I was going to post a video about the New World Order this week, but current events have provided a much more intriguing item.
Conspiracy theories alleging that the Newtown massacre was not carried out by the accused, but instead was some kind of government conspiracy to take away Americans' guns, have been circulating for weeks now. These theories led to a clash between right-wing conspiracist Alex Jones and CNN host Piers Morgan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQPZ-taYBs
What's interesting about this development, as far as our class is concerned, is the way in which Newtown conspiracy theories are being linked to 9/11 skepticism by the use of the phrase "Newtown Truthers," which is an attempt to incorporate Newtown conspiracies with the derogatory phrase "9/11 Truthers" (a phrase that indicates contempt for all forms of 9/11 skepticism). An earlier expression of this phenomenon occurred when people who did not believe President Obama's birth certificate was real were called "Birthers".
Please read this article from Salon.com, and in the comment section below discuss the design of this article. How does it characterize "conspiracy theories"? What are, in your opinion, its strengths and weaknesses?
I really wish someone would just shoot Alex Jones and see how pro gun he is then. He is a ranting like a lunatic, making Piers look like the sane one, thus making his points more valid and believable. Alex Jones may have some good points backed up with legitimate statistics, but the way in which he goes about it is ineffective. He screams arguments at Piers for long periods of time without Piers even responding. He doesn't need to bring his papers out waving them around with him as proof; he simply needed to have a logical and calm argument on this talk show. I agree there are sometimes where it is good to be passionate and riled up, but if you do it all the time it loses its meaning. I found it so hard to get past the fact that I wanted to shoot myself rather than listen to this guy that I was missing some of his arguments. He tries to use that woman's rape in India as fuel, which has nothing to do with guns in America. He dances around and avoids questions and always come back to "You're not gonna get my guns!” absolutely ridiculous. He also throws unsupported nonsense like old women in England being beaten to death and cities being burned down, which invalidates his other points. Then he goes totally prototypical American and challenges Piers to a boxing match like that will prove anything, I guess show his simpleton patriotism.
ReplyDeleteThe elementary school shooting was a perfect example for the argument against guns, but to think it was staged, as that is hard and horrifying to believe. Having a room full of guns and telling a kid not to touch them is the same as having a room of candy of alcohol, telling someone not to do something typically only makes them want to do it more. My question is why anyone would have an automatic weapon like an AK47? There is no practical reason for it, it is not for hunting animals, and the only animal that gun is made for hunting is humans.
What is the longest amount of time Alex Jones went without talking? Why is he naming every villain from history when it has nothing to do with anything? This is why people don't buy conspiracy theories, because it is led by people like this. He is Rush Limbaugh with ADD. I don't even particularly like Piers Morgan but it is hard to not take his side in this. Alex Jones changes topics so often and so quickly you can't even follow what he is talking about. Mocking an entire nation and their accent is so offensively stupid I can't even comprehend it. This interview was wasted by Alex Jones because he could have had an intelligent debate with Piers Morgan and actually gotten some of his points across because he seems like a somewhat intelligent guy, but instead he screamed a rant in Piers's face for 15 minutes and made himself seem like a crazy person. I lived in Houston for a number of years and the gun debate is always a highly contested one, but this "debate" was the same old stuff we have all heard many times.
When watching the video, it was very hard for me to concentrate on what exactly Jones points were, I couldn't help but laugh at almost most of the video. Although I'm sure he had some great points, it is very hard to take someone seriously when they don't have any basic social manners whatsoever; unless yelling in people's faces like a lunatic and ranting about a whole bunch of random things that don't make sense to the topic being discussed is manners.
ReplyDeleteBy reading the article, its seems like the author leans more to the side of trying to say that conspiracy theories MAY be true, but are usually just crazy, "At their core, conspiracy theories are like folk tales, a search for an explanation for the unexplainable, a way of making sense of a world." I believe he is correct when he says that if we believe something we only seek out evidence to prove what we believe and disregard anything else that might contradict that belief. Its strengths is that he explains the psychological part of why conspiracy theories are invented, and why Americans seem to always attach a conspiracy with every happening. Although in the end in his last couple of paragraphs you can see he clearly has his own point of view about conspiracy theorist.
