Home > Oz Politics > Al Capone was done for tax evasion

Al Capone was done for tax evasion

October 1st, 2012

Alan Jones is in a heap of strife for his tasteless and offensive attack on Julia Gillard. He’s suffering the same effects of social media that Rush Limbaugh encountered when he called a student advocate of access to contraceptives a “slut”. Limbaugh’s show has survived, but his leading advertisers are gone, and his power over the Republican Party (so extreme that anyone who criticised him was forced into a grovelling apology) has dissipated. It’s too early to say for sure, but Alan Jones may be in even more difficulty than Limbaugh. Unlike Limbaugh, whose audience and local advertisers are scattered across the US, Jones depends critically on 2GB and Sydney. That makes things simple – until Jones goes, any company that advertises on 2GB is effectively supporting him. Advertisers seem to be jumping ship fast, to the point where the station must be hurting pretty badly.

In both cases, the response to the comments might be seen as over the top, if it weren’t for the track record of getting away with such appalling stuff in the past. Leaving aside his consistent nastiness, of which the latest was just an extreme example, Jones should have lost his job for the cash-for-comment scandal and then again for his incitement of the Cronulla riots. He got away with both of those, but it looks like he might have run out of luck this time.

Of course, as a private citizen, Jones has the right to say hateful and offensive things. But we don’t have to listen to him, or contribute to his wealth by buying the products of his sponsors.

If you haven’t signed the petition yet, its here

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. Freelander
    October 1st, 2012 at 19:22 | #1

    If gone, and if gone for good, Jones has a bundle of money from his accumulated antics to comfort him in retirement. And as nature abhors a vacuum, his casual vacancy will likely be filled by another vacuous clone of his ilk. Change while normal is also comforting constant.

  2. iain
    October 1st, 2012 at 19:23 | #2

    Jones is done. But people calling him a misogynist are equally misguided. The big loser is intelligent discourse.

  3. October 1st, 2012 at 20:52 | #3

    Pr Q said:

    Of course, as a private citizen, Jones has the right to say hateful and offensive things. But we don’t have to listen to him, or contribute to his wealth by buying the products of his sponsors.

    Jones is toast and I for one won’t be mourning his passing. His incitement helped to turn a local demonstration against gangster thuggery in Cronulla into an all-in riot, with friends like that cultural conservatives don’t need enemies. And of course his commercial corruption of journalistic values gives a bad name to both commerce and journalism.

    Still, it is kind of disturbing that it is always seems to be “Right”-wingers who are being run out of town by a Left-wing media-academia mob. I’m thinking Drew Fraser in AUS, Kanazawa in the UK and of course Watson in the US. The actual black list of ostracised conservatives is much longer than that, but who’s counting?

    I am just wondering (in a tu quoque sort of way) whether Pr Q or any other Left-liberals are ready to perform similar house-cleaning for their side of politics. Or are they assuming that Left-wing hands are perfectly clean?

    Its not as if there are no suitable Left-liberal candidates for a social media lynching. Not so long ago many Left-liberals were infinitely denouncing Howard and his supporters as a “racist” and “fascist” for policies (eg border protection) which are now generally recognised as being right and proper in difficult circumstances. They have gone quiet now, but perhaps they should be “spending more time with their families” rather than clogging up the airwaves.

    Also, plenty of un-repentant communists, commie-symps and useful idiot “peace” campaigners from the Cold War days are still floating around the media-academia complex. Will they ever be called to account for their odious philosophy and despicable deeds? By any objective standard their ideological commitments were a million times worse than the lame and puerile offerings of Mr Jones.

    Many of these people (no names, no pack-drill) are living directly off the public purse or have the benefit of public broadcasters giving oxygen to their toxic views. Yet they get a free pass from self-appointed guardians of public morality, such as the good Professor.

    If boycotts and black lists are good for the Right-wing goose, then they are surely good for the Left-wing gander. We would not want people thinking that a certain kind of Leftist is very keen on hurling the first stone and yet turns a blind eye to comrades living it up in tax-payer funded glass houses.

  4. John Quiggin
    October 1st, 2012 at 21:09 | #4

    Ward Churchill and Michael Bellesiles are obviously comparable cases that come to mind when you look at racist frauds like Fraser and Kanazawa.

    The rest of your post seems to be based on the idea that your (or your mentor’s) support for the Vietnam War, McCarthyism, the nuclear arms race etc has been retrospectively validated by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Sorry, no dice.

    Also, while I’ve tolerated this post, you’ve clearly violated my ban on riding racialist hobbyhorses with your selection of examples. Nothing further from you on this thread, please.

  5. Freelander
    October 1st, 2012 at 21:28 | #5

    Much as finding myself agreeing with any points from the Strochiverse pains me, I have to agree with the idea of the moral mob as an instrument of not only censure, but censor. We all mostly like to hear but a limited range of views. Consideration that we may ever be in error a burden too big to bear. But wielding the moral mob is not limited to the right or the left.

  6. TerjeP
    October 1st, 2012 at 21:31 | #6

    Of course, as a private citizen, Jones has the right to say hateful and offensive things.

    I’m glad you added that bit John. Yes the comment by Alan Jones is worthy of a shaming and maybe even a consumer boycott but those calling for Alan Jones to be banned, by regulatory means, are being far more offensive. Free speech includes the freedom to say stupid and offensive things. And in these times it is well worth reinforcing the principle of free speech. So well done.

  7. October 1st, 2012 at 22:11 | #7

    “…if it weren’t for the track record of getting away with such appalling stuff in the past.”

    But of course the hate-mongers have ALWAYS got “away with such appalling stuff in the past.”

    It is sad that this e-petition in the UK:

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38523

    Has only 2,917 signatures while ‘Chaff-Bag-Charlie’ gets tens of thousands.

    It is also sad to think that, once Jones has been crushed (not putting money on that, by the way), it will be BAU for News Ltd who will be untouchable and laughing all the way to the bank with the advertising dollars falling their way.

    As I pointed out in the “Monday” thread, it always pays to ask: ‘Where is News Ltd in this?’

    As an aside, Murdoch’s Gold Coast monopoly has decided it will no longer provide any coverage of the mayor. None. No real explanation – just a general dummy spit from a Murdoch factotum. A kind of imperial decree against the elected mayor!

    Anyway, if anyone wants to find factual, timely, honest, unbiased coverage of the GCCC meetings they can always still find it on SpringHillVoice!!

  8. Patrickb
    October 1st, 2012 at 23:44 | #8

    @TerjeP
    Who’s called for regulation to ban Alan Jones?

  9. Freelander
    October 1st, 2012 at 23:45 | #9

    @TerjeP

    I’m not sure that I completely agree with you Terje.

    Public broadcasting is a resource that everyone does not have a free right to use, at least at the broacasting end of things. In that way, it is unlike the internet or the writing and dissemination of some categories of written material. Given that it is a privilege to use the public broadcast system, not equally available to us all, some measure of regulation is justified. Similarly with some other broadcast media that not all have equal rights to broadcast from, for example, the so-called press.

