rawstory
Misleading article is emblematic of website’s politically-motivated “journalism”

Kentucky man receiving threats from Sandy Hook gov’t narrative defenders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=50&v=AD6ei_k4EiI

On August 14 progressive-left website Raw Story posted an article, “WATCH: Sandy Hook Truther Offers $25,000 Reward for ‘Irrefutable’ Proof Shooting Wasn’t a Liberal Scam,” drawing attention to Kentucky resident Joe Jones’ $25,000 YouTube challenge questioning whether the December 14, 2012 Newtown massacre took place as it had been widely reported in major news media.

joe_jones1_youtube
Raw Story’s frame capture of Jones in a Mussolini-style pose enhances the leftish caricature of a “Sandy Hook skeptic” and “open carry advocate”

Is Jones’ request unreasonable? Raw Story thinks so. And the popular liberal forum proceeded to frame Jones’ assertions in ways that have prompted many of its readers to directly contact and chastise the Kentucky resident for remarks he never made or intended.

First let us consider Raw Story‘s title:

WATCH: Sandy Hook truther offers $25,000 reward for ‘irrefutable’ proof shooting wasn’t a ‘liberal’ scam

This is a clear distortion pitched right over the plate of Raw Story ideologically-motivated readers. In fact, Jones has asked for “irrefutable proof that Sandy Hook was REAL,” as the original title of his August 5, 2015 YouTube video reads.

Nevertheless, the article, written by Raw Story associate editor Tom Boggioni, goes on to incorrectly suggest that Jones is a pistol-wielding crazy who is specifically demanding that “liberals” or even the parents of Sandy Hook School children to visit his residence and provide such “irrefutable proof.” As Boggioni reports,

According to Jones — if his child was killed — “irrefutable proof” would entail parents of a dead Sandy Hook child showing up his door [sic] with the child’s “birth certificate, his death certificate, his medical records, his school, records, the family photo albums, photos, videos, I would bring his clothes, I would bring his toys, I would bring everything to that person’s house and say, ‘here is the proof that my son lived and my son died.’”

Parents of children who died at Sandy Hook can find Jones in Franklin, Kentucky, but should be forewarned that he is an open carry advocate. (emphasis retained)

TonyOrtega1
Raw Story Executive Editor Tony Ortega has taken the Church of Scientology to task for “smearing” public figures. Raw Story routinely vilifies individuals such as Jones that don’t share its political views or take issue with the Obama administration as “conspiracy theorists” and “truthers.” [Image Credit: Ad Week]
In Jones’ video response he calls Raw Story‘s actions “irresponsible.” Yet the website’s personnel have never cloaked their political allegiances and affiliations. While many Raw Story readers fancy themselves sophisticated, they oddly embrace the government-sanctioned narrative of Newtown are are thus quick to condemn Jones’ modest proposal out of hand.

If truth be told, Raw Story is run by a pack of semi-journalistic political operatives (e.g. here and here) driven as much by their political ideology as anyone over at FoxNews or The Weekly Standard. Ironically one of Raw Story‘s executive editors, former Village Voice director Tony Ortega with a long career at “alternative” weeklies, has taken the Church of Scientology to task for “smearing” opponents in the press. Yet as its August 14 story on Sandy Hook “truther” Jones suggests, Raw Story has an equal penchant for smearing anyone questioning curious public events or taking issue with Obama administration policies by labeling them “truthers” and “conspiracy theorists” (e.g. here, here, here and here.)

Raw Story‘s misleading attack and its past editorial behavior indicates that there is indeed some substance to Jones’ challenge. What if the presidential administration the site typically shills for is involved in a colossal hoax? A genuine criminal investigation begun in early 2013 would have likely led to the Obama White House and Justice Department long ago.

In January 2013 corporate media outlets similarly attacked and mischaracterized this author for raising simple questions and suggesting that major media failed to nail down exactly what took place at Sandy Hook Elementary. CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who vigorously attacked Memory Hole Blog at the time, won’t answer the author’s invitation to further interrogate the many unanswered questions that still remain and have since emerged. And to date Newtown and Connecticut state officials have failed to adequately address the numerous public records requests filed by school safety expert Wolfgang Halbig since February 2013.

Raw Story couldn’t be further from the journalistic ideal of rooting out corruption and bringing culprits to the court of public opinion. The publication seeks to cheerlead and run cover for its political left partners in crime by taking advantage of its readers own shallow misperceptions and political prejudices.

