A disgustingly misconstrued story attempting to defame Alex Jones has been circulating on alt-media, social media and the mainstream media.

Jones, the founder of and lead host of InfoWars, is currently engaged in a child custody battle in a Texas court with his estranged wife.

Jones has been upset because he has not been allowed sufficient time with his young children, a deeply personal issue which has now been splayed out before the wider media circus.

During the heated court hearings, lawyers representing Jones’ wife said that his personality made him a poor father. She cited his frequent political rants against public figures on air as evidence of this.

A lawyer representing Jones said something in his defence that has been wildly misinterpreted.

Lawyer Randall Wilhite said that Jones’ on-air personality where he is frequently angry and animated over current events, should be understood in the following way

“He’s playing a character. He is a performance artist”.

Many have taken this to mean that Alex Jones is not being sincere when he states his apparent beliefs during his broadcasts.

This is not at all what the statement from Wilhite means.

The statement means that Jones’s excitable and angry persona is limited to his on-air environment and is unrelated to his demeanour in his personal and private life. His wife had specifically tried to state the opposite.

At no time was his sincerity in respect of his public views, questioned by anyone in the court room. Such things would have been immaterial in any case.

A bit of common sense would go along way in helping people to understand the situation.

When someone is giving a rousing political speech, one adopts a different demeanour than when standing in a church.

When one is buying a pack of cigarettes at the corner shop, one is probably far less animated, loud and vocal than one is during a heated televised debate programme.

When one is driving to work in the early morning, one is hopefully less flamboyant than when dancing at a disco.

Different occasions necessitate different styles of presentation. This is true both for public figures like Jones as well as people will less visible vocations.

This is neither a defence nor a critique of the material Jones presents on InfoWars. It is a defence of a man’s personal integrity against a devious plot to assassinate his character. This defence of Jones is all the more necessary as fighting a custody battle over one’s children is never a happy time.

Those who are slandering Jones are kicking a man when he is down. It is the lowest thing imaginable. Whether one enjoys Jones’ product or not is of no consequence to this particular issue.