This article examined and explained the psychology of conspiracy theories clearly and succinctly. “This narrative is just one way people make sense of disturbing events, though they are making sense of it in a way that’s central to their own worldview,” This statement accurately sums up a lot of conspiracy theories and why people believe them to be true. The American government has become one of, if not the most, conspiracy theorized entities in the world. The human mind is great at making connections and if you work at it, you can connect almost anything. The trouble with people who believe one conspiracy theory is that they are typically assumed to believe all the ludicrous ones. Much like if you believe in Machiavellian politics, then you can dismiss them by saying they probably believe that the leaders are all really giant reptile people. Popularity of conspiracy theories is growing, as are the amount events to be suspicious about. This shooting was such a tragedy that to try and explain it as an argument to get rid of guns is either insulting or disgusting. The odds that this is actually true seem pretty low, but obviously it can’t be proven without a doubt that it wasn’t. Unfortunately there is always the tried and true absence of proof can be used as an argument for the opposition. There isn’t any proof because they don’t want us to find anything. Conspiracy entrepreneur is quite an interesting term. I am taking entrepreneurship and it is a trending topic of study. As long as there are people to buy these ideas and products, there will be conspiracy entrepreneurs, now whether they actually believe what they are selling is different story, but nonetheless, conspiracy is a business.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs the article on Salon stated "Once the seed of belief is planted, it’s very hard to change people’s minds, thanks to a few powerful and related psychological forces". After watching the debate with Alex Jones and Piers Morgan it is clear that Jones is trying to change as many minds as possible. Unfortunately it was not much of a debate because Jones would not let Piers speak. Jones, who has built an empire on conspiracy theory, had an interesting approach to gaining support against stricter gun regulation by creating a petition to deport Piers. Jones seems like a very intelligent individual but is absolutely crazy at the same time. Based on the article and other characteristics of conspiracy theorists I find it funny how Jones resembles these characteristics perfectly, especially the Inability to answer questions. For people like Jones who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from skeptics about the claims that they make. He also demonstrated the inability to withdraw from the argument and was leaping to conclusions without concrete evidence.
ReplyDeleteI found it disturbing that Jones does not acknowledge that automatic firearms contributed to the recent mass shootings. It's hard to comprehend and believe that Jones thinks the government is involved in these killings and that suicide mass murder pills are also the cause. It's hard to ignore what he is saying but believing it would be joining this conspiracy theory. Either way it has been mentally unstable people taking innocent lives not the guns themselves. I see what Jones is saying talking about how guns take far less lives then items such as knives, bats or rocks; however, the government cannot restrict these items. If guns were more restricted to civilians I think this would be beneficial and there would be far less mass shootings. Unfortunately humans have the ability to adapt and we might see more mass murders resulting from bombs, which can be made in your own home. There is simply no easy solution.
The article, “ Newtown Truthers: where conspiracy theories come from” talks about how conspiracy theorists believe the US government is using the Sandy Hook shooting in order to impose gun control and take away fire arms from its citizens. Robert Goldenberg explains this as bringing a lot of American conspiracy theories together. The reasoning behind this is now America is finally taking action and talking about gun control after many events. It talks about the psychology behind these theories of anti-government beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThese can come from two perspectives as noted in the article, anti-government believers who think this was a huge operation, or simply people who just don’t understand the shooting and are looking for answers. The article characterizes conspiracy theories as the explanation for the unexplainable, they are sometimes easy to believe because it relieves some of the uncertainty that people don’t like to feel. It also describes them as being everywhere even including hit TV shows and movies. Psychology proves that once you believe something you will disregard anything that goes against it, even evidence. It also characterizes it as something that has many followers; this audience may be caused by the declining trust in American institutions. Finally, the article summarizes there is many reasons why people do or have a reason to believe these theories, and every time something major happens a new conspiracy will arise.
The strengths of this article are that it looks at why people believe conspiracy theories, including the Sandy Hook shooting in a number of ways. It also does not hide that the government may be the reason why people have distrust in them, from past events America has taken part in. Some weaknesses of this article are it really takes Goldenberg’s opinion and quotes to tie the article together in many aspects which may make it seem biased.
The Alex Jones video is very hard to take seriously. It also is almost impossible to even understand why he does not believe there should be any gun control because he jumps from event to event to event without once stopping to answer the questions imposed. It is very clear though after reading the article and watching this video that the Newtown shooting is a way to tie many events together given that Obama is now looking into taking action on this. Alex Jones makes this clear when he discusses, or yells, many events and how it’s not the weapons killing people, its people killing people. It makes the relationship between the events clear because Alex Jones can very easily relate many events that may not have an actual relationship between them.
From watching this so called “debate”, I feel as if I had to choose sides, I would have to choose Piers Morgan’s side even if he didn’t state any of his valid points or arguments. Alex Jones came off as a lunatic who could not even listen to Piers for at least five seconds. Sadly, I cannot lean towards any side because of the lack of information that was given. They both probably do have their own valid points, but it’s hard to choose when this debate was unprofessional.
