On the lighter side - Former Infowars worker upset over Sandy Hook coverage among other things

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

A former longtime employee of Infowars said in a deposition released this week that he was laughed at when he raised objections to the fringe outlet's peddling of conspiracy theories related to the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.

Robert Jacobson, who worked for Infowars from 2004 to 2017 in video production, said in a March 20 deposition entered into court records Monday that he was "disturbed" and "disgusted" by the outlet's Sandy Hook coverage, believed it to be reckless, and attempted to raise concerns with staffers.

Yes folks, the conspiracy site that gave us 9/11 is an inside job and chemtrails... went too far with Sandy Hook.

It gets a bit better.

Jacobson said he attempted to "demonstrate what those ethics are," why the writers were "violating them," and "what the damage could be."

"I remember," Jacobson said, "I must have been in that room four to five times, at least, and only to be received with laughter and jokes."

And rightly so... he worked for bloody Infowars... which wasn't about journalism or truth, but about selling garbage and peddling conspiracy theories. Seriously, who the heck did he think he worked for? CNN?!

It gets better.

Asked by email to respond to the claims made in his deposition, Infowars attorney Barnes said Jacobson was a "disgruntled ex-employee" who was "willing to make up stories to attack his former employer."

"He is not a reliable source and his statements are not accurate," Barnes added.

Not a reliable source?!

ROTFLMFAO

 

[RVonse]

If it were only so easy to always know what the truth is. The main problem is that all of the news outlets are liars. CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CNBC, Washington Post, New York Times....they are ALL liars. Even PBS is a liar. And they do not just lie a little bit either. They all tell whoppers all the time. A lot of it is just laziness on their part, instead of going out themselves for a story they mindlessly re-tell something another outlet has released. Then add to that the natural political leaning the management has on which story they want broadcast and for how long. But the biggest source of lies..... which is how info wars got started IMO, is that our own government who wants to steer the public for their own benefit.

So its no wonder people get caught up believing something you find unbelievable. Because a lot of your so called believable news is actually CIA propaganda. And a certain population of the public actually realizes this. The point I am attempting to make here, is that what you think is bullshit can be what someone else believes is the truth and vice versa.

I think people are starving for truth these days. I've often thought an excellent way to make it big in journalism would be simply to advertise a news outlet that could guaranty they were always telling the truth. Call it the "Truth News" and then offer up further $1 million for if anyone could prove what was reported on their network not to be the truth. Of course, that would mean their news would actually have to be truthful news they could verify. It would probably be a lot less news but the news they did give you would stand for something when you heard it. I would think such a news organization would catch a lot of listeners who simply want to be informed about the truth without listening to the other bullshit. Such a news network might not last very long though because I imagine the CIA and or government would want them put out of business for interference with their propaganda arms.

But its also no wonder Trump has a twitter account. Say what you will about his tweets (for or against) but at least we know for a fact what he really has said.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If it were only so easy to always know what the truth is.

Oh certainly. Being able to see through cloaks can be difficult. What is easy however, is knowing that Infowars is full of shit. Done and done!

The main problem is that all of the news outlets are liars. CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CNBC, Washington Post, New York Times....they are ALL liars. Even PBS is a liar.

False equivalency.

And they do not just lie a little bit either. They all tell whoppers all the time. A lot of it is just laziness on their part, instead of going out themselves for a story they mindlessly re-tell something another outlet has released. Then add to that the natural political leaning the management has on which story they want broadcast and for how long. But the biggest source of lies..... which is how info wars got started IMO, is that our own government who wants to steer the public for their own benefit.

So its no wonder people get caught up believing something you find unbelievable. Because a lot of your so called believable news is actually CIA propaganda. And a certain population of the public actually realizes this. The point I am attempting to make here, is that what you think is bullshit can be what someone else believes is the truth and vice versa.

Yup, 9/11 was an inside job too. *head nods*

 

[RVonse]

Yup, 9/11 was an inside job too. *head nods*

Yup, it could have been an orchestrated event. We do know as an established fact, that our own CIA planned a similar event in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

"The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming them on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba."

That was not a space alien UFO event. It was a proposed planned attack by the CIA with provable document showing the same Jimmy.

