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