ReplyDelete-
One of the first things the article states is that conspiracy theories appear to be more logical than what they actually are. It states that people would rather create their own explanations on a certain event to add more meaning to it or “deny death” to relieve the emotional trauma. In a way, according to Ilah Shrira they do this by “making sense of it in a way that’s central to their own worldview”. Conspiracy theories can be quite fascinating once you read a few of them, and the article also describes that because they are quite interesting, it would appeal to many people even if they are not very informed about the topic. Going in depth psychologically, the article states that once you believe in a conspiracy theory, it’s hard to change your perspective because of things such as cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning, and confirmation bias. The article even introduces the idea of “conspiracy entrepreneurs” who share their ideas with everyone else. Because people get tired of new ideas quickly, conspiracy entrepreneurs just like Alex Jones have to constantly develop new theories to keep their audience.
I’m not really good at finding strengths or weaknesses with articles, but I think it was a good idea to provide an in depth explanation on why people start to create their own theories on the subject. If there was a clueless individual reading the article, they would be provided with enough information to at least start understand the idea of being a conspiracy theorist.
I think one of the weaknesses would be the topic’s the writer chose to incorporate into this article. In bold letters, the writer would introduce a different perspective that deals with conspiracy theories. From reading it, the topics aren’t really in unison with one another and it makes the article look more like there are four separate ones instead of one article as a whole.
When watching the clip, it was interesting to see how Alex Jones did not give much opportunity for Piers Morgan to speak or even respond to the accusations that Jones’ was making. When Piers does get the chance to speak, Alex does not answer the questions directly but rather feels the need to bring up the statistics he has pulled up to further justify his statements. Alex only brings up the facts that he feels will strengthen his arguments while disregarding certain relevant information. Alex should have some level of respect for Piers if he has agreed to come onto Piers’ show and
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Piers even hosted Alex on his show is quite shocking since ultimately, Alex is trying to get Piers deported due to his stance on gun control. One could ponder on the thought that if we all were to oppose Alex then would he create petitions to have all those individuals deported to some different part of the world? There is a chance that the nations population would decrease dramatically.
In terms of the article, it appears to be designed in a sense that it covers several aspects associated with conspiracy theories. The article addresses how conspiracy theories come about and the role they play in today’s society. The article brings in the perspective of two individuals who are affiliated with academic institutions. This was likely strategic since the individuals’ perspectives may be considered more reliable/credible since they have an educational background.
The article characterizes conspiracy theories as being a “need” since it is suggested that Americans have “declining faith” in their government. There is an obvious need for the conspiracy theory market since the public expects the emergence of new conspiracies that offer alternative viewpoints of situations.
One strength of this article could be that it portrays “conspiracy entrepreneurs” in terms of how people are benefitting from the conspiracy industry. These entrepreneurs will likely continue to generate new theories since for some, it is their primary source of income. On the other hand, a weakness would be that the article does not appear to be overly concerned with how conspiracy theories could potentially create a hatred and create conflict between civilians.
When the article addresses the Sandy Hook shooting, they gunman is classified as being a “mentally unbalanced lone gunman”. The suspicion that this gunman did not act alone and could not carry out such an act without an accomplice is one conspiracy that remains a possibility. Personally, I think that it is intriguing how the media constantly justifies mass shootings such as Sandy Hook and Aurora as being carried out by “mentally unstable individuals”. It only makes sense that no sane person would commit such as crime however, there might be unexplained motives behind the shootings that only the gunmen themselves are aware of. I do not think that the gunmen should be classified as being mentally unstable without further justification that this is indeed the case. By this classification, this is the media’s way of justifying this irrational behaviour of the gunmen.
The article seems to categorize conspiracy theories as an attempt at entertainment for a growing market audience. It makes the link between conspiracy theories and various films/tv shows, along with showing statistics based on the main providers in that market. through these statistics it can be shown that these conspiracy broadcasts are actually generating quite a hefty profit, by providing many theories that can be accepted by the public. This business is largely complimented by how american citizens have been very skeptical towards their government, and human nature, in the sense that the citizens just desire a concrete and solidified explanation.
ReplyDeleteThis article in particular brings up the newton shootings, and how some conspiracy theories have been rising that it is a ploy to increase gun control. As shocking as this news can be, it does bring some more comfort to the citizens, as people can now find a way to justify the deaths of the school children.
Overall the article likes to place these conspiracy theorists in a negative light, showing that it is combination of manipulating people and their need for a concise answer, to generate a nice profit. However I feel that these theorists should not be seen that way. As stated in the article it is very important for Americans, and any citizens of anywhere in general, to question the motives and actions of their government. We need to assess the validity of the government's claims, to make sure that no details fly over our heads, and to make sure we do not become mindless slaves to our government.
