna troll me, you're gonna need to bring a lot better game than this. Anybody with a springtime high IQ can see through this one.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Despite how I feel about him, he is completely news worthy and I think NBC is totally justified having him on. He's not on a sit-com or a show where he has any kind of creative control (we hope) so let's hope when they "shine a light" on this guy they do so in a way that exposes him. Daylight is the best disinfectant.

That being said, people protesting have the absolute right to scream and yell, and advertisers have the right to pull support which they already have started I see.

What is newsworthy about him?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Like you don't think I can constently tell you why X is better than Y on a given topic? Puh-leeze. Just because I don't always bother to state the obvious doesn't mean it isn't there, I simply don't always have the time, energy, or patience to explain it in detail to those incapable/unwilling to accept reality anyway.

Anyone paying attention surely has seen my consistent disappointment with Trump YTD. "Better" isn't a particularly enraptured endorsement when you're comparing to the second worst president in history. I'd rather eat cold McNuggets than fresh chicken manure, that doesn't mean the former is appetizing.

If you're gonna troll me, you're gonna need to bring a lot better game than this. Anybody with a springtime high IQ can see through this one.

But this ignores the numerous times you've said some version of, "it pisses off the right people, so it must be somewhat good."

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you're gonna troll me, you're gonna need to bring a lot better game than this. Anybody with a springtime high IQ can see through this one.

What troll? What game?

ML said: "the only value that actually matters is "not being on the same side as liberals"."

As JPhillips noted, you have said almost exactly that on many, many occasions, and presented it like an end in and of itself. If that's not your intent, then try having a conversation instead of being a troll yourself.

You are not required to elucidate your opinions on here if you don't want, but don't pretend like you haven't posted a lot of things like "Her her, look at all the triggered libtards" in, I'm guessing, a lot of different places throughout the internet.

That's contributing a lot to the conversation, let me tell you.

[Atocep]

For liberals, the more Alex Jones is out there being interviewed as a Trump supporter and conservative representative the better.

[digamma]

I actually disagree with that. This isn't about party. The man and his listeners are vile creatures who harass those who have had to do the unthinkable in burying children and loved ones. This shouldn't be a partisan issue or one where anyone scores political points.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by digamma

I actually disagree with that. This isn't about party. The man and his listeners are vile creatures who harass those who have had to do the unthinkable in burying children and loved ones. This shouldn't be a partisan issue or one where anyone scores political points.

Like it or not, that's a decent portion of Trumps base right now. Just go the The_Donald subreddit and you see the same talking points being discussed in a subreddit with over 425k subscribers. Conservatives shouldn't be lumped together with them, but they have infiltrated the party and conservatives need to see who they're being associated with.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

I actually disagree with that. This isn't about party. The man and his listeners are vile creatures who harass those who have had to do the unthinkable in burying children and loved ones. This shouldn't be a partisan issue or one where anyone scores political points.

The President of the United States and leader of the Republican Party has used Infowars "reporting" to advocate his policies and form his political opinions. Jones was given special credentials at the Republican Convention. He held joint events with one of Trump's top advisers. Trump has said Jones has an "amazing reputation" and called to thank him after winning the election.

Infowars is a large part of today's Republican Party. Their stories fuel the base and control the President.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Like it or not, that's a decent portion of Trumps base right now. Just go the The_Donald subreddit and you see the same talking points being discussed in a subreddit with over 425k subscribers. Conservatives shouldn't be lumped together with them, but they have infiltrated the party and conservatives need to see who they're being associated with.

I highly question those subscriber numbers. Considering they couldn't get several thousand signatures on an online petition they tried to do recently, I would assume nearly all of those accounts are bots or something.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I highly question those subscriber numbers. Considering they couldn't get several thousand signatures on an online petition they tried to do recently, I would assume nearly all of those accounts are bots or something.

Whether those numbers are correct or not, the Republican Party voters believe many of the conspiracy theories touted by Infowars and the President who gets his information from them.

Half of registered Republicans believe there is a Clinton run pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza place in Washington DC that doesn't have a basement.

[stevew]

Is there a left wing fringe guy like this that gets/got any type of play nationally? Lyndon Larouche maybe?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is there a left wing fringe guy like this that gets/got any type of play nationally? Lyndon Larouche maybe?

It's not exactly the same, but Mike Adams of "Natural News" infamy is a left-wing loon that has a relatively wide reach.

[digamma]

Louise Mensch?

[nol]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is there a left wing fringe guy like this that gets/got any type of play nationally? Lyndon Larouche maybe?

Most of these people are equal-opportunity con artists who are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, and there's a much greater audience for them on the right wing. You would have to be computer illiterate to fall for a bunch of this stuff, and demographically that matches up with being old, white, and not particularly well-educated.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

Louise Mensch?

