It's his presentation style, which is difficult to tell apart from conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories also throw a series of images and narration at you and expect you to make certain logical connections, which may or may not be valid.

I think his early style was far less unique, but much stronger in making an argument, see "The Great British Housing Disaster" (1984) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5VorymiL4

You clearly don't follow enough left wing media that has been calling every non-establishment storyline a conspiracy theory and making readers/viewers completely paranoid about them.

Also - believe it or not you can actually be entertained by people like Alex Jones without believing what he says. He's incredibly entertaining. IMO in the same way as the Tiger king is entertaining. I hate that these clever intellectuals think that somehow I can't think or read up about things and decide for myself.

> left wing media that has been calling every non-establishment storyline a conspiracy theory

Example? Also if they are such compelling stories, why do only "non-establishment" media companies run them?

I'm not jumping on the same opinion as the guy you've replied to, but completely ignoring the consideration that news publishers don't run certain compelling stories because they're not allowed to due to political bias of the publisher is extraordinarily naive.

It would be a lot more productive of a conversation if you could speak in specifics.

I can't respond to something as vague as what you are saying.

And I never made that claim.