First off I would like to applaud Piers for his patience with Alex on his show, even I got aggravated just watching it. Alex was so needlessly loud, rude and just plain obnoxious; he never let Piers speak on his own show!
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the article I found that "conspiracy theories" were characterized across many different fronts, some providing a strong argument, others, not so much.
They were characterized as being anti-government at the beginning, which I would agree and disagree with. So far it seems that a lot of conspiracy theories are directed negatively towards the government but I feel that is more coincidental. It seems that the overarching feel is anti-authority and the government just happens to be the main authority figure.
I do appreciate how conspiracy theories were shown as a world wide thing, not something centralized as American. I also appreciate how it said that Americans want to feel special and don't like when that feeling is taken away from them.
The article also put emphasis on how people come up with conspiracy theories as a way to cope with traumatic or emotional events. It made it seem like a natural way of trying to put reason into something that doesn't necessarily have a justifiable reason. Unfortunately not everything in life will have a reason, or at least a reason that everyone can be happy with. I am still undecided if this was a strength of the article or a major weakness in it. On one side it is nice that this article doesn't necessarily demonize the people behind the theories but also I think that there is far too much weight on the psychology of it all and possibly transfers too much of the blame.
I do agree with one of the statements in the article, that in
"blaming the government or the Jews or whomever for a tragedy like Sandy Hook means absolving the actual perpetrator of any guilt". It seems that the more people dig for a conspiracy or the psychology behind the event that they end up transferring blame from the perpetrator. I see this as a weakness in society but a strength in this article for actually addressing it.
The Article "Newtown Truthers", explains how in our society today, that we are conditioned through movies, television, books, and the internet to believe conspiracy theories. We want to believe them because conspiracy theories try to explain the unexplainable, and they have a great deal of mystery to them which is why we are so drawn to them. Also, North America lives in a very paranoid society, whether it be about the government, media, or any other establishment, and people tend to distrust almost everything around them. This makes them more susceptible to believing or even creating conspiracy theories about things that make them uneasy. People have a natural tendency to try to explain what is going on around them and the world around them, so conspiracy theories have a pull towards them as they explain the world around us and what is going on behind our backs.
ReplyDeleteAs for the debate, Alex Jones basically just ranted about everything he believes to be true and all of the conspiracy theories he has without giving Piers Morgan a real chance to ask any questions or get in any points of his own. Alex Jones seemed to want to let as many people know as much as he could before the show ended even if it meant he just shouted at Piers Morgan basically the entire time and answered every question with something completely invalid, another question, or something completely different he wanted people to know about.
n the video, Alex Jones seemed to start off from a pretty valid point and he showed the FBI crime statistics that 20% plus the crime dropped in the last 9 years and the reason is people have more guns, which means less crime. He ignored the other factors like education, improvement of medication and awareness of dangers can decrease the crime rate and simply interpreted the fact by using guns can protect individuals and defend public. He also stated that the number one killer of public is suicide and murder instead of gun shooting. He had no response about Piers Morgan’s questions because he thought Piers would trick him by asking questions, but I think the actual facts are he was afraid of answering those questions and the answers of those questions may invalidate his own points.
ReplyDeleteThe debate developed into personal attack to Piers Morgan, and it made Piers looks decent and innocent in terms of his appropriate social manner, in contrast, it made Alex Jones insane and paranoid because he referred so many irrelevant events and he performed frantically on the TV show. From my personal point of view, Alex Jones’s purpose is trying to apply his conspiracy theories to all the current events as much as possible in order to draw people’s attention continuously.
The article addresses the issue more rationally and tries to analyze the phenomenon by examining multi-perspectives. The article declares that the historical background of American is one of the main factors that forms the prevalence and potency of anti-government paranoia, and it’s a product of their history which I quite agree with. On the other hand, the psychological analysis of the various conspiracy theories are also quite convincing to me. The declining faith in American institution from public also plays important role here. People like Alex Jones are good at taking advantages of this trend of public in order to famous and benefit themselves.
After watching the video, let me just say that the way Piers handled Alex Jones was phenomenal. Alex Jones made himself look like a lunatic for the way he was acting on Piers' show by not letting him say anything. Yes he may have had some good points by bringing in actual statistics from the FBI, but it didn't change the fact that not everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteWhen they were "debating" the Sandy Hook school shooting, I just couldn't help but shake my head at Alex Jones. The fact that he said it wasn't caused by a lone, mentally unstable young adult with a semi-automatic weapon, but was done by more than 30 was a shock. How in the world could there have been more than one person involved when the whole incident happened INSIDE the building? He also said that it was "suicide inducing medication" that was making these situations come to pass. So, basically what Mr. Jones is saying, at least that I understand, is that by getting rid of medications to help balance mentally unstable people, there will be less shootings? I think he may need some type of medication to balance out what's going on inside his head. Good on him for speaking passionately about a topic that makes good people seem crazy. He must have been a decent human being before he started believing in such nonsense.