    Getting the balance right for the public good is the real question. In the short-term, working out how to equitably get rid of the Murdochs of this world, that is, in a way that does not do more harm than good, is probably one of the most important things that could be done for the public good.

  10. Patrickb
    October 1st, 2012 at 23:47 | #10

    “Not so long ago many Left-liberals were infinitely denouncing Howard and his supporters as a “racist” and “fascist” for policies (eg border protection) which are now generally recognised as being right and proper in difficult circumstances”
    And this is total rubbish if it’s being used to justify a bollocking on the same basis as the one that Jones is receiving. He has said, and it is indelibly on the public record, that a man has died because of his shame at the actions of his daughter. You’re a fool to try the equivalence argument.

  11. Freelander
    October 1st, 2012 at 23:56 | #11

    An interesting thing about McCarthyism is that McCarthy was far more right (that is correct) than his apologist opponents have ever being willing to admit. That said, the best and most effective way to have addressed the then hordes of reds under everyone’s beds was not his approach, but instead was to smoke them out and break their conspiratorial behaviour by exposing their relatively covert and not widely publicised views, beliefs and arguments to public debate.

  12. Freelander
    October 2nd, 2012 at 00:06 | #12

    @Patrickb

    Yes. Howard was identified for what he was and still is by many, including his former leader.

    But although his policies had some popularity, and have been adopted by the other ‘center right’ party, that is the Labor party, those who knew the policies were wrong have not lost that recognition.

    Having signed various refuge treaties, if as a nation we know no longer wish to honour these agreements, then we ought to unsign them. Doing that would be far more honorable than creating some cynical and hypocritical maze for asylum seekers to navigate with the the intent of disenfranchising them from the rights we provided them with when we signed those agreements.

  13. rog
    October 2nd, 2012 at 02:29 | #13

    @TerjeP “…those calling for Alan Jones to be banned, by regulatory means, are being far more offensive.”

    Fairly typical libertarian argument, as far as I know nobody has called for Jones to be outlawed. In fact, it is Jones who often calls for the Govt of the day to regulate against whatever witch hunt he is indulging in. But feel free to continue being offended.

  14. Ikonoclast
    October 2nd, 2012 at 07:56 | #14

    I agree with Professor Garnaut’s comments on this. The ABC website says;

    QUOTE:

    “Speaking to the ABC’s Lateline, Professor Garnaut said Jones was a manifestation of the serious degeneration of Australian media and political culture.

    “The degeneration’s associated with the crowding out of information and analysis by noise, by abuse, by thuggery,” he said.

    “If we don’t correct this degeneration of our political culture, Australia’s got no hope of dealing with the serious problems in the period ahead.

    “It’s much more difficult in the last few years to seriously analyse a serious issue like the ones we are talking about … without the thugs and headkickers … Alan Jones and their ilk.”

    UNQUOTE.

  15. Fran Barlow
    October 2nd, 2012 at 08:12 | #15

    @rog

    as far as I know nobody has called for Jones to be outlawed.

    It’s dangerous to make such sweeping claims. Perhaps there are people out there who think this, but certainly, as someone who would like to see Jones and his ilk removed from public space, I’ve never come across anyone who thinks this should occur through some sort of administrative, regulatory or legal means.

    I began campaigning against Laws, Jones and a now dead broadcaster called John Pierce back in the late 1980s, but it never occurred to me that express state intervention was either ethically defensible or even feasible as a means of making the talk format less vacuous and stupid. Even at the time, my focus was entirely on seeking to prejudice the commercial viability of these shows.

  16. BilB
    October 2nd, 2012 at 08:38 | #16

    Good on you, Fran. I’ve always had a natural aversion to Laws,…and all of his ilk.

  17. BilB
    October 2nd, 2012 at 08:41 | #17

    Oh, and I see Garnaut is eloquently on the same page.

  18. Troy Prideaux
    October 2nd, 2012 at 08:43 | #18

    @Ikonoclast
    Yes, Garnaut is spot on, once again. Perfect characterization of Jones and our future.

  19. BilB
    October 2nd, 2012 at 08:44 | #19

    TerjeP,

    Do you defend the right for someone to yell “Hijack” on an inflight aircraft, or “Fire” in a crowded theatre or stadium, or equally worse “fart” in a crowded elevator?

  20. Freelander
    October 2nd, 2012 at 09:03 | #20

    @Ikonoclast

    Well said by the Prof, and good to provide his words here.

  21. Freelander
    October 2nd, 2012 at 09:18 | #21

    I would have no problem with a law that provided for certain individuals to be prohibited from receiving any remuneration for speaking on public radio. That is, a prohibition based on a persistent history of a certain sort of speech.

    Of course, this is not an attack on free speech, as it wouldn’t stop them speaking on air. It would simply stop them from profiting directly from their antics. Likewise I have a prohibition on anyone profiting from involvement in reality TV, and a prohibition from such TV being counted as local content.

  22. Freelander
    October 2nd, 2012 at 09:22 | #22

    Maybe that’s the way to deal with the Ruperts of the world? Prohibit them from benefiting from any involvement in public broadcasting, or the ownership of mass circulation newspapers?

  23. Freelander
    October 2nd, 2012 at 09:31 | #23

    One interesting contrast.

    The relative silence in relation to a recent yelling of “Fire” in a crowded theatre, that is, the film created for no other purpose than to insult Muslims and create a violent counter reaction around the world and especially in countries where the situation was already extremely volatile.

    Many deaths resulted in that case. Thankfully, no deaths are likely to result from Jones’ calculated bile.

  24. Ken_L
    October 2nd, 2012 at 10:24 | #24

    ‘If we don’t correct this degeneration of our political culture, Australia’s got no hope of dealing with the serious problems in the period ahead.’

    Then it looks like we’re stuffed, because I can’t see any sensible suggestions being made by anyone about how ‘we’ are to achieve this laudable turnaround.

    A no-holds-barred inquiry by the Rudd Government of the decision-making processes that led up to Australia waging aggressive war, including related matters like the the Haneef affair and AWB bribes to a regime we were shortly to attack; exposure of the true nature of all these outcomes of our ‘political culture’ might have started to change values and attitudes. I wouldn’t have put a lot of money on it working, but it was worth a shot.

    Instead, Rudd found cushy jobs for the likes of Alexander Downer and Peter Costello, just to demonstrate what our political culture really is. Forgive me for not being impressed by hand-waving from government supporters like Professor Garnaut.

  25. Freelander
    October 2nd, 2012 at 14:20 | #25

    Rudd was not wise with the largesse. Those he wasted it on simply said: “Thanks!” But did neither Rudd nor the Labor party any favours.

  26. Tim Macknay
    October 2nd, 2012 at 14:51 | #26

    I don’t really understand the comments claiming that Jones is ‘toast’. Sure, he’s had to pretend to apologise and he’s lost some advertising revenue, but his listeners still love him and as long as they show up for his show, advertisers will have trouble staying away. His political influence was always overstated.

