In his books, which all feature him as a character, Ronson seems at times sensitive to criticism. He’s concerned when critics pan his work, call him either a ‘shill’ or ‘stupid,’ as he’s said. To be sure of the meaning, I had to look up shill–a shill is a person who ‘poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating,’ or ‘a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.’ Basically, a poser.
JON RONSON SAVES is run by fan, but it is not a ‘fan’ site, per se. I have my own critiques of his work, but I’ll say this–I’m convinced he’s no shill. I don’t think he falls into the first category of shillhood at all, that of being a poser, an insider. He’s a journalist, not 1) a paranormal soldier; 2) Bilderberg Group member; 3) psychiatrist…or psychopath! It’s laughably implausible to believe he’s working from within the organizations or groups he’s exposing.
Which brings us to the second shill category, a person who publicizes things for money.
Again, he’s a journalist!!
Yes, he writes for cash, and even questioned the point of blogging (writing for free!) but calling him a shill in this pejorative way is like labeling any hard-working individual who needs a paycheck to support his or her family. I believe we can put the whole shill idea behind us.
So… is Jon Ronson stupid?
Well, there is stupid as in stupid, and there’s stupid as in naïve, perhaps? Of course he isn’t stupid stupid. He’s a bestselling author! Sorry, I know you can be successful and still be considered stupid…but chances are, most successful people may think differently about a thing, but they aren’t utter idiots or they wouldn’t be where they are (unless someone else put them there).
Now, is he stupid as in naïve?
Here again, I hardly think so. He’s unearthed some of the most bizarre cover-ups, conspiracies, and outright deceptions in recent history. And he’s done it in a very Sherlock Holmesian way–simply by playing connect the dots, by digging and digging into the minutia, by hitting a story from every angle, interviewing every bit player and minor actor who would (maybe to their later regret) speak to him. You may not agree with everything he says, but in most cases he’s not jumping to conclusions but rather presenting the accounts of witnesses and experts as related to him in interviews. Does he leave things out; does he put a spin on the stories? A bit, of course. He is a journalist, and a Gonzo one at that. But I see him as a humble one, too, a self-deprecating seeker of greater truths. He expresses his doubts often, doesn’t tell you what to think, he just tells you what was said, sometimes tells you his opinion…and then steps aside, leaving the rest to the reader.
Harrison Koehli of Sign of the Times (sott.net), does a good review (and yes, critique) of The Psychopath Test here:
http://mail.sott.net/articles/show/228876-Review-Jon-Ronson-s-The-Psychopath-Test-A-Journey-Through-the-Madness-Industry
Recent Comments