Yeah, I'd consider her the left-wing Alex Jones at the moment.

The Green Party kind of gets publicity nationally and has been the home of loony lefties for awhile.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is there a left wing fringe guy like this that gets/got any type of play nationally? Lyndon Larouche maybe?

We just watched Bernie Sanders run for president didn't we?
And was actually treated like a serious candidate.

How much more absurd or out there is anything going to get?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by nol

Most of these people are equal-opportunity con artists who are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, and there's a much greater audience for them on the right wing. You would have to be computer illiterate to fall for a bunch of this stuff, and demographically that matches up with being old, white, and not particularly well-educated.

I agree with most of this. I think 9-11 was generally an anti bush conspiracy theory and jones also hits on vaccinations and Israel and other car left wing ideas. I think he is more of anti government guy than anything just had Obama in office the past eight years. I used to enjoy some of his stuff for entertainment only but he is clearly off the pasture.

As for your last statement I would think the fact that he has a large internet audience would probably skew younger and probably not as uneducated (at least in the traditional sense of the word) as you think. Race I have no idea I will leave that one to you.

[panerd]

I've floated the idea on here in the past that he is a deep government disinformation agent. (My conspiracy about a conspiracy ). He goes on about Aliens and the NWO and lizard people and then throws in something that might actually be happening. So person A says I heard this thing about this upcoming bill on Alex Jones. You means the alien nutcase guy?

If anyone still watches Homeland they had a character like him that was this exact persona this season. They owe me royalties!

[nol]

Originally Posted by panerd

Race I have no idea I will leave that one to you.

If you are a minority and uneducated you are much less likely to be able to afford a computer in the first place, and then there are many more white people in general. Here is a somewhat recent survey showing computer ownership by race, income, and educational attainment.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by nol

If you are a minority and uneducated you are much less likely to be able to afford a computer in the first place, and then there are many more white people in general. Here is a somewhat recent survey showing computer ownership by race, income, and educational attainment.

Laptop and desktop ownership?! Might as well as include ability to afford AOL internet service.

Most young people would be getting crazy Alex from their phone.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is there a left wing fringe guy like this that gets/got any type of play nationally? Lyndon Larouche maybe?

Noam Chomsky maybe. However, Oliver Stone is up there. Especially after this Untold History of America and now his stupid Putin thing.

[nol]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Laptop and desktop ownership?! Might as well as include ability to afford AOL internet service.

Most young people would be getting crazy Alex from their phone.

If you're making under $30k a year, streaming conspiracy videos is gonna chew through the limited amount of data you can afford rather quickly.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Noam Chomsky maybe. However, Oliver Stone is up there. Especially after this Untold History of America and now his stupid Putin thing.

Chomsky is a rather odd comp IMO. While his political views are not widely accepted, there's a rather significant difference between his analysis of how our political system works and the crazy conspiracy-theory junk that Jones peddles.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

If you're making under $30k a year, streaming conspiracy videos is gonna chew through the limited amount of data you can afford rather quickly.

I don't know. Lot of free wifi hotspots out there. Getting connected to the internet is not hard if you really want to do it.

[nol]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Chomsky is a rather odd comp IMO. While his political views are not widely accepted, there's a rather significant difference between his analysis of how our political system works and the crazy conspiracy-theory junk that Jones peddles.

Yeah, it really shows how much the Overton window is shifted if Noam Chomsky is viewed as equal and opposite to Alex Jones. I can promise that the average person in Middle America has no idea who Noam Chomsky even is.

I myself would be hard-pressed to think of a politician more powerful than a city council member who has particularly Chomsky-like views (example: the response to Trump's bombing of Syria, where even "fringe left lunatic" Bernie Sanders was on board with it), whereas I could throw a couple darts at a US map and be bound to hit at least one area represented by someone who at least is willing to endorse the belief that Hillary Clinton sends secret death squads after her enemies.

[RainMaker]

Is Chomsky a conspiracy guy? I thought he was just a political philosopher or whatever. Same camp as I guess you'd put Ron Paul these days.

You can get into people like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore who bend the truth or flat out lie at times. But I don't think it comes anywhere near what Jones does. I mean the guy thinks Sandy Hook didn't happen. That the Pulse shooting was a false flag. That the US government can control tornadoes.

The closest on the other side is Mensch. I'm sure you can find bigger conspiracy nuts on the left (the Green Party had a bunch) but none that are taken as serious as Jones is by a major political party.

[AENeuman]

Oh, there's a lot out there on Chomsky. I mean his most famous political work is about the use of the media to promote powerful government and businesses agendas.

The main way I said he may be similar to Alex is his assertions that the stated reason for government action is not the real reason. For Alex it's domestic, Noam it is military action and diplomacy that we are being conned on.

