As I said in the other thread, Alex Jones really pissed me off with this "debate." I hate Piers Morgan and Alex Jones had a chance to use facts to make him look like a fool. Instead, Alex made gun owners look bat shit crazy. This interview did us more harm than good. It makes me wonder who Alex is really working for.
I think being pissed off at him for this is misguided. There was really nothing else Jones could do if the object was to be heard. As I mentioned in another thread, had he been polite to Morgan he would have been steamrolled and that would have been that. Morgan is scum and Jones only treated him to the courtesies he merits.
If Jones made gun owners look nuts, it would only be to those whose minds are so small and tightly shut that nothing they might "think" matters anyway. To such people there is no reason, honesty, or courage. They are little people not worth the match with which one would set them ablaze.
Jones completely fucked CNN's schedule up for that evening. I was glad to see it happen. More guests need to do the same.
PS: another tactic that interviewees need to learn, adopt, and make judicious use is to have "no opinion" on the issues raised by irrelevant questions. Jones should have done this with Morgan - he had several opportunities, which he handled, but could have done better.
For example, when the little pimp asked Jones some question and Jones proceeded to answer in a way Morgan did not like, the weasel kept admonishing Jones to answer the question, to which Jones replied that he was. The reason Jones answered as he did was that he was not going to play Morgan's game - all well and good - the question itself was irrelevant, but if you say as much then you get into an argument about the validity of the question - an argument that wastes time at best and which in the worst case you lose. Morgan asks, "what is more important, a child's right not to be shot or your right to have a gun?" - an obviously leading question that presupposes mutual exclusivity. You can explain that, but you will get the same argument that no, this is NOT what the question implies... blah blah blah... Don't take the bait. "What is more important, a child's right not to be shot or your right to have a gun?" "I have no opinion on that issue." All the interviewer can do is either sit there with his thumb up his ass looking stupid, keep harping on the question in hope that you will be dislodged from your formidable position, move on the next question, or most preferably, take out a pistol and put a bullet through his own head.
People need to learn how to deal with these sorts of shit heads, how to take the fight to them, which is what Jones did... albeit a bit ham-fistedly, but out of necessity if a goal was to be met.
The other tactic I posted about long ago was to bring your own camera crew to the interview. They capture EVERYTHING and post it on the net UNCUT, with edited versions posted to segregate specific portions of particular interest. If the host doesn't accept their role, you walk. Were this to become common the networks would have a very serious choice to make regarding their policies moving forward. They hold all the power because we LET THEM. Take it away from them.
It can be done.