After reading the article, it seems like a good portion of well educated minds believe in conspiracies. The fact that Hollywood, the government, and conspiracy theorists are teaching the nation to think conspiratorially boggles my mind. All Hollywood is doing is making money by creating stories that have NOTHING to do with the real world. Yes, a lot of them have been based off real world events, but not everything they do has to be done with a certain conspiracy in mind. The government that is also teaching people to think the same way is still shocking for me. How can anyone believe that President Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attack and didn't have some kind of plan in place to ensure that it didn't happen. If there's one thing the people of the United States will defend until they're blue in the face is their country. Anytime anyone says something bad about their country they get angry, and I start laughing. I find it funny that the vast majority of them speak so passionately about a place that is essentially surrounded by conspiracy. The fact that a semi-automatic weapon of some kind has been used in every shooting since 9/11 should say something. I agree with President Obama on trying to ban semi-automatic weapons indefinitely. But why stop there? Why not try the same thing with high-powered rifles so that a similar incident to the Kennedy assassination doesn't happen again.
Ultimately, I believe that their paranoia towards their government will cause the U.S. to descend into anarchy. It may not be for many years, but eventually something will happen where the conspiracy theorists will band together to try and over-throw the government. It will be a very scarey time for them when they realize that no one will be there to help them out of such a situation. Maybe then they will take a step back and figure out that government really isn't such a bad thing after all.
The root of most conspiracy theories comes from human being's enate nature for finding out the truth. We need to believe a theory that we can understand and be able to see how each piece fits into the giant puzzle. The government has become an easy scape goat, as they ultimately hold a strong power and have the resources and capabilities to potentially "pull off" major scandals. So much trust has been severed between the people and the government that every time a disastrous event occurs, it has become second nature for people to assume there was government involvement. In the Sandy Hook case, people instinctively look for a motive as to how such a devastating event could occur. It is nearly impossible for average citizens to understand the thought process of a man with mental illness, and it has been proven to be very difficult for even some of the top specialists to get into the heads of people who suffer from this disease. Therefore, it becomes much simpler to rationalize an event that we, as individuals, can comprehend and piece together together.
ReplyDeleteIn an era where people are exposed to a wide variety of shows and movies involving conspiracy theories, viewers are shown the possibility of how these events can formulate and be influenced by government action. For this reason, a large basis of our knowledge on conspiracy theories is provided by these mediums. Therefore when real events occur, we want to look for a spectacular explanation that involves a variety of twist and turns, because lets face it, reality is boring.
While the Sandy Hook controversy provides an interesting outlook for conspiracists, I try to look at it from the government's perspective. If the truth were to ever leak of an incident that involved murdering, or faking the murders, of innocent children there would be complete anarchy. All trust between government and citizens would be lost and the repercussions could be devastating to the nation. In my opinion, a risk that far outweighs the prospect of increasing gun laws...
After watching the video, I thought that Alex Jones is out of line. I understand that he is very passionate about the topic and has a very strong opinion, but the way he talked to Piers was shocking. His point about guns not killing people, but rather people kill people is valid, however, without the guns, people are less likely to kill. It is much harder to go into a school or movie theater and perform a mass murder without the use of firearms. I thought it was kind of humorous that Alex tried to bad-mouth England, yet it has a much lower death rate due to guns. Towards the end of the video, it was clear that his arguments started to become invalid. I thought it was unfair that he didn't let Piers talk and defend himself at all.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article about the Sandy Hook massacre conspiracy, it seems to me that all the "truthers" and conspiracy believers will automatically think that any type of world wide catasrophe was a plot by the govenment. In this specific case about Sandy Hook, it is completely valid that there was a lone gunman that had some psychological issues that drove him to do what he did. I'll agree that other conspiracy theories do seem to be true, such as the JFK assasination, but I think that the "truthers" will try to justify any type of disaster to make is seem like a plan from the government. Personally, I think that it's a money scam. The news and media make tons of money from people watching and believeing whatever they put on tv, and even if they don't believe it, they are still participating in watching and reading about it. It makes sense that people would advertise these conspiracies to attract paranoid audiences, and these people that watch it are more likekly to watch it again and again and start to believe the information they are recieving.
