The satirical magazine The Onion buys Infowars from Alex Jones

by time news
This article was originally published English

‍ ⁢ The Onion has⁢ bought⁤ Alex Jones’ Infowars: What does this mean for the controversial platform?
​ ‌

ADVERTISING

It was announced yesterday ⁣that‌ satirical news site The Onion had won ⁤Alex Jones’ Infowars after the auction was‍ fueled by ​the conspiracy theorist’s bankruptcy.

Jones, 50, became known as an extremist right-wing commentator who spread fake news and conspiracy theories on ⁤his radio programs from the 1990s. Founded in 1999, Infowars became Jones’ ⁤flagship platform with peak​ annual revenue of nearly $80 million (€75 million).

On Infowars, Jones gained a reputation for embracing far-right ⁢theories and promoting ⁣his own outlandish views. Jones‌ became famous when ⁣he ⁤once shouted that the Obama administration was putting chemicals in the water to “turn⁢ the damn frogs gay.”

Jones’ nonsense came to an end when he pushed the conspiracy theory that the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax, perpetrated in part by the US government as part of efforts⁣ to expand gun⁢ control. He called the parents of the children killed “crisis actors” on his show and said​ the shooting was “as ⁢wrong as a three-dollar bill.”

After family members of the victims filed separate defamation lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas, Jones⁢ admitted ⁢in 2022 that the shooting ‍was⁢ “100% true” and called it “totally irresponsible” to call​ it hoax.

Courts in Texas ​and‌ Connecticut convicted Jones of⁤ defamation for ⁣portraying the Sandy Hook massacre as a hoax and awarded the families nearly $1.5 billion (€1.4 billion) in damages.

As a result ⁢of‍ these lawsuits and the ⁤damages awarded, Jones filed for bankruptcy and ⁣had to sell many of his assets to pay ​the judgment.

As part of this liquidation, Infowars was put up ‍for auction, ‍allowing The Onion to bid. With that, the platform immediately went from the originator⁢ of its ⁤conspiracy theory to the satirical news ⁢company known for its ⁣fictional parodies of the latest news.

However, the judge in ⁢Jones’ bankruptcy case said on the day of the sale that he was concerned about the way the auction was conducted. A hearing was also ordered for next week⁣ following complaints‍ from lawyers for Jones and a Jones affiliate company that made a $3.5 million (3.3 million euro) offer.

“The liquidation of Alex Jones’ fortune and the end of Infowars is the justice⁤ we have ⁣long‍ waited ⁣for ⁣and fought for,” said Robbie Parker, whose daughter Emilie was killed ⁢in a 2012 shooting in ‍Connecticut, in ⁤one of his statements provided to lawyers . .

On his‍ live broadcast, Jones ‍was angry and defiant, calling the sale “an all-out attack on free speech.” He later announced⁤ that ‌his ⁣show would⁢ be cancelled. Jones then started his show in a ​new studio nearby and streamed it live on his X accounts.

After the hearing, ⁤Jones said on his appearance ⁣that he⁤ thought the rigged auction⁤ was unfair and expressed hope that the judge would overturn ⁣the‍ sale. He has repeatedly⁤ told his listeners that he could stay on the Infowars platforms if his backers won the bid, but that ‌he had ​set up a ⁢new studio, websites ​and ⁣social media accounts in case they ‍were needed.

Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion’s​ parent​ company, Global Tetrahedron, said it plans to relaunch the Infowars website in January with satire aimed at conspiracy theorists and right-wing figures, as‌ well as⁢ educational information about gun violence prevention from the group Everytown for Gun Safety. .

Collins declined to ‌disclose the amount of the offer.

“We thought​ it would be‌ a really funny joke if we bought this thing, probably one of⁢ the best jokes we’ve ever told,” Collins‌ said. “The (Sandy Hook) families​ decided ⁣to join our‌ bid, support‍ our bid, ‌try to get us over the finish line. Because‌ at the end of the day, ‌it was either us or Alex Jones was going to keep this .The site could go unpunished, essentially, for what it has⁤ done to ‍these families over the years, or we could make a stupid, stupid website, and we chose the latter.”

How can⁢ satire​ be effectively⁢ used to combat misinformation in the current media landscape?

