THE prosecution of the ‘conspiracy theorist’ Alex Jones in the US in early October over his claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre was faked and the deaths of 26 children and adults never happened provides an opportunity to examine the growing attention towards conspiracy theories and the stardom of some conspiracy theorists in recent years.

Conspiracy theories, and theorists, are nothing new. Perhaps the most famous 20th century conspiracy theory is that an alien spacecraft crash-landed at Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947, and that the US government, military intelligence and the FBI have been engaged in a cover-up ever since. A flying machine of some sort did crash on 8th July 1947 near the town. However, it is the addition of the alien/UFO angle and questions of cover-up that turned it into a conspiracy theory.

More recently, but prior to the age of user-generated digital content, the two events that have generated most conspiracy theories were the death of Princess Diana in August 1997 and the 11th September 2001 attacks on Washington DC and New York City.

In the case of the latter, these include the ‘inside job’ theory, the partly antisemitic ‘Israel theory’, the allegation that there was no evidence of plane wreckage in the footage of the attack on the Pentagon, and questions about how the twin towers collapsed – controlled detonation rather than the result of the planes hitting them – as is claimed by the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If any were true then it would have great impact upon understandings of subsequent 21st century history and US foreign policy surrounding the War on Terror.

Alex Jones is what I call a performance conspiracy theorist. Via his InfoWars platform, Jones and his team have challenged the official narratives about many infamous moments in contemporary history. David Koresh and the siege and killings at Waco, Texas, in 1993, the Oklahoma bombing in 1995, and he has asserted that the ludicrous Pizzagate conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton being the leader of a paedophile ring was true.

As a performance conspiracy theorist, he is ultimately playing a character version of himself (he used to be an actor) wherein he engages his audience with a flamboyant, loud, aggressive, fast-talk on controversial subjects. Jones himself has claimed that his show isn’t an act. But then he would say that because his authenticity – saying what the political and media elite won’t – is a key part of his appeal.

What can be said with certainty though is that Jones understands the trends within news media in the digital age and has been able to navigate the landscape, gaining the traction required to make a lot of money from his content in the 2020s.

The growing prominence of conspiracy theories and theorists is thus one of the problems associated with the proliferation of access to content production that has marginalised quality investigative journalism, increased the volume of lifestyle, celebrity and other ‘soft’ news and offered a platform to those ignorant or uncaring of the ethics of broadcasting.

Sadly, some traditional quality news broadcasters and publishers have pivoted their own content towards the themes of sensationalism, outrage, fear or confrontation seemingly out of anxiety as to their future relevance. Ironically, this attempt to compete may be adding to that marginalisation as frustration grows among those readers with expectations of a high level of scrutiny that they are not providing the required due diligence.

This scenario informs a wider discussion about how many people ‘use’ media. Uses and Gratification Theory, first outlined by Jay Blumler and others in the late 1960s, articulates how media is ultimately used to gratify opinions, ideology and worldviews that are already present within the mind of the individual. Selection of media source is, more often than not, an act of confirmation rather than truth-seeking.

Such a position leads to an important demarcation between a conspiracy theorist and a critic. Conspiracy theorists either claim something to be true that struggles to stand up to scrutiny or suggest an alternative explanation to the official narrative for what has happened, usually with scant or incomplete evidence for it. In contrast, a critic tries to draw attention to issues or anomalies in a policy or position, is backed up by substantial evidence and/or by well-established academic argument, but understands that they do not possess enough information to endorse a complete counter-position and that it would be irresponsible to do so. They are encouraging your vigilance and inviting you to further inquiry as democratic citizens.

The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ has thus been weaponised in the digital age to describe lots of people who criticise official positions, or who say something that some people might find difficult or inconvenient to hear, or who simply make utterances that are ideologically unfavourable to the prevailing position.

Nevertheless, there is an important difference between the likes of Alex Jones, who seek fame and profit from media work and who sit lightly towards their social responsibilities as a broadcaster, and those who critique from a position of expertise, with minimal ego, and who do so with integrity to hold the powerful to account on our behalf.

Official positions ought to be scrutinised. That’s a key part of democracy. Particularly so, when we know how much politicians and other officials are prone to distortion when the odds don’t sit favourably towards them or when their decisions are unpopular. However, when someone is labelled as a conspiracy theorist then it is helpful to ask who, why and what evidence there is against them to justify that label. It is especially important to do this when encountering someone that one may disagree with as this doesn’t necessarily invalidate their argument and to do so is an important commitment to one’s pursuit of greater truth. Vigilance and self-reflection is required in abundance by journalist and public alike in these confusing times.

Dr Colin Alexander is senior lecturer in political communications at Nottingham Trent University