  27. October 2nd, 2012 at 14:56 | #27

    John points out that:

    “Unlike Limbaugh, whose audience and local advertisers are scattered across the US, Jones depends critically on 2GB and Sydney.”

    Why is this? Why does Sydney have a culture of radio “shock jocks” that the rest of the country happily fails to produce? Having listened to a fair bit of radio in Melbourne and with stints in Tassie and the NT, I don’t really understand why the shock jocks thrive in Sydney, and equally why they fail to thrive elsewhere? Am I mistaken?

  28. m0nty
    October 2nd, 2012 at 15:09 | #28

    I don’t see anyone calling for Jones to be banned from the airwaves over the recent remarks. Nevertheless, he should have been sent to gaol for his part in the Cronulla riots. That was a criminal act. He’s lucky that no one was killed after his shameless incitement.

    It’s hilarious that the wingnut blogs are trying to disown Jones as an “agrarian socialist” for his self-interested stance on CSG, as if he’s not firmly enmeshed inside the Liberal Party machine as a traditional conservative. They can’t even blame a leftist media conspiracy, since it was a Telegraph journo who broke the story. This story is all bad for the right. There seem to be a fair few of those cropping up lately.

  29. Freelander
  30. Donald Oats
    October 2nd, 2012 at 16:17 | #30

    @Ken_L

    Yep, it was pretty dumb politically, and strategically, placing implacable enemies of Labor into positions of influence and real power.

    As for A.J. He is a serial quasi-apologist, and that’s what we have to live with. Interesting that Mercedes-Benz was running advertising on his program though…makes you wonder what the Alan Jones demographic really is.

  31. ratee
    October 2nd, 2012 at 16:27 | #31

    Great link. Truely I was going to write something like this “If Jones is exposed to a broader audience, he will get a reaction like this”.
    It’s not Jones – it’s all the audience. They won’t change.
    He undoubtedly will survive.

  32. Tom
    October 2nd, 2012 at 16:48 | #32

    @Freelander

    Unfortunately, I agree with the link you’ve provided on every point………….

  33. Freelander
    October 2nd, 2012 at 18:38 | #33

    Problem with Rudd, and his sad replacement, and far to much of the Labor caucus, and the Labor hierarchy, and the State versions, is that they are like the new clientele that the have tried to “position” Labor to cater to. That is they are “aspirational”. Rudd and the others aspire to the “big end of town”. Hence the jobs for the “big end” boys. But those “big end” boys just laughed. Aspirations unaccomplished.

    Doesn’t it remind you of a teenage movie? Sad really.

  34. hc
    October 2nd, 2012 at 19:44 | #34

    “Of course, as a private citizen, Jones has the right to say hateful and offensive things. But we don’t have to listen to him, or contribute to his wealth by buying the products of his sponsors”.

    I think Jones should be sacked from 2GB. This man feeds hatreds in the community and should not be accorded the support of a major radio broadcaster. I don’t favour sacking him as an act of government but I do support getting the management to sack him because he lost them advertising and degrades their business model. I hope, John, that is close to what you are saying.

  35. Fran Barlow
    October 2nd, 2012 at 19:59 | #35

    Jones incites hatred, tribunal finds

    Alan Jones has lost his bid to overturn a tribunal decision which found he incited hatred of Lebanese Muslims during comments made on air in 2005.

    The controversial broadcaster and his employer Harbour Radio appealed against a 2009 decision by the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal which found he “incited hatred, serious contempt and severe ridicule of Lebanese Muslims” during comments made on air in April 2005.

    But in a decision handed down in Sydney today, the tribunal dismissed his appeal, saying it was unsuccessful “except on quite minor and relatively unimportant aspects”. {…}

  36. John Quiggin
    October 2nd, 2012 at 20:23 | #36

    @hc

    Exactly what I’m saying. I’m happy to note that VW, the last of his big brand name sponsors AFAIK, has just pulled out. There’s now a list of the people whose ads aired today. I imagine they will have a fair bit of email to sort through. There must be some Jones loyalists who will hang on (eg Candelori’s) but those who care more about their business will be gone within 24 hours, I think.

  37. Freelander
    October 2nd, 2012 at 20:46 | #37

    Be interesting to see if the “power” journalists have some insight, or their claims just more evidence that the journalists’ contributions to human knowledge are asymptotically zip.

  38. Jim Rose
    October 2nd, 2012 at 20:53 | #38

    Did the crowd boo when Gough was so ill-mannered as to refer to Kerr’s cur? Did the crowd chant ‘manners, manners’?

    When Gough was challenged by a voter for his view on abortion, hoping to catch him out, Whitlam replied that in the voter’s case he wished that abortion was retrospective. Everyone laughed and Gough got off the hook.

    30 years ago, when public meetings in elections were raucous affairs rather than photo opportunities, being able to give as good as you get was a key political skill.

    Public meetings were tests of a politician’s mantle and those that did not fight back were judged to be weak. Stand-up comics had easier initiations.

    Wit has lost it place in public discourse. Jones was crass. There was no witty retort?

    Robert Muldoon pinged the famous insult “New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQs of both countries.”

    Consider David Lange:

    • Micheal Bassett was a member of parliament and a cousin on my father’s side of the family. My father delivered him and it became plain in later days that he must have dropped him.

    • To US Ambassador H. Monroe Browne, who owned a racehorse called Lacka Reason: “You are the only ambassador in the world to race a horse named after your country’s foreign policy

  39. Ron E Joggles
    October 2nd, 2012 at 22:28 | #39

    I don’t need to say how deeply unpleasant Alan Jones is – what I ask is why the University Liberal Club wanted to hear him at all. Did he contribute to their understanding of Liberal philosophy? Or speak knowledgeably on some policy area? Is his idea of political debate the highest they aspire to? How seriously do they take the imperative, as putative young future leaders of our country, to engage in objective, rational, productive debate?

  40. Jill Rush
    October 3rd, 2012 at 00:34 | #40

    Alan Jones is feeling a little of his own heat and shows that he is really just a big, nasty sook who can dish it out but can’t take it. His apologies have been worth nothing and the PM was quite right to not have anything to do with him – after all he may have delivered his apology in a chaff bag.

  41. October 3rd, 2012 at 00:46 | #41

    Fran,

    If you go to the Tribunal’s website and read the decision, you will see that the “minor” point was that they found Jones to be a religious bigot rather than an “ethno-religious” bigot.

    Again, isn’t News Ltd loving the apparent downfall of their largest commercial rival in the “hate media” game? One at which they both excell and profit. And now appear to have a refreshed monopoly upon.

  42. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 01:55 | #42

    One for the great timing exercise of “free speech” files…

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSLNE88O00C20120925?irpc=932

    Well. Everyone remains conveniently distracted while ‘ell bound in a hand-basket.