That still does not necessarily mean 911 was an inside job by the CIA or Mossad. But it does show us that the CIA has thought of these kind of things for their own purpose in the past.

Just because YOU don't think something isn't true does not mean it did not or could not have happened. We simply do not know because our wonderful government decided to cover up and prematurely end the 911 investigation.

 

[BH]

Why did no one go to jail for Operation Northwoods even if it never happened?

That document alone changed how I felt about our government and military when I read it years ago . It isn't that someone thought that up that bothers me as much as someone could think it up and still have their job

 

[RVonse]

Why did no one go to jail for Operation Northwoods even if it never happened?

That is a great question.

I doubt Jimmy has any good answer to this question...but it is an extremely valid unanswered question nonetheless.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why did no one go to jail for Operation Northwoods even if it never happened?

That is a great question.

I doubt Jimmy has any good answer to this question...but it is an extremely valid unanswered question nonetheless.

Am I getting this wrong or do you want people to go to jail for a crime that hasn't been committed?

 

[RVonse]

Why did no one go to jail for Operation Northwoods even if it never happened?

That is a great question.

I doubt Jimmy has any good answer to this question...but it is an extremely valid unanswered question nonetheless.

Am I getting this wrong or do you want people to go to jail for a crime that hasn't been committed?

That's another good point ZipHead.

I honestly do not know if its a crime for our official government to make plans to execute innocent unsuspecting American citizens. Considering that Obama made it legal to execute (without trial) what he defined as terrorist US citizens, I guess it would not be surprising if planning the executions of innocents are also legal.

But if this is legal it shouldn't be.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why did no one go to jail for Operation Northwoods even if it never happened?

That is a great question.

I doubt Jimmy has any good answer to this question...but it is an extremely valid unanswered question nonetheless.

Am I getting this wrong or do you want people to go to jail for a crime that hasn't been committed?

That's a normal part of law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)

 

[ZiprHead]

Am I getting this wrong or do you want people to go to jail for a crime that hasn't been committed?

That's a normal part of law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)

While the plan was proposed, I don't see anyone that agreed to do it. The agreement is a main part of the criminal act of conspiracy.

 

[fromderinside]

First, what is reported is never the truth. Objective Truth takes time to crystalize. Traditionally something can't be called history until at least 60-100 years have passed since the event.

What is so bad about intentional labelling all with the tar of a few? It's simply because those generalizations are obviously false. Yes every news organization has a point-of-view around which many who read it agree. That is why freshmen in college are taught to cast abroad net when searching for information. This is done before methods for discerning how to get and know facts are learned. Believe it or not good news organizations know their people have internalized what I just wrote. They presume such because they have learned that with an informed and discerning staff they are more likely to stay in business rather than fall due to some Dan Rather stupidity.

We, the great unwashed readership need not have this stuff build in to us. All that we need to know is that this organization worth watching commercials around what it presents. Why can people be judged by what they read? Simple. Readers Digest people can spout slogans but rarely can they hold a conversation on a topic beyond headlines. New Yorker readers will drown you with the sheer breadth and depth of their knowledge on may topics.

If you want to go out of business quickly you just splash whatever seems to draw readership right now. Amazing how Breitbart has faded since they got Trump notice isn't it. How many remember Robert Welch? Why hasn't that dipshit who trumped Capone's hidden stash not gotten a descent job since? Any bets on Giuliani being remembered in history books beyond being Trump's fraud dealing lawyer?

I'm gong to make a political statement from the vantage point of being in the highest level of voter participation public. Don't presume old people are wise or informed.

The current exemplar is that of those who haven't read the Mueller report or the whistleblower statement over 60 percent of those over the age of 60 haven't bothered. They are comforted by their prejudices which is probably why they are the most fearful of globalization and what it brings.

Democrats won't win that block if they try to convince the old that Trump is a crook.

Don't even try.

Rally around social inclusion and justice. Present programs to which the older citizens will respond like income and medical security. Support safe streets and parks programs, get behind social centers and safe transportation.

 

[Bronzeage]

If it were only so easy to always know what the truth is. The main problem is that all of the news outlets are liars. CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CNBC, Washington Post, New York Times....they are ALL liars. Even PBS is a liar. And they do not just lie a little bit either. They all tell whoppers all the time. A lot of it is just laziness on their part, instead of going out themselves for a story they mindlessly re-tell something another outlet has released. Then add to that the natural political leaning the management has on which story they want broadcast and for how long. But the biggest source of lies..... which is how info wars got started IMO, is that our own government who wants to steer the public for their own benefit.