Leave a Reply

48 thought on “Joe Jones Responds to Raw Story Hit Piece”
  1. Legally carrying a gun is a constitutional right – not a “warning.” Liberal distortion of the truth is their ideaology.

    1. @Marlene…Yeah, a right that they make you get a permit for. And of course they can deny the permit if they don’t like your politics.

      1. Dachie, you’re a lawyer, right? Can you help? I’m confused as to the difference, legally, between a license and a permit.

        According to my mini-law dictionary (I’m too lazy to get up to look at my Black’s dictionary):

        A license, essentially, is the permission to do something that is OTHERWISE ILLEGAL.

        A permit is the permission to do something that is OTHERWISE LEGAL.

        Why is it “otherwise illegal”, say, to drive a car or fish or hunt or sell a house (all require licenses), but “otherwise legal” to carry a concealed handgun (requires a Concealed Carry Permit)?

        Most people use these terms interchangeably, but I’ve been listening to Clint Richardson lately and he’s got me checking legal definitions. This one has me stumped.

    2. Right. did you catch that? The liberals made a point of telling people the name of the two in which I live, and then mentioned that I am an open-carry advocate. The subliminal message is, “Go find him and kick his ass, but be careful! HE CARRIES A GUN!”

      1. I, personally, advocate for concealed carry (without a license OR permit)…keeps people on their best behavior, and if gives the gun-holder the advantage of the element of surprise.

        With gun laws as strict as they are, I can only assume that if one owns a gun, they’re not a felon or crazy, in which case, they have a God-given right…in fact, a duty…to self-defense and the responsibility of protecting others. If they happen to hurt or kill someone, well, that’s what civil courts are supposed to be for. I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes. Hell, I manage to operate 2 tons of metal hurtling through space at 70+ mph nearly every day without killing anyone; I bet I could manage a small handful.

    1. I like it! Staged is right. Just one question…what the heck is Monty Frank wearing at the end of this video? How can anyone take him seriously? He looks like an elf!

  2. Good points, but Jones is reaping what he sowed. RawStory found in his initial video good fodder to incite its readers to fear conservatives a little more, an art at which liberal opinion-makers excel. Jones gave them this opportunity on a golden plate, not only through the essence of his message, but also by peppering it with anti-liberal rants that could only infuriate the RawStory readers who would take the time to listen to it. Had Jones expressed respect for SH believers and for liberals, Raw Story would probably not have inserted the video in its article and may even have refrained from publishing the hit piece altogether.

    Conversely and ironically, Jones will find no support among conservative opinion-makers, who if pressed on the issue will simply dismiss him as “a lone nut who abuses his freedom of speech and smears conservatives by his abusive diatribes against liberals and his horrible unfounded SH accusations.”

    Besides, educating on SH people who can’t draw intelligent conclusions from Building 7’s videos is hopeless. Those includes RawStory’s opinion-makers and many of their followers.

    Love,

    1. David,He(nor any Conservatives I know)gives a toss about what any Liberal rag thinks about anything…neither do we care what phoney “Conservative” mouths chatter about either. If no one steps up and claims the prize(and they won’t) we will have won. Then we can tell the “conspiracy theory” skeptics that “It was a put up or shut up deal,and they lost!” Love,

    2. Interesting, how you completely missed the point of my video. RAW STORY mis-quoted me. Do FACTS mean ANYTHING to you?

  3. If Raw Story is so positively sure that Sandy Hook was a real event, they should put their money where their mouth is and take Joe up on his very fair and logical reward offer. Alas, they won’t because they too know it was a hoax!

    I believe it is quite safe to also say that there is not a genuine court in this country that would prosecute Adam Lanza, even if he were a real person. Genuine courts have genuine prosecutors that must be able to produce genuine evidence that a crime has been committed. That’s kind of hard to do when you can’t even produce one single dead body.

        1. How interesting. Why is Jezebel so pro-vaccines? If it’s mostly a feminist site, a certain ethnic group likely runs it.

      1. My experience with this site is that, except for the shills who are working an agenda (for pay, or by virtue of being useful idiots), is populated by mostly, if not fully informed, at least inquiring people.

    1. absolutely. I dont quite agree with his premise, but his video sure is making the rounds. and thats a positive, regardless of the overall feedback.

    1. “Snopes.com” is partially correct, but overlooks important details.

