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
John Quiggin 
Has anyone else downloaded the AutoMute app for their Intelligent TV?
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.
“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.
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.
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.”
@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?
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.
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.
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.
@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?
@truth
Better put on your tinfoil hat, truth. The satellite signals could begin at any minute!
@Tom
“and”
should be
when
“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.
Speak only for yourself, Tom.
…and it’s not even Michael Kroger Day…
@BilB
That is one of my very bad habit, realising that after the comment was posted, I should of apologised for such behaviour.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
@truth
Unless used humorously, your moniker would normally be taken to indicate an high level of conceit. Not a good start.
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.
@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.
@TerjeP
Now that even Media Watch is not worth the watch I think you’ve hit on the final solution, Terje.
@Fran Barlow
There are plenty worse positions to be in than Jones’. Like Liberace, he’s laughing all the way to the bank.
@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.
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
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.
@TerjeP
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.
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.
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.
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.
@Asolute Truth
By asolute truth I assume you mean a solute truth. For the ironically self-titled truth, truth long ago dissolved.
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.
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.
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!
This disemvowelling seems a tab, how shall I put it, non-adult?
@Freelander
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.
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
@Tim Macknay
Tim Macknay…
A very incisive comment that—full of substance and rich with information—so original too.
Congratulations!
@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.
@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.
I re-christen you “struth”.
@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.
Strewth!
Truth is out there!
Someone. Quick. A link to the X Files theme…
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.