Thread by @5DollarFeminist

Alex Jones's first Sandy Hook defamation trial is back for another day of crazy in Texas. Infowars host Owen Shroyer is back on the stand being questioned by defense attorney Andino Reynal.

And here's the YouTube if you want to watch it yourself.

Shroyer describes Infowars operation. Shockingly, it's pretty slapdash.

Andino: Tell us about the group of people who work there

Shroyer: Salt of the earth types, not a lot of millionaires.

Reminder, Infowars brought in $165M over three years.
rollingstone.com/politics/polit…

Shroyer claims to take ten hours preparing the show.

Reminder: Yesterday he claimed that someone handed him the story claiming that the coroner in Sandy Hook never gave parents back their children's bodies while he was on air and didn't have time to check it.

Shroyer is now sliming Rob Jacobson, a former employee who claims that he warned Jones that Sandy Hook hoax claims were BS.
statesman.com/story/news/loc…

Shroyer is whining that Megyn Kelly edited video of Jones to make him look bad and aired it on Father's Day.

Yes, the same Shroyer who used a tiny snippet of an Anderson Cooper segment to imply that plaintiff Neil Heslin was lying about holding his dead son.

Plaintiffs' Atty Kyle Farrar: You don't see the irony of sitting in the chair complaining of the irony of an edited video?

Shroyer: It might be ironic if we sued Kelly for $150M

Farrar: But you didn't, because it wasn't defamatory.

Shroyer is feeling like a BIG MAN today.

Lawyers are done with Shroyer. Now jurors are getting time to formulate questions for him ... because Texas.

Yesterday's witness questions were mostly of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety, so this should be good.

Will Jones's attorney remember to object today?

To say that Jones's lawyer Andino Reynal ATE IT yesterday would be a major understatement. The mood in the courtroom is kind of like if a kid spent an entire schoolbus ride mooning an old couple out the window, only to be sat next to them at the museum.

Not a lot of eye contact.

Hooboy the jury questions are back, and they are AMAZING. Once again, neither plaintiffs nor defendants object to any.

Q: Does Infowars often regret content it airs?
A: Not very often.

Q: How often are guests/callers told to factcheck their reports?
A: We count on our guests to factcheck themselves
Do you think producers should vet sources prior to air?

Q: Do u feel guilty conveying false beliefs by mentally unstable people?
A: We make mistakes, we apologize

Q: Is the judge a hired actor?
A: No

Q: Are jurors hired actors
A: No

Q: Is there anything you would recant?
A: I would just not have covered it. It was not a subject material I was familiar with. That four min has caused tremendous negative effects on my career and my life.

Q: What should be the consequence for Infowars?
A: There should be fair application of consequences for all media outlets.

Q: What consequences should there be?
A: The laws on the books should be properly applied equally and fairly to all media.

Video deposition of Rob Jacobson who was at Infowars for 10yrs, says he was appalled at the coverage of the Sandy Hook coverage. He said he approached management, said he was rebuffed with laughter and jokes.

He says they were delighted to get anything suggesting SH was a hoax.

Jacobson says he was horrified that they were giving conspiracy loon Wolfgang Halbig, who relentlessly attacked the Sandy Hook families, a huge megaphone.

Mgmt joked about making a shirt saying "Halbig was right." A riff on "Alex Jones was right" meme.
huffpost.com/entry/wolgang-…

Video depo testimony of Dan Bidondi, a 9/11 truther and Infowars correspondent. His screaming about jet fuel and the CIA will surely impress the jurors greatly.

slate.com/blogs/weigel/2…

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if this Bidondi guy started talking to you at the bus stop, you'd hail an Uber. And maybe move to Canada.

Bidondi is describing being dispatched by Infowars to "go cover" school board meetings.

Bidondi insists that Halbig is a hero, whose reports are impeccably sourced, consistent with Infowars's unimpeachable editorial standards.

And by editorial standards, they mean "Operation Cover Your Ass."

https://twitter.com/MitchellEpner/status/1553038483408707584?s=20&t=Pwk0aFbZrQEqlF34rnhRCg

Bidondi says that Alex Jones called him right after he was deposed in this lawsuit. Jones appeared to be trying to convince Bidondi that he hadn't "sold [him] down the river."

Total misunderstanding, Jones would never thrown an employee under the bus.

Jones and his lawyer told Bidondi not to talk to the media about Sandy Hook.

Bidondi is a fast, unclear talker, but it *sounds* like Jones was trying to imply that Bidondi never worked for Infowars.

Next witness is Fred Zipp, an experienced journalist. He submitted an affidavit in this case saying that Shroyer defamed plaintiff Neil Heslin, describing it as a "calculated and unconscionably cruel hit job intended to smear and injure a parent."
infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/upl…

Zipp is explaining what *real* editors do.