[nol]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Oh, there's a lot out there on Chomsky. I mean his most famous political work is about the use of the media to promote powerful government and businesses agendas.

The main way I said he may be similar to Alex is his assertions that the stated reason for government action is not the real reason. For Alex it's domestic, Noam it is military action and diplomacy that we are being conned on.

I think what we're saying is that even if one were to grant your assertion that Chomsky's work is equally as "crackpot" as Alex Jones, what actual elected official has views even close to his? Chomsky is considerably to the left of Bernie Sanders, who pretty famously wasn't even involved in the Democratic Party until he ran for president.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know. Lot of free wifi hotspots out there. Getting connected to the internet is not hard if you really want to do it.

Let's put it this way: if you're computer literate enough to figure out how to connect to a WiFi hotspot, you'd also be able to spend 2 seconds googling a Pizzagate claim or whatever and would not be terribly likely to be an Alex Jones fan.

[nol]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Laptop and desktop ownership?! Might as well as include ability to afford AOL internet service.

Most young people would be getting crazy Alex from their phone.

Spoken like a Silicon Valley resident oblivious to the fact that in rural Middle America, internet access isn't exactly up to first world standards. Here's some Infowars demographic info for you, or you could just use common sense and gather on your own that someone who uses his show to sell dietary supplements that promote colon health isn't marketing to kids.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by nol

Spoken like a Silicon Valley resident oblivious to the fact that in rural Middle America, internet access isn't exactly up to first world standards. Here's some Infowars demographic info for you, or you could just use common sense and gather on your own that someone who uses his show to sell dietary supplements that promote colon health isn't marketing to kids.

As far as colon health, I just assumed he was promoting it because he was an asshole...

But back to your nonsense:

My point was just looking at lack of laptops and computers is not the best way to know if poor people have access to something like info wars podcast, Facebook live, YouTube, etc.

For example, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/01/for-m...lifelines.html

"And among Americans who have smartphones, 10 percent said they don't have broadband access at home, and 15 percent said they have limited online options beyond their coveted mobile devices."
"Of the survey's respondents, 13 percent with a reported annual household income of less than $30,000 said they are "heavily" dependent on their smartphone. "

By the way I work with some of the poorest students in Silicon Valley, thus I have never given internet or computer homework- I assume most students do not have access and laptops. But go on, keeping telling me how I'm oblivious...

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by digamma

How is Alex Jones a partisan issue?

Somewhat mystified by Megyn Kelly interviewing him on her new show. Ratings, right? Maybe the angle is to show what a kook he his, but seems like unnecessary pain for the hundreds of victims of crimes he says are a hoax or brought about by conspiratorial forces.

The only acceptable reason to feature Alex Jones on a news show is for a Murrow-style "See It Now" expose of Jones, his views and his followers.

The reality is that its likely NBC's way of trying to appease to an alt-right fan base and earn street cred with a White House that aligns itself with Jones.

There was a time when no responsible journalism organization would give a person like Jones a megaphone, and certainly not without a massive counterweight.

[nol]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

As far as colon health, I just assumed he was promoting it because he was an asshole...

But back to your nonsense:

My point was just looking at lack of laptops and computers is not the best way to know if poor people have access to something like info wars podcast, Facebook live, YouTube, etc.

For example, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/01/for-m...lifelines.html

"And among Americans who have smartphones, 10 percent said they don't have broadband access at home, and 15 percent said they have limited online options beyond their coveted mobile devices."
"Of the survey's respondents, 13 percent with a reported annual household income of less than $30,000 said they are "heavily" dependent on their smartphone. "

By the way I work with some of the poorest students in Silicon Valley, thus I have never given internet or computer homework- I assume most students do not have access and laptops. But go on, keeping telling me how I'm oblivious...

Because just to troll me, you act as though people who live in poverty aren't less likely to have internet access and that young minorities make up a substantial proportion of Infowars users, both of which do not pass the smell test at all.





Anyhow, I remember you having some uh, "interesting" ideas in the past on minority students and standardized test scores, so forgive me for being quite surprised that you actually work with them.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by nol

Because just to troll me, you act as though people who live in poverty aren't less likely to have internet access and that young minorities make up a substantial proportion of Infowars users, both of which do not pass the smell test at all.

Oh dear, didn't mean to troll. Just thought your point was dated. Access to internet and having a computer are two different things this day. For example, my 80 year old mom and her friends, and my retired in laws only use iPads to get their info (all living in the most conservative county in the state) . Thus, just looking at laptops, desktops ownership to make a conclusion is too narrow given how there are more popular vehicles out there.

I also never mentioned race/minorities.

[digamma]

The Alex Jones interview had ratings of about 28% lower than Kelly's prior two episodes. Good job America!