  43. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 02:00 | #43

    Rupert’s commandment…

    Thou shalt put no false hate-speech gods before me!

  44. BilB
    October 3rd, 2012 at 05:43 | #44

    That is a pathetic attempt to deflate Jones’ insult, Jim Rose.

    All of your examples were delivered to those who could speak up for themselves. Jones waited till Gillard’s father could no longer respond to deliver his hatefull message. A message that insulted Gillard’s father’s memory, Gillard, the Labour party, and the nation at large. Despite what Jones and Abbott think and would like, the nation does not hate our Prime Minister. Many people may disagree with her policies, but hate does not come into it. And this is why so many companies have pulled their support for Jones’s poison pot show.

    Remember the full insult was, according to Jones, that the father died of shame at the “lies told daily by his daughter and the political party that he loved”. Jones and Abbott have turned 2 reversals of intention by Gillard, reversals that Abbott himself has made in very much the same context and let me remind you all again here…read it in full before commenting further….

    http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1761.asp?s=1

    In which Tony Abbott “writes down” his pre-election “chiseled in stone” promise with

    “……But obviously when circumstances change, governments do change their opinions, and that is actually the responsible course of action.”

    Tony Abbott’s feigned outrage at Gillard is the height of hypocracy and Jones is his masters monkey grinding out the hate message to all those weak minds who will listen to it.

    The fact is that Abbott cannot argue the issues of the day because he has got nothing to offer this nation, he is no great thinker, so the only way that he can get into power is through personal attack and thug tactics. So he set his own little minded Goebbels to the task to poison the minds of young Liberals off in a dark corner where he thought he could get away with it.

    That is what is so affronting about this to all those not personally connected with the core insult.

    This whole thing is getting out of hand.

  45. Bring back Birdy at Catallaxy
    October 3rd, 2012 at 06:49 | #45

    The closest equivalent to Jones and his show that I can think of on the Labor/left side of politics is the late Bill Hartley and his odious Par Avion program on Melbourne community radio station 3CR. I am old enough to remember the way in which Labor people across the factional spectrum sought during the 1980s to marginalise his influence within the Labor Party and eventualy to expel him. I also remember that at the time of his expulsion, and immediately afterwards, the Communist Party of Australia was negotiating with various other players about forming a new left party, and the various precursors of the Greens were attempting to consolidate into a new political movement. Neither grouping talked to Hartley and his “Industrial Labor Party”. This should provide the benchmark against which the Liberal Party’s dealings with Jones should be judged.

  46. Fran Barlow
    October 3rd, 2012 at 06:52 | #46

    @Megan

    Again, isn’t News Ltd loving the apparent downfall of their largest commercial rival in the “hate media” game? One at which they both excell and profit. And now appear to have a refreshed monopoly upon.

    I’m OK with News Ltd having a complete monopoly in the areas of ignorance, stupidity, homophobia, misanthropy, misogyny, lying about science and scientists and any of the other major areas in which public commentary can be debauched.

    I’d like to “shrink the pie” of course (to borrow and rework the Kelly O’Dwyer banality) but AFAIC News can have it all and make themselves sick on it.

  47. Ron E Joggles
    October 3rd, 2012 at 06:59 | #47

    @Roderick
    I can’t help explain Sydney “shock jocks” (dirty old town!), but sadly the problem is not confined to there – Cairns has John Mackenzie’s Morning on 4CA, going for close to 30 years and specializing in fawning over LNP pollies, ranting against greenies, warmists and people who are nice to blacks, and featuring the wit and wisdom of Martin Tenni, an octogenarian former Joh minister who repeatedly accuses Labor of buying Aboriginal votes with how-to-vote cards wrapped around stubbies of XXXX. Many of the middle-aged blue-collar male demographic of FNQ love hearing their prejudices confirmed and the program is well supported by local advertisers.

  48. Ken Fabian
    October 3rd, 2012 at 07:01 | #48

    The chaff bag jacket, Jones signing it, it’s apparent popularity amongst would-be future conservative leaders – was at least as disturbing to me.

    Burning effigies, “hate you and hope you die” type comments and similar make me recoil; it’s an urging to join in a community of hate, a way to turn thinking people into an unthinking mob and it’s not unique to Jones or to the Right. But it is worse when it comes from someone who’s voice is amplified by their positions of media prominence and public trust.

  49. Julie Thomas
    October 3rd, 2012 at 08:01 | #49

    Interesting article at The conversation today discussing JG’s silence re Alan Jones.

    “If nothing else, the past weekend’s events suggest that Jones’ decline as a political force is now considered sufficiently terminal for the Prime Minister to take a principled stand against his foulness.

    Where her predecessors may have thrown him a lifeline in the hope of building stronger relations — and therefore guaranteeing more favourable on-air treatment — Prime Minister Gillard has chosen to leave him adrift in the media storm his comments created.

    Jones may not be a totally spent political force just yet, but if one of the most risk-averse and media-sensitive leaders Australia has ever seen is no longer scared of him, others aren’t likely to be for long, either.”

    Freelander said “If gone, and if gone for good, Jones has a bundle of money from his accumulated antics to comfort him in retirement.”

    I’m quite sure that Jones won’t be comforted by his wealth. It is his popularity and his power that sustains him and makes him ‘happy’. Without that ‘drug’, that reassures him of his ‘worth’, he will be an even more bitter and twisted old bastard, spending his life reviling those who did for him and truly believing that they/we are motivated by jealousy and resentment of his ‘success’.

  50. BilB
    October 3rd, 2012 at 08:32 | #50

    REJ

    “love hearing their prejudices confirmed ”

    that is a very perceptive comment. It warrants some concideration.

    and JT I find myself musing over

    “bitter and twisted old bastard”

    and chuckling, while I know that I will get there myself in the end.

    …..but then I looked up there is joe Hockey…ahhhhhh!

  51. BilB
    October 3rd, 2012 at 08:35 | #51

    Has anyone else downloaded the AutoMute app for their Intelligent TV?

  52. Troy Prideaux
    October 3rd, 2012 at 08:57 | #52

    Ron E Joggles :
    I don’t need to say how deeply unpleasant Alan Jones is – what I ask is why the University Liberal Club wanted to hear him at all. Did he contribute to their understanding of Liberal philosophy? Or speak knowledgeably on some policy area? Is his idea of political debate the highest they aspire to? How seriously do they take the imperative, as putative young future leaders of our country, to engage in objective, rational, productive debate?

    Ron, it was a Young Liberal Convention or event. The Young Liberal Party is, and has been for a long time, on the extreme far right fringe. We’re talking: turn right at Cory Bernardi and keep going for another 150k’s. Look up the list of Neo-Nazi organizations in Wilkipedia and you’ll see them listed in there. Trust me, Jones is a leftie in comparison to some of the ideas that have come from the YLP over the years.

  53. alfred venison
    October 3rd, 2012 at 09:29 | #53

    “If gone, and if gone for good, Jones has a bundle of money from his accumulated antics to comfort him in retirement.”

    you guys are aware, aren’t you, that jones is the fourth largest share holder in that radio station.

    i reckon he may stand to lose a lot of that ” bundle of money from his accumulated antics” if the station tanks.

    zugzwang.
    a.v.

  54. TerjeP
    October 3rd, 2012 at 09:53 | #54

    I really don’t care if 2GB goes broke or Alan Jones disappear from the airways due to consumer outrage. However I do think it is highly unlikely that this incident would trigger either outcome. Yes the advertising exodus will hurt but so long as he retains his ratings the advertisers in one form or another will be back.

  55. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 09:58 | #55

    In Chess, Zugzwang refers to situations where the compulsion to move proves costly. Jones is under no compulsion to move, unless fired. If the outrage fails to burn out, and the sponsors fail to return, the option to move might protect Jones’ holding, and be benefitial indeed. All comes down to money. We already have the serially loathsome Mr Harvey on air indicating that his company has pulled its advertising, but then comparing having done that to being forced to participate in a lynch mob.

    For Jones, could all be a case of “This too will pass.”

  56. Troy Prideaux
    October 3rd, 2012 at 10:00 | #56

    @TerjeP
    Yup, exactly. The Parrot’s ain’t going anywhere and the sponsors will be back. Just another Kyle Sandilands saga and where his he now? Winning the ratings with sponsors queuing up again?

  57. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 10:03 | #57

    As for Rush Limbaugh, his popularity and influence was on the wane before his ‘lut comment. Distilling the role of the comment is non-trivial.

  58. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 10:10 | #58

    Sandilands is an excellent example. His career ought to have been over. He definitely ought to have been banned from receiving any benefit from radio or TV appearances. (He should only have been allowed to henceforth appear for free.) But no, money talks and Sandilands didn’t walk.

  59. truth
    October 3rd, 2012 at 11:19 | #59

    t cn’t b cn t, Jhn Qggn, tht y ctlly dn’t knw th rncd ntr f yr prty’s hypcrsy— th nt jst wrds , bt ctns frm yr cmrds tht fr xcds nythng frm ln Jns.

    Yr prty wns th BC nd SBS—w ll hv fnds t th tn f mr thn $1blln pr yr xtrtd frm s t py fr t, bt w hv t wtch t sd s GrnLbr’s ngng 24/7 lctn cmpgn jggrnt —-r mny fndng th prty w dsps .

    Tht mny shld b dclrd t th C s frcd dntn t Lbr.

    Tht’s crmnl sslt n dmcrcy—nly pssbl, bcs lmst ll f th rmnng MSM jrnlsts r n th GrnLbr tnk wth th rst f y .

    Nt cntnt wth wll t wll blnktng f th spctrm by yr crkd prty, yr chrt f hypcrts dmnds t ll—ll crtcs mst b slncd.

    Ths s th mnfld th rst f s hv t ngtt— MSM ntwrk f nprncpld nscrpls prvyrs f bl n th srvc f GrnLbr, th prty tht hs mch n cmmn wth strl’s ndrblly .

    Th jrnlsts n yr prty’s srvc— lmst ll f th mnstrm md—hv prvn by thr spprssn f nws , nd thr nthsstc cvr-ps t hlp thr GrnLbr clnts—tht thy dn’t gv dmn bt dmcrcy—t’s mnnglss cncpt t thm, s s th rl f lw—thy xst t mnvr yr prfds prty nt pwr by dct nd brtlty.

    Y mst knw f th psn nlshd n ln Jns by yr prty’s whlly-wnd BC, whn thy spnsrd th dsgrcfl txc Chns whsprs f flthy nnnd by Chrs Mstrs —-msqrdng s bgrphy f ln Jns— pc f vtrl dsgnd t dstry Jns’ rpttn—nd hs crr nd lf.

    Cn y pnt m t ny pttns r xprssns f trg frm y r yr chrts n rspns t tht? n th cntrry, thy wr thrlld t bts.

    Dd y nct rcrmntn nd dnnctn, whn yr cllgs n th Lft md rvltng sggstns nd nctmnts t thr lntc ‘fns’ r wht shld b dn t vrs ppl thy dsgrd wth?

    g… Th wf f Lbr mnstr Chrs Bwn, Rbcc Mfsd, wth hr rtwt….. .[``ln Jns g 71. vrg lfspn fr n strln ml 79. Ptnc my prtts. #spl Bhhh.'' ]

    nd n hs prtsttns f hr nncnc—vryn knws y nly rtwt smthng y thnk s pt, smrt, clvr r fnny —s sh wns th cmmnt s srly s th rgnl twtr .

    Lbr tr blvr nd spchwrtr Bb lls…
    …”Sh fld n mprtnt cnfrnc, nd mtng wth Vldmr Ptn, bcs hr fthr hd dd t 83, nd fld hm wpng t dld….. sh thnks sh s dffrnt smhw. Sh s llwd hr grly trs nd hr tm ff, plyng hky frm hr ntnl blgtns, hr dty.”
    Lbr ldr Mrk Lthm ,wh thy hpd wld b Lbr PM wth Gllrd s dpty, clld crppld Lbrl Prty prsdnt Tny Stly ‘dfrmd chrctr’, wtht mrmr frm nyn n yr dsrptbl prty.
    nd whl h ws yr ldr, Lthm , knwn fr hs physcl nd vrbl vlnc, lnchd th bk f Lftt jrnlst Mng McCllm, wh dscrbd thn prm mnstr Jhn Hwrd s n “nflshbl trd”.
    nd thn thr’s Mrk Hrdy, rglr n yr vry wn BC, wh prvdd ths mlvlnt lttl nrrtv cncrnng Brndn Nlsn nd hs wf nd chldrn, rltd t Rdd’s 2020 Lftst gbfst , t bsltly n trg frm y r th rst f th Lft ….
    [ ‘Lwr: Y mn y wr wthn 5m f Nlsn nd y ddn't glss th c. . .?
    Mrg: gr wth Lwr. Y shld hv "glssd th c. . ." Nlsn. Y shld hv tkn pc f glss nd trn hs fc t shrds, nly lvng trls f bldy skn drppng frm hs gly fc nd thn y shld hv glssd hs ss nd blls s mch, y cstrt hm s h cld nvr prcrt wth hs wf. Frthrmr, glss th c. . . wf nd thr chldrn, whl y'r t t, bcs thy dn't dsrv t prcrt nd hv ny chldrn thmslvs, ths bld-sckng Lbrl c. . .s!’ ]
    nd thn thr’s tht thr flwr f th Lft wng sstrhd, Cthrn Dvny….
    [ ‘n hrng f th rsgntn f Pl Rmdg, dtr-n-Chf f Th g, sh tk t Twttr t dclr " wsh hm rs cncr".

    t ws Rmdg wh sckd Dvny frm th nwsppr fr twtng ffnsv rmrks bt Bnd rwn nd th lt Blnd mmtt.’ ]
    Fr ngh, y bvsly thnk. nd thr’s plnty mr.
    prsm y whlly pprv f ths vl flth frm yr Lft wng GrnLbr fllw-trvllrs, Jhn Qggn—nlss y cn pnt m t yr cndmntn f t —t th tm??
    nd hv t blv tht y ls whlhrtdly pprv f th llgl dstrctn f vdnc t prtct llgd pdphls [ W cmrds] by th Gss/Rdd QLD Lbr gvrnmnt wth Rdd rnnng tht shw—tht lwbrkng by gvrnmnt nd th mssv cvr-p f t tht cntns t ths dy.
    Th dstrctn f vdnc nd th cvr-p nsrd tht brgnl chldrn cntnd t b bsd.
    Hv y clld fr Ryl Cmmssn nt tht, s hv mny lgl ppl?
    N—y chs t thrw hssy ft bt rmrk md n prvt tht ws mtvtd by th ctns f PM wh ls rtnly t th strln ppl, nd gts ppl sckd nd slncd t vd scrtny f , nd Ryl Cmmssn nt , hr shdy pst nd hr knwn rl n hr frmr mrrd lvr’s scm t stl lrg sms f mny—mny tht ws nvr rcvrd.

  60. Tom
    October 3rd, 2012 at 11:38 | #60

    @truth

    You actually come to this blog criticising the Labour Party and almost all commenters here dislikes the current Labour Party in the first place?

  61. Tim Macknay
    October 3rd, 2012 at 11:39 | #61

    @truth
    Better put on your tinfoil hat, truth. The satellite signals could begin at any minute!

  62. Tom
    October 3rd, 2012 at 11:40 | #62

    @Tom

    “and”

    should be

    when

  63. Tom
    October 3rd, 2012 at 12:03 | #63

    “That’s a criminal assault on democracy—only possible, because almost all of the remaining MSM journalists are in the GreenLabor tank with the rest of you .”

    My apologies, you seems to be living in an alternate universe which justifies why you have to rant about the Labour Party in this blog.

  64. BilB
    October 3rd, 2012 at 12:22 | #64

    Speak only for yourself, Tom.

  65. Troy Prideaux
    October 3rd, 2012 at 12:23 | #65

    …and it’s not even Michael Kroger Day…

  66. Tom
    October 3rd, 2012 at 12:29 | #66

    @BilB

    That is one of my very bad habit, realising that after the comment was posted, I should of apologised for such behaviour.

  67. Fran Barlow
    October 3rd, 2012 at 12:40 | #67

    PrQ — I’m going to suggest that the above rant by “truth” be binned. There’s nothing of substance in it and any attempt to unpick the multiple lines of nonsense would simply result in a massive waste of bandwidth.

    The observations above (most notably the so-called “Heiner Affair”) have a life of their own in the more eccentric corners of the web (Blot, Akerman, Larry Pickering) where a feeling, fear and fact are scarcely to be distinguished, but they have no place here, IMO.

    Certainly, they shed no light at all on what should happen in relation to a feral radio commentator earning millions in the course of abusing large parts of the polity and debauching public discourse into the bargain.

    As outlandish as are the claims coming from the Strocchiverse, they seem borderline credible compared with what truthy posts all over Crikey under a variety of aliases.

  68. Fran Barlow
    October 3rd, 2012 at 12:47 | #68

    @Freelander

    Quite right. As a matter of style, there are games in which one player sacrifices a piece to force Zugzwang. I find them some of the prettiest conceptions in chess. The defender faces no immediate threat, and would be safe were it not their move but every legal move invites ruin. One must resign or make a move that would be a blunder. In essence, the contriver of Zugzwang has won by a tempo.

    Jones is not in this position. He has playable options. Many more moves will be needed before we can force a won endgame.

  69. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 13:02 | #69

    @truth

    You are sending messages from an alternative universe.

    True. Once apon a time, long long ago, the ABC had a slight barely perceptable bias possibly in favour of Labor, but post Howard’s gross involvement with the public broadcaster, as many on this blog have regularly noted, things have radically changed.

    Our ABC is Rupert’s ABC, nothing but an extention of News Corporation.

  70. Troy Prideaux
    October 3rd, 2012 at 13:06 | #70

    Freelander :
    @truth
    You are sending messages from an alternative universe.
    True. Once apon a time, long long ago, the ABC had a slight barely perceptable bias possibly in favour of Labor, but post Howard’s gross involvement with the public broadcaster, as many on this blog have regularly noted, things have radically changed.
    Our ABC is Rupert’s ABC, nothing but an extention of News Corporation.

    Absolutely. Anyone who jumps to significant alternative views obviously doesn’t watch much ABC.

  71. TerjeP
    October 3rd, 2012 at 13:14 | #71

    Easy solution is defund the ABC of taxpayer money and give it to the punters by handing out shares. Those that rush to defend taxpayer funding of the ABC reveal it’s bias.

  72. October 3rd, 2012 at 13:15 | #72

    Truth is a tad over the top, bristling with snarkiness etc.
    Despite that, the matters raised by Truth are fair dinkum.

    I note Fran “Stephen Conroy” Barlow wishes to ban Truth. Translation: Fran concedes every one of Truth’s poinst as being correct.

    Good work, Truth.

  73. Jim Birch
    October 3rd, 2012 at 13:22 | #73

    @truth
    Unless used humorously, your moniker would normally be taken to indicate an high level of conceit. Not a good start.

  74. October 3rd, 2012 at 13:29 | #74

    Anyone who thinks ABC isn’t politically partisan will have to work hard to justify it. Close on 10 years ago a mob calling themselves “friends of the ABC” were so hard pressed defending them that they gave up & started running the line “all other channels/stations are biased one way, ergo the ABC has a duty to be biased the other”.
    At that moment it was all over. Since then there has been very little change, until recently when the ABC news & current affairs females began a screeching session whenever the ALP was getting a drubbing.
    At least the general run of male presenters are more dignified in when presenting their bias as news/current affairs.

  75. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 14:02 | #75

    @Steve through the beer looking glass

    Trying to imagine what it would be like without your intermittent view. Your world as seen peering through the bottom of the beer glass.

  76. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 14:06 | #76

    @TerjeP

    Now that even Media Watch is not worth the watch I think you’ve hit on the final solution, Terje.

  77. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 14:10 | #77

    @Fran Barlow

    There are plenty worse positions to be in than Jones’. Like Liberace, he’s laughing all the way to the bank.

  78. Fran Barlow
    October 3rd, 2012 at 14:25 | #78

    @Steve at the Pub

    In case it has slipped past you …

    a) I have no power to “ban” anyone and didn’t propose that truthy be banned either. I proposed that his post be binned because it was nonsense. Strocchi’s posts are regularly binned but he’s not banned. The two words — binned and banned are similar, I’ll grant you — but they are lexically distinct.

    b) this is a private place. Your pub is a private place. If someone enters your pub and makes a pig of him/herself, I’m betting you will assist him off the premises and invite him or her not to return until finding out how to behave. Appeals by the person to freedom of speech or movement won’t avail him or her in the slightest. This place is the cyber equivalent of a private place.

    For the record, I don’t support the state intervening to control the internet, save perhaps in cases where a serious criminal offence or tortious act is being committed and then only when there are compelling reasons for thinking the intervention is warranted by the need to restrain the conduct as demonstrated by reliance on a judicial warrant.

    That’s not germane here.

  79. October 3rd, 2012 at 14:27 | #79

    Alan Jones’ Apology, with a few obvious corrections for grammar and style

    As a broadcaster, I often find myself in situations where, unfortunately, I express a certain thought or idea poorly, or find my words taken out of context. Indeed, that is what happened this weekend. Upon reviewing the impromptu remarks I made Sunday afternoon, I can now see that I used the wrong words in the wrong way. I would now like to set the record straight with the Australian people and clear up some confusion about what it was I intended to convey.
    You see, what I said was that Julia Gillard’s father died of shame because his daughter told lies every time she stood for parliament. But what I meant to say was, “I am a worthless, moronic sack of shit and an utterly irredeemable human being who needs to shut up and go away forever.”
    There are days when you just have to concede, man up and say you got it wrong. And in this instance these are remarks which I shouldn’t have made. It is clear to me now that I did not choose my words with care and did not get across the point I was trying to convey. In hindsight, I guess instead of using the words “died of shame,” I should have used the words “I am an unforgivable, unrepentant, and unconscionable subhuman dickhead.” Or better yet, “I am an evil, fucked-up man who should never have been allowed on the public airwaves, and anyone who would listen to me me is probably a pretty big fucking dumbshit, too.” See how much more sense that makes? It’s amazing how a few key word changes can totally alter the meaning of a statement.
    Because, of course, it’s all about context. And yes, when you take what I said out of context, I can see how it might sound like I’m claiming that Julia Gillard should be drowned in a chaff bag. This is, I assure you, not what I was trying to express at all. Such is the age we live in that one little sentence excerpted in a news report can come back to haunt a person in a pretty big hurry. But if you actually go back and look at the remarks closely, you’ll see that what I was actually trying to convey in my statement was that
    (1) I am a big fucking idiot,
    (2) I am a nauseating slug of a human being who doesn’t deserve to live, and
    (3) I am essentially everything that’s wrong with this country and with humanity in general.
    Honestly, that’s all I was trying to get across there. It was a simple misunderstanding, really.
    It’s funny, because, in my head, I remember thinking very vividly, “I, Alan Jones, am a bigoted jackass who probably should not be alive, let alone in political office. People need to know what a terrible person I am so they will then remember to punch me in the face anytime they get the chance.” But when I opened my mouth and tried to articulate that thought, somehow I blurted out the thing about Julia Gillard instead of just saying, in plain English, that I am awful, just purely and incontrovertibly awful.
    Frankly, it’s hard not to make a mistake from time to time when you’re in the public eye as much as I am. I am constantly having to speak my mind in a public forum, and sometimes, when all I’m trying to say is something simple and inarguable, like, “Sweet Jesus, I am the worst person who has ever lived,” I wind up saying something completely different. It’s frustrating, really. Because I have a lot of very pertinent and very well-thought out things to say about how somebody should just smack me in the head with a goddamned cricket bat because of how brainless and insensitive I am, but instead my words just come out all jumbled.
    I guess I just have a habit of putting my foot in my mouth! And for being the very worst that Western Civilization has to offer!
    So let me take this opportunity to be very specific about what I meant when speaking to the Liberal Club, which was this: I am not a competent or respectable broadcaster; I am, essentially, a subhuman monster of a prick, a prick as profoundly insensitive as he is monumentally unintelligent in every respect; somebody should apply dozens of layers of duct tape to my mouth every morning so that words are not able to exit my large, dumb, misogynist, imbecilic mouth at any point; I make the planet worse; I don’t know jack shit about any of the topics I spoke about in that interview, or about any topics at all, really; I should apologize every day to the women of the world, but doing so would most likely be an exercise in futility given my rock-bottom intellect and my complete and utter lack of human decency; I am, in no uncertain terms, not even worth the time it took you to read this.
    That’s what I meant to say. Sorry for the confusion.

    Lifted from The Onion, August 20, 2012 | ISSUE 48•34

  80. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 14:33 | #80

    I would support state intervention in relation to the internet, if the state could be trusted. But there is plenty of accumulated evidence that it can’t. The list that the Great Firewall of Australia planned to excludewas truly shocking.

  81. Fran Barlow
    October 3rd, 2012 at 14:37 | #81

    @TerjeP

    Easy solution is defund the ABC of taxpayer money and give it to the punters by handing out shares. Those that rush to defend taxpayer funding of the ABC reveal its bias.

    Too sweeping. I’d simply abolish news & current affairs (defined as relating primarily to events taking place in the last 3 months not closely connected with events with events that were occurring more than 3 months ago. The ABC does a lot more stuff than news and current affairs. It would still be able to do documentary or analysis shows providing it could show that it related closely to some issue of public policy of longstanding. To qualify, the piece would have to be at least ten minutes in length (for AV) or if a report, not less than 1500 words and be primarily concerned with a single policy issue. The report should make clear the longstanding thematic connection to the earlier period and its development, and cite at least two suitably qualified informants on the matter apart from politicians.

    I see no reason why the many other worthy things done by the ABC (or that they might do) should suffer merely because they have lost the ability to do news and current affairs independently of the Murdochracy. Background Briefing for example, is an excellent resource.

  82. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 15:13 | #82

    Marieke Hardy, and others of her ilk are featured on Our ABC for the same reason that the “Tory twit” used to be featured once apon a time by the BBC (which has also since taken a lurch to the right). To feature a raving looney “Tory twit” whose views were so bizarre, ridiculous and off the planet, that they would also be an affront to many in the Tory party was not to do the Tories any favours. The intent was to be severely damaging to Tories while using the inclusion to show how open minded and even handed you are being.

    While the ABC has the right in charge, Marieke’s employment is safe. And, the above transcript shows that she is doing a fine job for the Tories.

  83. alfred venison
    October 3rd, 2012 at 15:55 | #83

    the point about zugswang, as far as i’m concerned, is that its someone’s turn & all options for him or her are bad. jones’ one best opportunity to fix this was the apology occasion & he blew that with inept equivocations. the damage, from the offence & botched apology, to his image, as mighty, is, i think, permanent and so his options for talking his way out of this, in any way that cuts it with the political intelligentsia, are limited going forward. jones has lost tempo; gillard has the tempo. while she doesn’t talk to him. its more damaging to him, than her, the longer this drags on, without closure to the botched apology for the unforgivable transgression. moves jones might make now to limit the damage to himself as a share holder of the station & moves he might make now to limit the damage to himself as a broadcaster at the station, are mutually exclusive. i concur with the author of the conversation article (as i understand it) that the once mighty jones influence on politics is over – the bubble has burst, the emperor has no clothes. and this will be whether or not he retains his ratings among people whose vote never changes & whether or not liberals find it feasible to weather the ensuing mixed publicity in return for the diminishing/diminished gains of association. -a.v.

  84. Asolute Truth
    October 3rd, 2012 at 16:14 | #84

    Good grief!!

    “Truth”‘s tirade above is utter garbage.

    Labour owns the ABC and SBS???

    Obviously “T” never watches the ABC otherwise he would realise that the ABC has done more to advance Tony Abbott’s career than any other news media in this country. He obviously did not see any of the ABC’s coverage of Abbott’s factory visit series and attack on the Carbon Price. The entire tone of current ABC journalism is to highlight difficulties of the Government and ignore the flaws of Abbott and his rag tag bunch.

    The ABC abandoned Chris Masters project, writing off the money spent once they examined the result. That is anything but the ABC setting out to destroy Jones’ career. The outrage and petitions were for the ABC to publish,…not abandon.

    The rest does not deserve reading let alone comment.

  85. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 16:46 | #85

    @Asolute Truth

    By asolute truth I assume you mean a solute truth. For the ironically self-titled truth, truth long ago dissolved.

  86. John Quiggin
    October 3rd, 2012 at 22:39 | #86

    I advised “Truth” of a ban the last time s/he suggested I was a Labor Party stooge. Long experience has shown me that libertarians and conservatives have zero respect for other people’s property rights and, as expected, s/he ignored me and posted again.

    That post has been disemvowelled. The next one will be edited along the lines of ChrisB above, to explain the posters real meaning.

  87. Ernestine Gross
    October 3rd, 2012 at 22:45 | #87

    As per Nic Lochner’s site, 105,083* people have signed the petition of advertisers so far. This number is apparently more than two thirds of Alan Jones’ usual audience.

    Alan Jones’ disgraceful assertion about the Prime Minister’s father is a lie. And this gives away the modus operan of Alan Jones. We are not talking about lack of political correctness, lack of taste, lack of empathy, lack of class and breading (not ‘conservative’ in a sense), we are talking about a falsehood aimed at influencing emotions. The word inappropriate is not quite appropriate the apology. Without the lie there would be no the emotional hurt (or pleasure considering the audience of the day). It seems to me nothing less than a sorry for having fabricated a story is called for as an apology from Alan Jones.

    Cock-and-bull stories don’t match with the image of precision engineering – so I am not surprised Mercedes-Benz was one of the first corporations to withdraw sponsorship from Alan Jones’ program.

    Its one thing to advertise in an entertainment show; its another one to advertise in a cock-and bull story show.

    There is deafening silence from the organisers of the event at The University of Sydney.

    *Another 900 signatures have been added during the past 2 hours.

  88. Freelander
    October 3rd, 2012 at 22:56 | #88

    I’m beginning to feel sorry for Jones, the way I have shed oh so many tears over the inequitable treatment of Madoff.

    Bernie’s victims were members of that trifecta — rich, greedy and stupid. In that sense they were their own victims, accidents waiting to happen.

    Contrast his peccadilloes with those other financial fraudsters who it seems will never be punished and who live to continue to enjoy their ill gotten gains. There victims included hordes of the poor and vulnerable simply struggling to stay where they were in many cases, let alone get ahead.

    Oh, the inequity. Doesn’t one’s heart bleed for Bernie. Let’s all sign the “Free Bernie” petition.

    Now turning to St Alan’s peccadilloes, or his most recent high profile one.

    Jones made an unkind reference to Gillard’s recently deceased father, suggesting that he died of shame associated with his daughters behavior in politics. True. St Alan is a slime. But what he said. Big deal. The death was being milked just a little anyway.

    Contrast this peccadillo with those of Sandilands. His have been far worse, but the outrage and brouhaha somewhat less.

    Much as I would enjoy a career-ending for both, some should do some self-reflecting and consider how much of their outrage is justified by Jones’ “crime” and how much posturing motivated by other reasons.

    Please people. Try to be fair and balanced like moi, and, of course, that other saint, Rupert!

  89. Freelander
    October 4th, 2012 at 00:20 | #89

    This disemvowelling seems a tab, how shall I put it, non-adult?

  90. Fran Barlow
    October 4th, 2012 at 00:52 | #90

    @Freelander

    Jones made an unkind reference to Gillard’s recently deceased father, suggesting that he died of shame associated with his daughters behavior in politics.

    This is the proximal cause of the campaign, not the distal cause. Jones is serial offender, and his actions are not merely offensive but part of the culture wars. In the context of media dominated by one side of those wars, this latest matter was merely the trigger for everyone who had been annoyed about that but hitherto passive to get off their behinds and act.

  91. truth
    October 4th, 2012 at 00:59 | #91

    I’m an alleged believer in freedom who understand that freedom of speech doesn’t entail the obligation of any particular publisher to give me a platform

    I’ve fixed your comment for you. To be absolutely clear, you are permanently banned from commenting here. If you want to exercise your right to free speech, do so somewhere else. If you’re considering ignoring this ban, please read the comments policy, as requested – JQ

  92. truth
    October 4th, 2012 at 01:23 | #92

    @Tim Macknay
    Tim Macknay…

    A very incisive comment that—full of substance and rich with information—so original too.

    Congratulations!

  93. Freelander
    October 4th, 2012 at 02:36 | #93

    @Fran Barlow

    And if Jones does get the flick I will shed plenty of tears for him, as currently my tear ducts strain under the flood I’m shedding for Madoff.

    Boo hoo. Just getting in some quick practice.

  94. Freelander
    October 4th, 2012 at 02:41 | #94

    @truth

    Chris Uhlmann

    You only asked for one.

    And what a man crush he’s got on a certain former journalist/trainee priest, now political leader, he’s even trying to emulate the leader’s career path.

  95. Freelander
    October 4th, 2012 at 02:44 | #95

    I re-christen you “struth”.

  96. rog
    October 4th, 2012 at 03:01 | #96

    @truth Truths main argument is that anyone rejecting his untruths commits a breach of human rights. This is the argument typically employed by Bolt Jones et al, freedom of speech only applies to their speech.

  97. Freelander
    October 4th, 2012 at 03:44 | #97

    Strewth!

  98. Bring back Birdy at Catallaxy
    October 4th, 2012 at 06:44 | #98

    Truth is out there!

  99. Freelander
    October 4th, 2012 at 08:06 | #99

    Someone. Quick. A link to the X Files theme…

  100. BilB
    October 4th, 2012 at 08:54 | #100

    BBBAC,

    “truth” is in the US I think and has not lived in Australia for some years.

    Evidence? He did not seem to know that Maxine McKew was no longer an entrenched ABC presenter and had become a Labour politician. Time of posts. Red neck attitude.

Comment pages
1 2 10981
Comments are closed.