Spoiler Alert: NOT trawl the internet for unsourced, inflammatory stories to splice into dubiously credible hit pieces.

Plaintiffs' Atty Bankston: Did Infowars adhere to ethical journalistic standards regarding Sandy Hook?

Expert Witness Zipp: NOPE NOPE NOPE

Atty: Did Infowars ever reach out to the Sandy Hook families to get their side of the story?

Zipp: "Other than Alex Jones's flag waving expression of condolences," no.

(Yesterday Shroyer and Farrar got into it over whether "sorry for your loss" constitutes an "apology.")

Atty: Does InfoWars describe themselves as opinion editors, or journalists?

Zipp: Journalists.

Atty: Thoughts on that?

Zip: lolllllll

Zipp contrasts Walter Cronkite being handed a piece of paper saying JFK had died and reading it on air as fact, with Shroyer reading some rando blog post on air saying the SH parents never got their children's bodies back from the coroner.

"That's just a recipe for disaster."

LOL, Andino objects to introducing an exhibit on guidelines for ethical journalism.

Judge asks for relevance of exhibit.

Bankston: We're trying to demonstrate how grossly Infowars and Jones deviated from any possible ethical guidelin—

Judge: OKAY STOP GOT IT.

Obj overruled

Zipp explains that REAL journalists correct stories that they get wrong. This is important because:

(1) Infowars doesn't do that, &

(2) Infowars seizes upon any tiny correction or deviation by legit news outlets to "prove" that mainstream media is full of crap.

Zipp says that REAL journalists factcheck their own sources, they don't find someone making outlandish claims that will appeal to the target audience and just run with 'em because YOLO.

In typical ridiculous Alex Jones fashion, he promised that it was traditional journalism was on trial here. Despite the fact that he is *the* *named* *defendant*.

But in a way, he's not wrong.

https://twitter.com/SebastianMurdoc/status/1552387867443429379?s=20&t=XHmQZsrIcgFCgfQUqxw6Gw

Bankston: Did Alex Jones do any actual journalism? Did he go look for the answer to any of the "just asking questions" he raised?

Zipp: Other than sending Bidondi to harass Newtown parents at at school board mtgs, no.

Oh boy, Jones's atty Andino Reynal is up to prove that Jones is too a real journalist.

Reynal: Maybe that person is engaging in journalistic commentary? I think the term I've heard before is a [extremely drawn out sarcastic emphasis] PUNDIT?

Reynal: What about Howard Stern and Joe Rogan?

Zipp: Talk show hosts.

Reynal: When Jones says [Jones growl] "Folks, this could be a false flag," is he making an assertion of fact?

Zipp: He's ranting.

Reynal: Don't viewers understand this is an expression of opinion?

Zipp: Maybe, maybe not.

(paraphrase)

Reynal: What about Rush Limbaugh?

Zipp: "someone who sits in front of a microphone and makes claims"

Reynal: We have a long American tradition of people who free associate in front of a mike. Cool, right?

Zipp: So long as the ranting is not injuring ppl, it's perfectly fine

Reynal is trying to corner Zipp into saying "yes, Jones is a journalist."

Zipp agrees that Jones presents himself as a journalist to his viewers.

Reynal likens Alex Jones to the "citizen journalists" who videotaped the murder of George Floyd.

Reminder: Alex Jones flogged conspiracy theories that George Floyd and the cop who killed him were involved in drug dealing together.
thedailybeast.com/right-richter-…

Reynal: Is it ethical to interview someone with controversial ideas?

Zipp: Well, yeah.

Reynal: Does the journalist have to shout "very controversial" at intervals?

Zipp: ...

Reynal inadvertently gets at a major problem in journalism today. How to report on people with false beliefs? What obligation do reporters have to debunk their subjects?

Of course, he does it in a totally disingenuous way, saying Infowars leaves it up to the viewer to decide.

We're having an evidentiary dispute arising from the odd circumstances of the case. Jones's defamation is already established because his refusal to comply with discovery was so egregious that he got "death penalty" sanctions. Only issue is penalty.
abovethelaw.com/2021/10/alex-j…

Reynal makes a motion for mistrial. Judge Gamble denies. Time for lunch.

And we're back!

Reynal establishes that Zipp is a paid witness. Also that the journalistic code of ethics is not binding rule of law.

Reynal seems to think this is a big GOTCHA, that professional codes are not LAW.

Reynal wants to admit a document he hasn't shown opposing counsel and which he has no hard copy of.

Cool cool.

Reynal is fumblingly trying to impeach Zipp.

"You said 'Neil and Scarlett have no voice, Jones is much more powerful.' Do you still stand by that?"

I believe he's trying to pretend that the child's parents are public figures, like Jones? Or maybe Reynal has a humiliation fetish

Reynal is trying to attack grieving parents for talking about their dead child to make Alex Jones look like the real "little guy" here.