I liked that the article seemed to pick apart conspiracy theories. When talking about the Sandy Hook tragedy, some people will go above and beyond to exploit the government and apply whatever bogus story they can think of. The truth is, 26 people died in an immense tragedy. Their parents, families and friends do not want to hear about how the government would plan it. Although, I really like how the talk about the psychological perspective and say that some peoples brains just naturally cant accept the tragedy.
ReplyDeleteWhile I did enjoy that the article talked about the psychological side of things, it did make the conspiracy theories appear as if only insane people thought of them. As the article progresses, so does this mocking tone. Instead of saying that conspiracy theories may be true, it almost ridicules them and says that people just want to believe these things. I am not a strong believer of conspiracy theories but I do believe that if you tell yourself something enough, eventually you will believe it. I think that that is also what the article is saying. The article will say few facts about conspiracy theories themselves, but they will say a thousand facts about how people will believe the theories if they REALLY want to. Along with the statement that people can make money off of conspiracy theories, I found the article to be overall mocking conspiracy theorists.
The article makes the point that paranoia is a big aspect of American culture. Not only is it acceptable, but also it is almost considered patriotic. America is addicted the their “specialness” and the fact that everyone wants to be just like them. Conspiracy’s are such a big part of America and this is see through Hollywood movies because people are so drawn to it. My least favorite part of this article is when it gets into people backing conspiracy’s as a way of making money. Sure maybe some of them make money off of this but I feel a lot of them just like the attention that comes from it and their plainly obsessed with it.
ReplyDeleteI find Alex Jones to be a very poor representation of conspiracy theorists because he comes off as so crazy. Many of his arguments could be almost reasonable but the way that he presents them without allowing anyone to question his beliefs completely takes away his validity. When Piers Morgan tries to ask him questions about gun control he just throws out a bunch of random facts about the other ways that people die. When he brings up that “if we lose our guns you lose your freedoms” he ignores completely the fact that people who are killed by guns lose every freedom because they are dead. All of his arguments to Piers are very simply disputed by cold hard facts and statistics.
Firstly, I’d just like to comment on the video. I haven’t heard or seen much from Alex Jones in a few years, but wow, from seeing this interview it seems he has gotten a whole lot crazier and rabid then he used to be. He just came across as completely out of line, yelling and shouting and even being quite rude to Piers Morgan (imitating his accent, I mean come on), but mainly not even letting him talk or defend his own point of view. Whatever point he may have been trying to make, he completely screwed it up. Maybe Bill O’Reilly would’ve been a better choice for the interviewer, but I have a feeling the tensions would’ve turned into a fist fight!
ReplyDeleteAs for the article, as soon as I saw it was from a more mainstream media source so I felt it was going to be a complete write-off of conspiracy theories as purely something for crazy or paranoid people without much substance, and after seeing the Alex Jones interview, you could see why someone could think that. But after reading into it, there really is a quite in-depth analysis of why conspiracy theories exist, right down to the psychology of it. There is discussion about human psychologies ranging from anti-government paranoia, down to people simply trying to make sense of a horrible tragedy. In that sense, the article writer makes a case that conspiracy theories are often logical, in a sense that sometimes trying to find an explanation for something as tragic as the Sandy Hook shooting is easier then accepting that a long gunman on his own accord could have committed something so horrible and senseless. There is even the idea in some of the conspiracies about it that the event did not even occur at all and no children were killed, writing the tragedy off entirely as non-existent, because some people won’t or don’t want to accept it. This adds a more human side to conspiracy theories rather than just the stereotypical tin foil hat thinking.
There is also discussion about America and the seemingly paranoid style which is engrained in its culture and politics. I thought it was quite interesting to note that the Founders of the United States wrote into the Constitution about a conspiracy about Britain executing a secret plot to establish a Tyranny over the United States, and how these types of beliefs could be tied into the American Revolution as a whole as a rising up against that tyranny. The country possibly being fought for and founded based on a conspiracy? Well, that would explain a lot, especially when you look at what’s happening now with recent events.