      In a 9/10 USA Today article, we are told:

      “The records are voluntarily submitted by police agencies, and FBI officials say the Connecticut State Police and Aurora police departments initially provided the information on the year’s two largest killing incidents – only to request that it be deleted.

      In Aurora, Sgt. Chris Amsler says his department provides data to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations monthly. The FBI database contains information on 18 other homicides in Aurora in 2012.

      “We checked our records and found that all data related to the theater shooting was submitted,” he said, adding that investigators were still trying to figure out why the incident was later deleted from FBI records.Connecticut’s homicide count is correct, but the FBI’s detailed supplementary material includes only the shooting of Adam Lanza’s mother at her home in December 2012, just before Lanza went to the elementary school.

      See Kissner, “The Sandy Hook School Massacre and FBI Data Anomalies.”

      1. Can someone spell out to me what exactly jft is trying to say? the snopes article stated that 29 were killed but were filed under a different classification, which I thought was weak. jft seems to be stating aurora was deleted and the number killed -although documented in the table – may have been deleted in another?

  4. With respect to instances of large scale government-linked criminal activity, I find the key to exposing a general lack of intellectual honesty, particularly in neoliberal circles, is to ALWAYS provide some historical context. The JFK, RFK, MLK assassinations, Northwoods document, Tuskegee, MK Ultra, CIA drug running, 9/11, and many others – egregious examples of establishment corruption and criminal activity engineered at the highest levels of society. Human patterns of behavior (modus operandi) are essential tools in criminal investigations and establishing probable cause precisely because such patterns are highly accurate predictive measures of mindset and future behavior.

    Given the historical context, it’s only reasonable critical thinkers would question gross anomalies in major events, particularly when there are powerful motives to further known agendas – classic problem, reaction solution.

    Defenders of the status quo shill vacuous narratives.

    1. ziggy – excellent comment. been wanting to discuss this for awhile now.

      american everyman by scott creighton site: willyloman.wordpress.com
      globalresearch.ca

      and globalresearch is questionable sometimes. i’ve stumbled upon some good ones from time to time but nothing as good as scott’s site is day in and day out. his 9/11 analysis is down to earth and you will be hard pressed to find anything on the site that even the most seasoned skeptic would have a rebuttal for.

      now, he primarily covers world-wide deep-state political affairs (like peter dale scott, sans the phd), however there is still plenty of coverage similar to mhb.

  5. Dr. Tracy has hit indirectly on an issue that merits further exploration – who to trust in the alt media today, right now. I’ve been looking in on a variety of sources for five-plus years and have distilled my go-to sources to a few (Raw Story was originally in the mix but no longer).

    Yet I’m unsure as to both their credibility and pedigree (mostly in regards to principal funding sources and thus influences). I mostly judge this on how other alt media sources pick up and post links from one another. A sort of informal good housekeeping seal of approval.

    However, one rarely sees one alt media source criticize another as per Dr. Tracy’s post today. Another recent example is Veteran’s Today going after Alex Jones over his coverage of Jade Helm.

    At the very least I would like to Dr. Tracy end his podcasts with a simple question to his guests – who are their top three go-to sites for credible information? Present company excepted, of course.

    Everyone’s time is limited and precious. I wouldn’t mind seeing an alt media source do a weekly Top-10 list of credible sources for information (and a Bottom 10 for fun).

    Time to separate the wheat from the chaff…

  6. Unfortunately, truth is where you find it. Many of these sites are characterized, correctly, as “gatekeepers”. Both the depth of coverage and their typical readership are shallow.

    If one visits a site and it is pushing a “left/right” paradigm, move on. If it is embroiled in party politics, why bother? Neither the truth, nor a solution, will be found there.

    If their livelihood depends on sustaining a myth and using various childish tactics to keep their “flock” in line, why bother?

    These sites serve a purpose. Just like the MSM spends breathless hours in feigned excitement over politics and politicians, these sites are there as a net to capture those who think they are superior.

    The fact that they continue to go there proves that they are not superior thinkers. They are sheep. They think of themselves as “the Kool Kidz”.

    The net effect is the same. What they fear most is that some will see beyond the phony facade and realize that meaningful change is not to be had within their system.

    I’ve said many times that a genuine “news” source should not care if anyone believes them or not. “Belief” is not the required default position. If they want credibility, the surest route is to tell the truth.