And another evidentiary dispute, which Reynal can't be bothered to do at sidebar, ensuring that the jury sees him flounder.

Judge: "The prob is you never gave them your exhibits, so we don't know whether what you gave the witness and what they have is the same thing."

Okay, they finally went off the record and sent the jury out. The judge says the video evidence in question is not authenticated, so they're going to play it now and Reynal can try to gotcha Zipp for an empty jury box.

Video is out since Zipp has never seen it and thus can't be questioned on it. Judge says Jones could have introduced it as evidence years ago, and chose not to. Too bad, so sad.

Jury coming back in.

The video Reynal didn't get in was a "debate" between Halbig and someone who didn't believe his conspiracy theories. He was trying to impeach Zipp's statement that Infowars didn't entertain alternate viewpoints.

Gambit falls flat.

Plaintiffs' lawyers introduce an affidavit from Jones claiming to be a journalist who gathers and disseminates news, i.e. not a talkshow host like Howard Stern and Joe Rogan as Reynal tried to suggest.

This is good rebuttal by plaintiffs' counsel, waving away the smoke bomb Reynal tried to set off with his cross examination implying that Jones is a pioneering citizen journalist and simultaneously a talk show host, not subject to the rules of ethical journalism.

Now we get video of Jones claiming to have done the research himself — like a real journalist! — saying that Sandy Hook Elementary was closed a year before the shooting, that the kids were paraded in and out of the building, that "the whole thing was fake" and "didn't happen."

Now Plaintiff's atty is rebutting Reynal's suggestion that the children's parents had a big platform because they went on television to talk about their children.

Reynal comes back to pants himself in front of the jury again.

I believe the question here is "have you personally observed every single media appearance Heslin and Lewis ever made."

The answer is "no."

Reynal: Are you saying the plaintiffs never made media appearances?

Zipp: Uhhhh ... no?

Reynal is very proud of himself.

Jury is sent out to formulate written questions. Because, again ... Texas. With the last two witnesses, the questions were like "Do you realize you're a total asshole?"

We'll get an idea if Reynal made any headway by what the jury asks this time.

While we're waiting, can I interest you in a story about the Jones's ridiculous ploy to use the bankruptcy court to get out of this trial?

It was positively filthy.

abovethelaw.com/2022/06/alex-j…

Okay, we're back. Jury questions were mixed, with some doozies. A lot were rejected, including one that said "compare Alex Jones saying he has a 1st Amend right to say crazy stuff with the SH shooter's second Amend right to kill a bunch of people and keep a gun."

YIKES.

Q: In general did you find the titles of the videos were accurate representations of content?
A: Yes

Q: How can we apply trad journalistic rules in the social media age of citizen journalism.
A: It's hard because ethical principals are usually enforced by organizations, top down.

Q: If this had taken place in a regular news room, would the reporters have gotten fired?
A: Eventually, if conduct repeated.

Q: How would a real reporter have factchecked the article suggesting that the Sandy Hook families never got their children's bodies back?
A: I would have found the original video, which disproved the story.

Now there's a deposition with Infowars Christopher (Kit) Daniels who says he's a journalist. He does not recall any journalistic standards at Infowars.

He famously misidentified the shooter at Parkland HS, resulting in another defamation suit in TX.
huffpost.com/entry/infowars…

In his videotaped deposition, he repeatedly purports not to understand questions about editorial standards. And by repeatedly, I mean like 75 times.

Atty: What do you not understand?

Daniels: I think the whole question is confusing ... It sounds like you're talking in riddles.

Daniels says it was standard practice to have multiple sources for Infowars articles. When confronted with an article on Sandy Hook with one source — the hoax loon Wolfgang Halbig – Daniels insists that it's a very atypical article.

"It reads like a features story in a magazine"

Plaintiffs' Atty pulls out an Infowars articled entitled "FBI Says No One Was Killed at Sandy Hook."

Daniels says he doesn't know if that would have been factchecked it if he were the editor on desk that day.

LOL, Daniels is being asked about an email he wrote bragging that he had rewrote a legit news story and given it a sensational hed and his own byline, and got a bazillion clicks.

Daniels suggested that adopt this as standard practice.

Very research, much journalism, dude.

Next witness is Becca Lewis, expert witness on media and disinformation.
datasociety.net/people/lewis-b…

Lewis says she was familiar with Jones before the case because,"It's impossible to research disinformation without encountering Infowars."

She says Jones is highly influential in the disinformation ecosystem.

Wow, this woman is amazing. She's explaining the attention economy and how some people get "paid" with money, some with clicks. (AHEM.)

Lewis testifies that online communities function as bubbles, with leaders like Jones stoking interest and anger to maintain eyeballs.