I didn't really find many negatives with the article, there were many good sources provided and some intelligent discussion, and the writer seemed to take a neutral approach to most of it, which was refreshing. I really would have liked to see a good debate between Alex Jones and Piers Morgan though, rather than a one sided shouting and blabbering tirade.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article seems to characterize conspiracy theories as a whole quite well. The article makes a point that conspiracy theories aren't always based on knowledge about an event or actual evidence, but are sometimes based on America's paranoia against the government. It explains that many people are paranoid about having their rights and freedom invaded, and therefor look for events that could possibly lead to this, with the examples given being focused on the Sandy Hook shooting and the Colorado shooting being compared to 9/11 in the sense that they were apparently done by the government in order to have reason to commit to a following act, in the case of the shootings, ban or implement strict gun laws. The article also then went on about how these conspiracy theories are everywhere now and they are much easier to start now with the growth of the internet where people are able to communicate with each other around the world sharing their own ideas about possibly conspiracy theories, and are sometimes possibly created just to make things more interesting and exciting. The article also talked about how conspiracy theories can also contribute to in earning people money with radio stations such as Alex Jones' radio station, television programs, Youtube videos and big screen movies, which all expose the public to these conspiracies and may also exaggerate them in order to gain a bigger audience to gain more money.
ReplyDeleteThe Youtube video with Alex Jones and Piers Morgan was supposed to be a debate about gun control in America, although it turned out to be a big rant by Alex Jones about how there shouldn't be gun control. I feel like if he hadn't been as arrogant and biased against Piers going into the debate there could have been some good information taken out of it, but he made himself and the people on his side look foolish to the public. It seemed like almost every time that Piers asked Alex a question, Alex would talk about random statistics such as shark attacks. I see his point when saying the public needs to protect themselves, but more guns released in the public would probably result in more unnecessary shootings and deaths than successful attempts to protect oneself.
The article discusses how conspiracy theories first came about, from the time of the American Revolution. They are portrayed as being a part of people, and their nature to deny what they believe by searching for an alternative explanation. It discusses Sandy Hook and the JFK assassination, both events in which there being a lone gunman out to get someone does not add up. It states that people are influenced and by Hollywood, the government, and other conspiracy theorists and have no choice but to develop these alternative explanations. The article point out the financial side of these, and how some people are just out to make money off of them, whether they actually believe what they are expressing or not.
ReplyDeleteA strength the article has it is breaks the conspiracy theories in detail, and looks at the reasoning behind why and how people actually develop them. Some of them are actually logical because the reasoning given for the cause just doesn't add up. But some are clearly irrelevant and plain stupid. But need to know that sometimes things just happen, and there is no bigger power behind it. Innocent lives are taken for no reason, and though it is hard to accept, it's something society needs to learn. Sure, some conspiracy theories do have logic, but that logic is only based on a few facts, while ignoring all the hard evidence that is out there. The article does a good job of explaining conspiracy theories, but it lacks balance between the two sides. It is mainly saying that conspiracy theorists can be right, but mostly lack logic and evidence.
As for Alex Jones, some of the points he made in the video could have been taken seriously, but his way of talking and expressing himself make it hard for anyone to take him seriously. He had evidence and all these good explanations, but instead of being calm and talking about it he was being a total lunatic. This conspiracy about NewTown actually makes no sense, and what happened was a complete tragedy.
The video made it even more clear that Alex Jones is not a credible person. He wouldn't here any arguements or questions and wouldn't even let Piers get a word in. He would only bring up facts that supported what he was saying and avoided stating any of the other facts that were demanded of him that he claimed to have. He would say they were irrelevant and then go off on a rant about something completely irrelevant to what they were talking about in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article it was clear that the authors were going into the topic with as little bias as they could. They brought up how most of these conspiracy theories are crazy and don't make sense but that there are some that are completely rational and may even be true. They point out the fact that Americans create a handful of new theories for every significant event that occurs. That was pointed out by the fact that people figured this was a cover up to try to take guns away from civilians or that there were multiple shooters.
The article did a good job at pointing out that the media and the government aren't the only reasons why people are so paranoid and don't trust anything. The author explored the psychology behind why poeple create these theories. It was found that they were commonly the result of people trying to come up with a reason explaining why some of these tragic events happened so they can have some piece of mind believing that those who lost their lives did not die for nothing.
Alex Jones is an idiot. He makes personal attacks against Peirs, in what looks like a helpless act to secure his outrageous arguments. At the same time I do find this arrogant sob very entertaining. After reading the article it it becomes clear that this egotistical prick is also an Entrepreneur that makes allot of money from his ideas of conspiracy theory.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the article talks about how conspiracy theories are shaped strongly by an individuals worldview. Individuals that are anti-government are more likely to blame the government in an attempt to explain the unexplainable. In today society individuals are constantly fed stories of conspiracies. The article mentions how movies are full of conspiracies, leaving viewers more open to believing in conspiracies. I think this is a good example of how conspiracy theories have almost become a part of our culture through hollywood. For this reason I find it hard to believe in conspiracy theories
The article talks about how conspiracy theories will originate from something quite logical. They initially begin as an explanation for things that should be unexplainable. In the case of the Newtown shootings, a way for people to find some level of comfort in the wake of an nonsensical event. Combined with a number of factors, a desire to explain the unexplainable, a sense of American mission or exceptionalism, these logical explanations can be transformed or skewed into a conspiracy theory.