    The truth is that they are all propagandists serving their fascist owners. The “alternative” variety is simply another flavor. They have no mandate to cause trouble for those who know they’re lying.

    Those who frequent the “Rawstory” or “Huffington Post” are a generally self-congratulatory group of narcissists looking for affirmation. There are many of these types of sites. In my opinion, they aren’t worth bothering with.

    1. Lophatt, you are grossly misinformed about “Fascism” and the NASDP “Nazi” state was all about. Check this out:

      Immigration, Globalization, Political Correctness: The Attack On The Western World: What Is Fascism?
      http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-fascism.html

      What we are dealing with here is not a Fascist state agenda, but a Communistic (now called “Communalism” state agenda, which is much more deadly.

      Please keep in mind that this propaganda, which you beLIEve was waged AFTER the war.

      “History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books-books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon?”

      1. I misstated “communalism” and should have said “Communiterian” or “Communiterianism”, it’s all tied into Agenda 21, world government, NWO, and the United Nations, and even the UN anthropogenic “Global Warming” or “Client Change” agenda. The whole thing is a pack of lies, we do, indeed, live in Plato’s Cave, and we better learn to look behind us to discover the truth.

      2. Dear THX, I’m fairly certain that you do not know what I believe, (with capitalized ‘LIE’, or otherwise). “Fascism” is “corporatism”. I am quite familiar with “Communitarianism” (and a number of other “ism’s”)

        Whatever I said to make you pounce must be a hot button issue with you. To declare me “misinformed” implies that you know what I know. Somehow, I don’t think that you do.

        I frankly don’t care what label one wants to use for manipulation and control. You can call it “Fred”, or “Fred-ism”.

        It’s all the same dynamic by any name. So, please, believe what you like. That’s fine with me. I would appreciate it if you refrained from judging my posts. It wasn’t offered for your inspection and judgement.

        If you don’t like what I said, that’s fine with me. I have no idea what you mean by “after the war”. This struggle is as old as time.

    1. Welcome to MHB, Joe Jones. Thanks for bringing attention to this event with your challenge, and dedicating so much of your own money to resolving the issue, too! Much respect and gratitude to you, sir.

  7. People are saying that I am running a con game, that I am trying to rip people off, that I will “dismiss” any evidence, etc.

    Here are the actual terms of the arrangement. Will someone PLEASE tell me where I come out ahead on this deal?

    I put up $25K.

    YOU put up $25K.

    WE jointly hire an attorney to draw up a contract.

    WE choose an escrow holding company to hold the money.

    We EACH give $25K TO OUR ATTORNEY.

    OUR attorney deposits OUR money into the escrow account.

    WE CHOOSE an investigation firm.

    I PAY for the entire bill for the investigation REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME.

    YOU submit your evidence.

    YOU choose the order in which the evidence is examined.

    The investigators check out your evidence.

    The investigators return to the attorney with their findings.

    The attorney tell us whether or not the evidence was found to be IRREFUTABLE.

    ONLY the Attorney’s fees come out of the $50K

    The remainder of the $50K is paid to YOU if the official Sandy Hook story was proven REAL

    The remainder of the $50K is paid to ME if your evidence is debunked.

    I HAVE NO SAY IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE EVIDENCE YOU PRESENT.

    If YOUR evidence proves that Sandy Hook was REAL, you get the $50K minus attorney fees. It will be paid TO YOU, by OUR attorney, out of the escrow account that held the money.

    If your evidence FAILS to prove that the official Sandy Hook story was REAL, I get the $50K minus attorney fees.

    At this point, I have paid out UP TO $25K out of my own pocket for the investigation of YOUR evidence, regardless of the findings.

    Why do so many people have such trouble understanding this simple process?!

    Will someone PLEASE show me where I am “ripping someone off” under these terms?

    I am so tired of the constant yapping of brain dead liberals who shout, “You’re running a con game!” and “You stacked the deck in YOUR FAVOR!”

    It is a SAD fact that our American school system has churned out an entire generation of brain dead blithering IDIOTS who cannot work through a simple process.

    1. Joe, they know perfectly well that your offer is more than fair, but they have to legitimize their inability to produce a single shred of real proof. They have an agenda that must be perpetuated no matter what.

      By the way, I love your videos…keep up the good work! 🙂

  8. You mention that Anderson Cooper has avoided your overtures for discussion; you fail to mention that you initially denied him first. Many people may forget which works to your advantage.