Lewis explaining the peer review process for academic journals juxtaposed with Infowars grabbing some unsourced blog post from the internet and treating it as a legit source is ... well, it's something.

Lewis describes Alex Jones's massive reach in the conspiracy theory ecosphere. He reaches millions of listeners every time he opens his mouth.

"I cant think of another person working in media who is comparable to him," Lewis says.

15 min break

We're back. Lewis says that Infowars had 3 billion pageviews, but that doesn't really describe Jones's reach, since his content gets republished far and wide.

Lewis testifies that incendiary misinformation spreads much faster than dull facts, partic in filter bubbles where contrary views are likely to be excluded.

Lewis is discussing this article and the way that that YouTube's algorithm favored his content.
technologyreview.com/2018/08/14/240…

Bankston asks an interesting question: Could Infowars plant anonymous stories at Zero Hedge and then cite them at Infowars as legitimate sourcing.

Lewis says yes.

Some background on Zero Hedge
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

Bankston points to a poll that shows lots of Americans believe Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.

Bankston: Whose fault is that?

Lewis: Alex Jones.

Reynal: How much are you being paid?

Lewis: $3000, but I have worked much more than originally agreed.

Reynal: You hate Alex Jones, don't you?

Lewis: I have come to be really disturbed by him.

Reynal is trying to gotcha Lewis with her tweets calling Republicans a white supremacist party.

Not sure how his smug, nasty attack is going to play with the jury.

LOL, irony is dead. Reynal is accusing Lewis of confirmation bias.

Lewis says people shitpost on Twitter. Her academic work was peer reviewed, not some rando on Zero Hedge.

Reynal has come up with a new GOTCHA!

Lewis researched Alex Jones before she was even hired. And that is cheating! Because she had an opinion before she was retained as an expert witness!

Yes, for real.

Lewis doesn't like Ben Shapiro or white supremacist Stefan Molyneux. QED, she is biased, the glove does not fit you must acquit.

Reynal is very proud of himself for this line of argument.

Reynal is accusing Lewis of doing clickbait with the Fairleigh Dickinson poll saying 24% of Americans doubt that Sandy Hook really happen.

portal.fdu.edu/newspubs/publi…

OMG.

Reynal asked Lewis about the sample size of the poll. When she didn't know off the top of her head, he suggested it was under 1000 and called her an unprepared witness.

On redirect, Bankston handed her the poll. The sample size is 1000+.

Bankston: You ever hear the phrase "lawyers who lie, should lose?"

Lewis: No.

Bankston: I didn't hear it before this trial. But I think it's pretty good.

LOL, Reynal is back to GOTCHA Lewis with the fact that all the polls were ...

... wait for it ...

... CONDUCTED BY PHONE.

Judge: Mr. Reynal, what are you doing? You're reading again from an exhibit *you* kept out of evidence!

Dear God, this idiot is trying to out-statistics a professional academic.

He's hollering about people who didn't answer the phone. Maybe they had different opinions!

Reynal was in the room when a juror tried to ask a question about semiotics. These are not uneducated jurors.

Jurors are going out to formulate their questions.

In the least surprising surprise ever, Jones's company Free Speech System just filed for bankruptcy.

Remember, that Jones put three worthless shell co's in bankruptcy to delay this trial, without having to disclose his own assets and FSS.

They agree the trial will proceed.

Jones is also suing FSS to have it indemnify him in the CT defamation suit.

https://twitter.com/5DollarFeminist/status/1552881366827782148?s=20&t=pI1i0ft7xalB5HH1lrSZYQ

Okay, one of these jurors is highly educated and possibly insane. Gonna assume this is the "semiotics juror."

Rejected Q: Will you state under oath that you are not a lizard person who works for the globalists? What is the goal of people who talk about globalist plots?

Reynal makes pro forma motion for mistrial, judge overrules, and we are back for jury questioning of Becca Lewis.

Q: Do companies have the right to deplatform at will?
A: Yes

Q: Did the poll in question have a statistically significant number of respondents?
A: Yes

Q: Did other pollsters ask about belief in Sandy Hook?
A: Dunno

Q: Who are comparable purveyors of disinformation to Jones?
A: There are none.

Q: What is "empirical view"?
A: Not arriving at a conclusion based solely on reasoning, collecting data to analyze it.

(Gotta be semiotics juror)

Q: Given the extent of his reach, is Infowars the mainstream media?
A: Good question. Shows the meaningless of the term "mainstream media."

Q: Is Alex Jones in it for the money, or does he believe it?
A: Can't say what's in Jones's mind, but people are drawn to conspiracy theories for multiple and complex reasons, and there is ample opportunity for exploitation.

Q: Is the Infowars audience more prone to violence than other audiences?
A: Tough to say, but framing someone as an enemy is often interpreted as permission/mandate to go harass.

Judge is telling jurors not to read anything about the case over the weekend. And we are DONE.