Interview between Time.news⁤ Editor and⁢ Media Expert Dr. Emily Carson

Time.news Editor: Welcome, ‍Dr. Carson. Thank you for joining⁤ us today. We’re here to discuss⁢ a‌ significant‍ development in the media landscape: The Onion’s acquisition ​of Alex Jones’ controversial platform, ⁤Infowars. Let’s dive right in. How surprising was⁣ this acquisition to you?

Dr. Emily Carson: Thank‌ you for having ⁤me. Honestly, it’s‌ quite a shocking turn of events. The Onion is known for its satirical take‍ on current events, and to see it take over a platform that has spread conspiracy ‌theories is almost surreal. It highlights the⁤ absurdity of our current ⁤media⁣ environment.

Time.news Editor: Absolutely. Infowars gained notoriety under Alex ⁤Jones for ‌his outrageous claims,⁤ particularly surrounding events like the Sandy Hook ⁤tragedy. What does this⁣ acquisition say about the state of​ media ethics today?

Dr.⁣ Emily Carson: This ⁤acquisition ​underscores‌ a critical juxtaposition in ⁤media ethics. ‍The Onion’s satirical approach could potentially offer a unique lens‍ to‍ deconstruct the absurdities propagated​ by Infowars. ​However, there’s a danger that it could‌ trivialize serious issues. It raises questions about whether satire can‌ effectively critique harmful narratives while not inadvertently legitimizing them.

Time.news Editor: Interesting point. Jones’ brand of media was built on sensationalism⁢ and misinformation, which led to ⁤significant legal repercussions. How do you see The Onion​ navigating ‌this legacy?

Dr. Emily‍ Carson: ‌ The Onion has a solid foundation in parody journalism, so they’ll need to be ⁤very thoughtful about how ⁤they ​approach the content from ‌Infowars. They’ll likely‌ aim to reclaim and ​reframe it in a way that highlights the absurdity of conspiracy theories. However, they must be​ careful to avoid crossing over into⁤ the ⁢realm of sensationalism‌ themselves, as that could be counterproductive.

Time.news Editor: You mentioned ⁣the absurdity surrounding Jones’ past statements.⁢ Do you think there’s potential ⁢for The Onion to use humor as ‌a tool for social commentary regarding these‍ dangerous conspiracy theories?

Dr. Emily Carson: Absolutely. Satire can be a powerful​ weapon against disinformation.​ The Onion ​could help demystify some of the more outrageous claims by framing them in an⁣ exaggerated light, helping to dismantle them piece by piece. However,⁣ the effectiveness of⁤ humor as a critique⁤ rests on their ability to keep it⁣ grounded in reality, ​ensuring⁢ the audience recognizes the ⁣satire for⁢ what it truly is.

Time.news‌ Editor: As you’ve noted, this acquisition also follows a series of legal challenges for Jones. How ​do you⁢ think this will affect‍ public perception⁣ of Infowars⁤ moving forward?

Dr. Emily ​Carson: Public‌ perception will likely ⁤be complex. On one hand,​ there’s a sense ⁤of justice‌ served by the ​dismantling of Jones’ platform, especially among the victims’ families. On the other hand, people who were drawn⁤ to Infowars might‍ feel a⁣ sense of ‌loss or outrage. The Onion now has the unique opportunity to reshape ⁣that narrative, potentially influencing ⁤how⁣ audiences view​ both the legacy of Infowars and the​ broader implications​ of misinformation‌ in media.

Time.news Editor: That’s a profound observation.⁤ Lastly,⁣ what‍ message‍ do you think this sends about the‍ future ⁢of media?⁢ Can we expect more transformations like this?

Dr. Emily Carson: We might see more instances of‍ unexpected media‍ ownership⁢ as traditional platforms continue to ‍face challenges. The blurring ⁣lines between ‍serious journalism and ​satire may open up new avenues for critique and discussion. However,⁣ this also⁤ serves‌ as a reminder of the responsibility media⁤ entities hold. As we confront an environment saturated with misinformation, the ⁣choices made by those ​who ‍control content can ​profoundly⁢ impact society’s understanding of truth.

Time.news Editor: Well said, Dr.​ Carson. Thank you⁤ for sharing your insights on ⁣this remarkable turn of ‌events. It ⁣certainly opens​ up⁢ a ⁣broader conversation⁣ about media and ‌accountability.

Dr. ​Emily Carson: Thank you for having me. It’s⁣ an important discussion, and ⁣I look forward to seeing how this unfolds!

You may also like

Leave a Comment