    You also mention that Halbig has been denied information by Newtown via FOIA request. He has requested items verbally, not through FOIA channels. When these verbal requests go unheeded, he is “denied”

    Tracy, remember “half the truth is often a great lie”

    1. “Liz” is incorrect on both of her assertions.

      1) Anderson Cooper offered an “open invitation” for James Tracy to appear on his program. He sent a crew led by John Zarrella, a veteran journalist and journalism educator who I’m inclined to believe recognized the Sandy Hook event for what it was and might have spent his time more fruitfully by traveling to Connecticut and pursuing Newtown and federal officials rather than me. After several overtures from his producers I agreed to come on, provided it was “live” and untaped so that CNN could not edit any pretaped interview to make it appear that I said something I did not say. At the time I set the conditions the offer was apparently rescinded. See AC360s 180.

      2) Halbig has made numerous requests under FOIA from Newtown officials and others, most of which were done via email, which is as substantial as regular USPS in the eyes of a third party arbiter, particularly if these are done repeatedly. Why would the Connecticut FOI Commission even bother to hear his formal complaints if his requests were not made properly.

  9. You can also tell Halbig to right click on the video feed; that will enable the time stamps

    So much for another conspiracy

    P.s. And you merely cannot email FOIA requests; forms need to be filled out

    1. Liz, you are batting a thousand today. You really should do a rudimentary fact-check before criticizing another person’s veracity. The following is directly from the FOIA website http://www.foia.gov/how-to.html

      If the information you want is not publicly available, you can submit a FOIA request to the agency’s FOIA Office.
      The request simply must be in writing and reasonably describe the records you seek. Most federal agencies now accept FOIA requests electronically, including by web form, e-mail or fax. See the list of federal agencies for details about how to make a request to each agency and any specific requirements for seeking certain records.

      Is there a special form I have to use to make a FOIA request?

      There is no specific form that must be used to make a request.

      What can I ask for under the FOIA?

      A FOIA request can be made for any agency record. You can also specify the format in which you wish to receive the records (for example, printed or electronic form). The FOIA does not require agencies to create new records or to conduct research, analyze data, or answer questions when responding to requests.

  10. As I said when I first chimed in, I’ve watched the goings on here for quite a while. I don’t know if this web blog has taken any other wrong turns, but I think the attention paid to this guy certainly qualifies as one. Clearly his use of the phrase liberals, as in “brain dead liberals,” points to a certain kind mentality. While I realize that the term liberal itself means pretty much nothing at all in this or any other context, the language style points directly to a certain mentality.

    Perhaps the term liberalism meant something two or three centuries ago. I don’t know. I believe it might have, but unfortunately I wasn’t there at the time. Either way, the bipolar-liberal/conservative-left/right-march mentality is old and forlorn and absolutely useless. And I realize as I write these little paragraphs that this narrative and the Presidential sElection looming above us maintains the stunted and simplistic thought processes of our era.

    I can’t help but notice a certain desperate style among the critical thinking crowd. This desperation causes them to imagine heroes and saviors that aren’t really there. I know it well because I once believed in the great awakening about to occur. I have some hope but I place none of it there.

    This guy has nothing to offer here except his precious twenty five thousand. I’d love to take his money, by the way, if I could find the right strategy. But if I knew strategy, I’d probably be in the game and have a vested interest in it instead of passively watching it from the outside. In any case, if I could prove that the event happened, I’d be happy to collect the ponderous cash award. But I wouldn’t want to pick it up in person. I’d welcome the transaction but it’s an interaction I’d rather skip.

    1. Bummer! Yeah, proving that something that positively did not happen, did happen, can prove to be rather impossible. You should really strive to seek TRUTH, and to always speak the truth, and I bet you would find what you’re looking for. But seek it with all your heart.

  11. James,

    Love your blog.

    Long time reader. First time commenter 😉

    No surprise Raw Story usually gets the story wrong with Ortega at or as this article suggests formerly at the helm:

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/the-church-of-sleep-deprivation-how-scientology-keeps-its-workers-compliant-and-childless/

    At the end of it. It says:

    “This story originally appeared at Van Winkle’s. The author, Tony Ortega, was previously the Executive Editor at Raw Story.”

    Sigh I guess Tony’s moved on after trashing Raw Story’s credibility and before that the Village Voice.

    One would think that Tony was an agent provocateur out to destroy the Alternative Press’ credibility. If one was a “conspiracy theorist”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *