If you're accusing somebody of child porn, you better be very sure about it, and your coverage better be objective. Even CNN managed to write a more balanced article on this and include key facts.
The plaintiffs, however, noted the images "had apparently been sent to InfoWars email addresses."
In other words, it appeared a person or persons sent the images of child pornography to InfoWars email addresses and then, as part of the discovery process, those emails with the images were turned over to the plaintiffs.
It did not appear that Jones or anyone on his team solicited or even had knowledge of those images. Jones' attorney, Norman Pattis, said on an InfoWars broadcast that the FBI was treating Jones as a victim in the case, describing the emails that included the images of child pornography as "very hostile" toward him.
But that shit article and headline makes it sound like:
1) Alex Jones is a pedophile
2) Alex Jones is harassing the familes with child porn
3) Alex Jones is so horrible that he not only did this evil plan but then denied it and tried to make it look like the families are framing him.
I feel ridiculous having to say this, but Alex Jones actually is the victim in this particular situation. Do you think that is a good article? If this article were about you, would you think that headline and coverage is fair and think that somebody who only read the Guardian had a fair picture of you? It's total piss in both omission and implication and incredibly irresponsible. It's a perfect example of how shitty the the media really is and why people should be skeptical of what they read since the press is very focused on pushing an agenda.
If you're accusing somebody of child porn, you better be very sure about it, and your coverage better be objective. Even [CNN](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/18/media/alex-jones-lawsuit/) managed to write a more balanced article on this and include key facts.
> The plaintiffs, however, noted the images "had apparently been sent to InfoWars email addresses."
In other words, it appeared a person or persons sent the images of child pornography to InfoWars email addresses and then, as part of the discovery process, those emails with the images were turned over to the plaintiffs.
It did not appear that Jones or anyone on his team solicited or even had knowledge of those images. Jones' attorney, Norman Pattis, said on an InfoWars broadcast that the FBI was treating Jones as a victim in the case, describing the emails that included the images of child pornography as "very hostile" toward him.
But that shit article and headline makes it sound like:
1) Alex Jones is a pedophile
2) Alex Jones is harassing the familes with child porn
3) Alex Jones is so horrible that he not only did this evil plan but then denied it and tried to make it look like the families are framing him.
I feel ridiculous having to say this, but Alex Jones actually is the victim in _this_ particular situation. Do you think that is a good article? If this article were about you, would you think that headline and coverage is fair and think that somebody who only read the Guardian had a fair picture of you? It's total piss in both omission and implication and incredibly irresponsible. It's a perfect example of how shitty the the media really is and why people should be skeptical of what they read since the press is very focused on pushing an agenda.
If you're accusing somebody of child porn, you better be very sure about it, and your coverage better be objective. Even CNN managed to write a more balanced article on this and include key facts.
But that shit article and headline makes it sound like:
1) Alex Jones is a pedophile
2) Alex Jones is harassing the familes with child porn
3) Alex Jones is so horrible that he not only did this evil plan but then denied it and tried to make it look like the families are framing him.
I feel ridiculous having to say this, but Alex Jones actually is the victim in this particular situation. Do you think that is a good article? If this article were about you, would you think that headline and coverage is fair and think that somebody who only read the Guardian had a fair picture of you? It's total piss in both omission and implication and incredibly irresponsible. It's a perfect example of how shitty the the media really is and why people should be skeptical of what they read since the press is very focused on pushing an agenda.