So its no wonder people get caught up believing something you find unbelievable. Because a lot of your so called believable news is actually CIA propaganda. And a certain population of the public actually realizes this. The point I am attempting to make here, is that what you think is bullshit can be what someone else believes is the truth and vice versa.

I think people are starving for truth these days. I've often thought an excellent way to make it big in journalism would be simply to advertise a news outlet that could guaranty they were always telling the truth. Call it the "Truth News" and then offer up further $1 million for if anyone could prove what was reported on their network not to be the truth. Of course, that would mean their news would actually have to be truthful news they could verify. It would probably be a lot less news but the news they did give you would stand for something when you heard it. I would think such a news organization would catch a lot of listeners who simply want to be informed about the truth without listening to the other bullshit. Such a news network might not last very long though because I imagine the CIA and or government would want them put out of business for interference with their propaganda arms.

But its also no wonder Trump has a twitter account. Say what you will about his tweets (for or against) but at least we know for a fact what he really has said.

Have you got some examples of false statements by these news organizations which were never retracted, corrected, or ammended?

 

[ZiprHead]

If it were only so easy to always know what the truth is. The main problem is that all of the news outlets are liars. CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CNBC, Washington Post, New York Times....they are ALL liars. Even PBS is a liar. And they do not just lie a little bit either. They all tell whoppers all the time. A lot of it is just laziness on their part, instead of going out themselves for a story they mindlessly re-tell something another outlet has released. Then add to that the natural political leaning the management has on which story they want broadcast and for how long. But the biggest source of lies..... which is how info wars got started IMO, is that our own government who wants to steer the public for their own benefit.

So its no wonder people get caught up believing something you find unbelievable. Because a lot of your so called believable news is actually CIA propaganda. And a certain population of the public actually realizes this. The point I am attempting to make here, is that what you think is bullshit can be what someone else believes is the truth and vice versa.

I think people are starving for truth these days. I've often thought an excellent way to make it big in journalism would be simply to advertise a news outlet that could guaranty they were always telling the truth. Call it the "Truth News" and then offer up further $1 million for if anyone could prove what was reported on their network not to be the truth. Of course, that would mean their news would actually have to be truthful news they could verify. It would probably be a lot less news but the news they did give you would stand for something when you heard it. I would think such a news organization would catch a lot of listeners who simply want to be informed about the truth without listening to the other bullshit. Such a news network might not last very long though because I imagine the CIA and or government would want them put out of business for interference with their propaganda arms.

But its also no wonder Trump has a twitter account. Say what you will about his tweets (for or against) but at least we know for a fact what he really has said.

Have you got some examples of false statements by these news organizations which were never retracted, corrected, or ammended?

Yeah, and it makes me wonder where he does get his news from.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yup, 9/11 was an inside job too. *head nods*

Yup, it could have been an orchestrated event. We do know as an established fact, that our own CIA planned a similar event in the past:

There's a big leap between coming up with options and executing them.

We have many offices in the government that come up with lots and lots and lots of plans. They are assets. I mean, we have some weapons that will never be fired, some forts that will never be attacked, some Vice Presidents that will never be in power, some invasion plans that won't be implemented.
But the time to sort them out is when you have the leisure to do so.
If we don't have plans, if no one ever considered the possibility, we end up with the Invasion of Grenada, where many of our forces used tourist maps for their operations.

Our nuclear war plans include possibilities like we shoot first, they shoot first, it comes as a surprise vs. slow build-up, our army is effective or our army is obliterated at the start, with NATO OR US alone.... llots of possibilities.

Some of the planners are probably sociopaths. We hope the actual authority for implementing those plans was given to non-psychos, which seemed like a safe bet a few years back. Sigh, and like that there.

But ultimately, the existance of a plan to do dirty is not evidence towards the idea that a completely different dirty was planned and executed.

 

[RVonse]

If it were only so easy to always know what the truth is. The main problem is that all of the news outlets are liars. CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CNBC, Washington Post, New York Times....they are ALL liars. Even PBS is a liar. And they do not just lie a little bit either. They all tell whoppers all the time. A lot of it is just laziness on their part, instead of going out themselves for a story they mindlessly re-tell something another outlet has released. Then add to that the natural political leaning the management has on which story they want broadcast and for how long. But the biggest source of lies..... which is how info wars got started IMO, is that our own government who wants to steer the public for their own benefit.

So its no wonder people get caught up believing something you find unbelievable. Because a lot of your so called believable news is actually CIA propaganda. And a certain population of the public actually realizes this. The point I am attempting to make here, is that what you think is bullshit can be what someone else believes is the truth and vice versa.

I think people are starving for truth these days. I've often thought an excellent way to make it big in journalism would be simply to advertise a news outlet that could guaranty they were always telling the truth. Call it the "Truth News" and then offer up further $1 million for if anyone could prove what was reported on their network not to be the truth. Of course, that would mean their news would actually have to be truthful news they could verify. It would probably be a lot less news but the news they did give you would stand for something when you heard it. I would think such a news organization would catch a lot of listeners who simply want to be informed about the truth without listening to the other bullshit. Such a news network might not last very long though because I imagine the CIA and or government would want them put out of business for interference with their propaganda arms.

But its also no wonder Trump has a twitter account. Say what you will about his tweets (for or against) but at least we know for a fact what he really has said.

Have you got some examples of false statements by these news organizations which were never retracted, corrected, or ammended?

The examples are too numerous to site. But taking the most recent news cycle (about our Representatives looking into starting impeachment hearings), I have heard Ratcheal Maddow (MSNBC) make numerous claims about Trump "now being impeached". But then if you switch right over to Fox news, they will tell you that Nancy Pelosi has lost her mind to old age. And that the Democrats are attempting a soft coup to take over the POTUS. Both statements are obviously fiction but they are so far apart it makes listening to the real news a difficult decision as to where to put the radio dial. It used to be you could listen to CNN a while and then listen to Fox news and then figure the truth was somewhere in between. But that no longer works now. Because neither side cares at all about the truth.

 

[RVonse]

There's a big leap between coming up with options and executing them.

Not where I work. A co-worker was fired just for being caught with copper wire in his clothes locker. He did not even get caught by the guards at the front gate trying to actually steal the wire which is the usual way people get fired. He simply got caught with copper wire in his locker (still on company property) and the company knew good and well what he was up to.

I don't know if there is a legal way he is going to get his job back. But for now he is fired and not working there.

 

[ZiprHead]

If it were only so easy to always know what the truth is. The main problem is that all of the news outlets are liars. CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CNBC, Washington Post, New York Times....they are ALL liars. Even PBS is a liar. And they do not just lie a little bit either. They all tell whoppers all the time. A lot of it is just laziness on their part, instead of going out themselves for a story they mindlessly re-tell something another outlet has released. Then add to that the natural political leaning the management has on which story they want broadcast and for how long. But the biggest source of lies..... which is how info wars got started IMO, is that our own government who wants to steer the public for their own benefit.

So its no wonder people get caught up believing something you find unbelievable. Because a lot of your so called believable news is actually CIA propaganda. And a certain population of the public actually realizes this. The point I am attempting to make here, is that what you think is bullshit can be what someone else believes is the truth and vice versa.

I think people are starving for truth these days. I've often thought an excellent way to make it big in journalism would be simply to advertise a news outlet that could guaranty they were always telling the truth. Call it the "Truth News" and then offer up further $1 million for if anyone could prove what was reported on their network not to be the truth. Of course, that would mean their news would actually have to be truthful news they could verify. It would probably be a lot less news but the news they did give you would stand for something when you heard it. I would think such a news organization would catch a lot of listeners who simply want to be informed about the truth without listening to the other bullshit. Such a news network might not last very long though because I imagine the CIA and or government would want them put out of business for interference with their propaganda arms.

But its also no wonder Trump has a twitter account. Say what you will about his tweets (for or against) but at least we know for a fact what he really has said.

Have you got some examples of false statements by these news organizations which were never retracted, corrected, or ammended?

The examples are too numerous to site. But taking the most recent news cycle (about our Representatives looking into starting impeachment hearings), I have heard Ratcheal Maddow (MSNBC) make numerous claims about Trump "now being impeached". But then if you switch right over to Fox news, they will tell you that Nancy Pelosi has lost her mind to old age. And that the Democrats are attempting a soft coup to take over the POTUS. Both statements are obviously fiction but they are so far apart it makes listening to the real news a difficult decision as to where to put the radio dial. It used to be you could listen to CNN a while and then listen to Fox news and then figure the truth was somewhere in between. But that no longer works now. Because neither side cares at all about the truth.

Why is what RM said a lie?

 

[RVonse]

Why is what RM said a lie?

From Wikipedia: "Process. At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles ofimpeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached"."

They havent voted on anything yet, let alone passed anything in either the house or senate

This is tbe perfect example of what I call a "whppper lie". Its so far removed from reality its only purpose is to sway the public politically.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why is what RM said a lie?

From Wikipedia: "Process. At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles ofimpeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached"."

They havent voted on anything yet, let alone passed anything in either the house or senate

This is tbe perfect example of what I call a "whppper lie". Its so far removed from reality its only purpose is to sway the public politically.

I don't know what your wiki said since you didn't provide a link. But mine says this:

Procedure

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".

Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.

They are definitely at the investigation point so what Rachel Maddow said is not a lie. I'll chalk up your mistake to poor reading comprehension. You cited the short description but not the procedure itself.

 Impeachment in the United States

 

[Bronzeage]

If it were only so easy to always know what the truth is. The main problem is that all of the news outlets are liars. CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CNBC, Washington Post, New York Times....they are ALL liars. Even PBS is a liar. And they do not just lie a little bit either. They all tell whoppers all the time. A lot of it is just laziness on their part, instead of going out themselves for a story they mindlessly re-tell something another outlet has released. Then add to that the natural political leaning the management has on which story they want broadcast and for how long. But the biggest source of lies..... which is how info wars got started IMO, is that our own government who wants to steer the public for their own benefit.

So its no wonder people get caught up believing something you find unbelievable. Because a lot of your so called believable news is actually CIA propaganda. And a certain population of the public actually realizes this. The point I am attempting to make here, is that what you think is bullshit can be what someone else believes is the truth and vice versa.

I think people are starving for truth these days. I've often thought an excellent way to make it big in journalism would be simply to advertise a news outlet that could guaranty they were always telling the truth. Call it the "Truth News" and then offer up further $1 million for if anyone could prove what was reported on their network not to be the truth. Of course, that would mean their news would actually have to be truthful news they could verify. It would probably be a lot less news but the news they did give you would stand for something when you heard it. I would think such a news organization would catch a lot of listeners who simply want to be informed about the truth without listening to the other bullshit. Such a news network might not last very long though because I imagine the CIA and or government would want them put out of business for interference with their propaganda arms.

But its also no wonder Trump has a twitter account. Say what you will about his tweets (for or against) but at least we know for a fact what he really has said.

Have you got some examples of false statements by these news organizations which were never retracted, corrected, or ammended?

The examples are too numerous to site. But taking the most recent news cycle (about our Representatives looking into starting impeachment hearings), I have heard Ratcheal Maddow (MSNBC) make numerous claims about Trump "now being impeached". But then if you switch right over to Fox news, they will tell you that Nancy Pelosi has lost her mind to old age. And that the Democrats are attempting a soft coup to take over the POTUS. Both statements are obviously fiction but they are so far apart it makes listening to the real news a difficult decision as to where to put the radio dial. It used to be you could listen to CNN a while and then listen to Fox news and then figure the truth was somewhere in between. But that no longer works now. Because neither side cares at all about the truth.

"Too numerous to cite.." should make it easy to list the top five, at least. If Racheal saying Trump is being impeached is a lie, you've picked the lowest cherry on the tree. Do you really believe Maddow intended to decieve you or anyone else that the President's impeachment trial in the Senate has commenced?

Hearing an opinion you do not find valid does not make it a falsehood. This is like a newsperson declaring landing a man on the moon was science's greatest acheivement, which you call a lie, because the obviously it's the polio vaccine.

I have noticed a trend. As worse and worse facts are revealed about the President and his administration, the louder the cries of "all of the news outlets are liars."