ReplyDeleteThese conspiracy theories are everywhere in American society, particularly in the media. Present in both movies and TV-series, people are constantly exposed to these theories. Once someone is convinced of a theory, powerful psychological forces of cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning, and confirmation bias can turn a conspiracy theory into a closed loop. Any evidence contrary to the theory will be disregarded and only evidence that confirms the theory will be acknowledged.
The article does a good job of explain the origin and the logic behind a conspiracy theory. By explaining how these theories originate in the first place, we can better understand the reasoning behind a conspiracy, as opposed to immediately disregarding as something that is ridiculous or insane. We can also then understand how some people can become completely obsessed with a certain conspiracy theory beyond the of rationale or reason.
First of all, I wish Alex would've been slightly less rude and wait his turn to speak because I was having trouble understanding everything he was saying since Piers was talking over him.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Alex didn't seem very keen on listening to the questions being asked which makes me believe he's nervous to actually answer them. He was rambling on about how the guns were not responsible for the deaths but then when a direct question was given, he avoided answering it and became very defensive.
The article discusses conspiracy theories as being ideas from the government. They can originate from any theory made by the American society, and are usually logically formed. One strength is how these conspiracy theories can be somehow beneficial to the people and the government, by supporting what they stand for and their actions. A weakness could be that the writer seemed to have a very neutral approach to the topic and wasn't on a particular side.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteConspiracy theorists like Alex Jones believe and listen to what they want... Alex Jones doesn't want to hear anything that may contradict his stand on the situation. A quote from the article: " It sells as long as it contradicts the "official narrative" ." I truly believe in this because conspiracy theorists attract attention because stories that are different from the norm are usually intriguing . These days when we are not satisfied with an answer or response, we question it... therefore possibly leading us to research further. Questioning is not a bad thing... its good, and keeps our world interesting but constantly blaming common and current tragedies on the government like Alex Jones seems to always fall back on doesn't sit well with me. In my opinion a lot of the time we do not accept people for who they really are... for example the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school, why does there have to be more to the story than someone being mentally ill enough to feel the urge to just kill a bunch of kids. Why do we have to look further into it? People are that sick in this world and that's why Piers was talking about providing mental support and eduction on guns instead of promoting the use.The article did a good job explaining why and how conspiracy theories come about, which was very interesting but the article was not really for or against conspiracy theories it acts more on the fact that they are just part of our life and there's no getting rid of them. But for the most part conspiracy theories are welcomed in our world, it is our way of trying to make sense of the world we live in. Hollywood, the government and theorists do a good job of making sure we never live a day without conspiracies!
ReplyDeleteI've been watching Piers Morgan on CNN for a while now and I was impatiently waiting for this round between Alex Jones and Piers Morgan. This lunatic has no idea what questions are asked of him. Instead, he just walks in and starts ranting about Piers Morgan and Britain. The biggest issue here is that why was the shooter allowed to have automatic rifle? Alex Jones could not quite answer it which shows how well prepared he was and how good his argument is.
ReplyDeleteConspiracy theories exists everywhere, news, movies and tv programs. American society in general will stand behind logically created argument. If it sounds true to them, they will stand by it. Its unfortunate because the people of America need to do their own research and form their own opinion on the case. When Alex Jones started petition online to deport Piers Morgan, a lot of people responded emotionally. They didn't do their research, they didn't understand that Piers Morgan was standing for the American public and not against them.
I think that Alex Jones came across as a total jerk. He wouldn't let Piers get a word in, ruining the whole spirit of a debate. He went off on so many statistics and rammed them down Piers throat. All of which were just red herrings to divert the conversation and dodge a question that he didn't have an answer to, but that is common among conspiracy theorists...
ReplyDeleteI think that the petition to get Piers deported was absolutely ridiculous on the face of it. Alex Jones is just a very angry man who isn't capable of listening to reason or any opinion that differs from his own.
The article presented is a superfical broad first look at many aspects of what is the american conspiracy culture. The article skimms the surface of many of the deeper issues surrounding concpiracy theories, such as the psychological aspects as well as the entertainment and market value gained from the American conspiracy culture, but on a deeper level i think that this article's weakness is it's lack of analytical death. The strengthes are that it recognizes several aspects of the conspiracy culture but it does not go into the speculation of wherer these aspects developed or where they originated.
ReplyDelete