Alan Jones and the blurred lines of Australian media and politics

[Upton Sinclair]

I know this goes against everything that the Liberal Party has stood for under the leadership of Tony Abbott, but unless he quickly learns to be able to get across his content and articulate an alternative vision under the blowtorch of quality journalism, rather than just lazy sloganeering, I feel the Liberal party will continue to bleed support.

From Greg Jericho:

But the real upshot in all of this is that Abbott has revealed he is worried and that he is as weak-kneed when it comes to bad polls as was the ALP under Rudd.

Abbott has shown everyone that he has been badly wounded by the ALP’s attacks. How depressing must it be for back bench Liberal Party MPs to realise that their leader is so worried about Newspoll that a year away from an election he has to get his wife to do some repair work for him? Kimberly Ramplin on Twitter nicely pointed out that back in 2003 the ALP paid for an insert in the Women’s Weeklyfeaturing Bob Carr and his wife, but that was:

a) A paid advertisement (here, News.ltd did the advertising gratis)
b) In the same month as the election. – Wives always become more prominent in elections or when a new leader takes office.​

This is purely a case of a leader shitting himself about the polls. A leader whose party is leading easily in the polls.

That should scare the hell out of Liberal Party members when they think of what a Tony Abbott government would be like..

It is also all a bit odd given that the last Newspoll which was 50-50 seemed a out of whack with the other polls, so was likely to go back to 53-47 or 52-48, which is where most of the other polls are sitting, without the Liberal Party doing anything.

Clearly Abbott’s more worried about his personal standing than his party’s. It means as well that if the poll does go back to where everyone expects it to go, it’ll be because he had to "break glass in case of emergency”. If the poll inexplicably doesn’t shift much, then it looks like he is terminally on the nose with voters. It also means people will now really start to focus on his negative personal numbers – every poll will need greater mention of his personal standing, and reference to his strategy to “woo women voters”



Clearly, Abbott has been rattled by Julia Gillard’s numbers going up (and as Possum pointing up, increasing the ALP’s 2PP with it). The bad news for Tony Abbott is that Possum also notes that the standing of the Opposition Leader has absolutely nothing to do with the the party’s 2 party preferred polling number. That means to keep the 2PP numbers high, the Liberal Party has to keep focus on Julia Gillard, which essentially means Tony Abbott attacking her, which obviously the Liberals have found doesn’t go down well in the electorate, and leads to Abbott looking like a bully.

Which brings us back to where Mr Abbott finds himself today.

 

[PottSie2]

Wrong thread Upton. Do you endorse Conroy, Rudd, Roxon, Plibersek, Swan using John Gillards death to try and slander Tony Abbott ? The public doesn't, see latest Satisfaction ratings and 2PP figures.

 

[Pessimistic]

Wrong thread Upton. Do you endorse Conroy, Rudd, Roxon, Plibersek, Swan using John Gillards death to try and slander Tony Abbott ? The public doesn't, see latest Satisfaction ratings and 2PP figures.

Pure deflection mate - no one in the ALP made those disgraceful comments and you know it.

The reaction jones has recieved from the people mentioned and others is probably because hes slandered those people in the same way in the past

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Do you endorse Conroy, Rudd, Roxon, Plibersek, Swan using John Gillards death to try and slander Tony Abbott?

Remarkable. Truly remarkable.

I'm quite certain none of the people you just sought to slander have done any such thing.

Also speaking of slander, I could've sworn it was Alan Jones who used the death of John Gillard to try and slander our Prime Minister.

You know, in that speech at the Liberal Party student club good ol' Tony used to run?

Followed by that off-colour performance by Campbell Newman where he sought to continue the smears?

And Tony and his Federal buddies trying to play it all down as though it was acceptable behaviour?

Remember?

It was reported in the media and everything. Strange how you've forgotten...

 

[Caesar]

I've never really understood all the hatred towards Jones. He's basically a harmless blowhard. He's not a gifted persuader - his arguments are poor and uninformed, his oratory style rambling and unfocused. His specialty is telling people what they want to hear, not changing their minds. Whether he believes what he says or not (and if anything, cash-for-comment should give some indication of how commercially-minded his 'opinions' are) he's a symptom rather than a problem.

I think people who direct vitriol at him are mostly ashamed of the fact that they share a country with enough people who hold the opinions Jones espouses to make his show wildly successful. It's embarrassing. If he disappeared off the air they could pretend that those people do not in fact exist.

 

[romeoh]

I've never really understood all the hatred towards Jones. He's basically a harmless blowhard. He's not a gifted persuader - his arguments are poor and uninformed, his oratory style rambling and unfocused. His specialty is telling people what they want to hear, not changing their minds. Whether he believes what he says or not (and if anything, cash-for-comment should give some indication of how commercially-minded his 'opinions' are) he's a symptom rather than a problem.

I think people who direct vitriol at him are mostly ashamed of the fact that they share a country with enough people who hold the opinions Jones espouses to make his show wildly successful. It's embarrassing. If he disappeared off the air they could pretend that those people do not in fact exist.

Yep agree with all this but because he says a lot of unnecessarily nasty stuff he is easy to take a personal affront to.

 

[cancat]

Mike Carlton sums it up rather nicely:

The radio business needs to take a long, hard look at itself, to think about joining the rest of us in the 21st century. But with louts and buffoons like Jones and Sandilands cracking the ratings whip, radio executives don't have the guts to do it.

Ironic words by Carlton.

BESIEGED 2UE radio jock Mike Carlton is "on borrowed time" as management yesterday publicly outed him as "despicable" and "disgraceful".

The breakfast host was hung out to dry by a furious Southern Cross Broadcasting management yesterday after telling listeners he "loathed" and "hated" his former colleague Stan Zemanek. Carlton said he would only go to his funeral "to check he was actually dead".

Carlton's boss Southern Cross Broadcasting's group general manager Graham Mott

This whole episode is one of our darkest moments and I hope we can move forward with the knowledge that while we may not always agree with each other and we may not like each other; we should at least respect the dead along with their family and friends and we MUST NEVER subject our listeners to such disgraceful behaviour ever again," the memo to more than 100 staff read.

"Mike has gone too far and his comments are despicable."

Carlton's pathetic apology

In replying to the listener, it was not my intention to cause distress to the Zemanek family.

"If that has happened, I regret it.

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/...ter-zemanek-slur/story-e6frfkp9-1111113987912

 

[Monniehawk]

Ironic words by Carlton.

Agree! Strange bloke.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I've never really understood all the hatred towards Jones. He's basically a harmless blowhard.

Yes. A harmless blowhard. With one of the highest rating radio shows in Sydney. Who has the ear of the PM-in-waiting and the ability to use his bully pulpit to influence policy. Who almost single handedly incited a race riot. Who has outed the suppressed names of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Who has become one of the loudest mouth pieces of science denial in the country. Harmless.

 

[richmonds]

jones comment now is over a week ago, its time you built a bridge and get over yourself, how long are you going to keep bringing it up , its getting stale and this is coming from a supporter of the labor party

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

 

[Donners]

Yes. A harmless blowhard. With one of the highest rating radio shows in Sydney. Who has the ear of the PM-in-waiting and the ability to use his bully pulpit to influence policy. Who almost single handedly incited a race riot. Who has outed the suppressed names of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Who has become one of the loudest mouth pieces of science denial in the country. Harmless.

Well, the fact that he has such a strong audience with that content and style suggests that he strikes a chord with many people. He is preaching to the converted. If you have concerns over his views, I would have thought that your problem is is not Jones, but the many people he represents.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Well, the fact that he has such a strong audience with that content and style suggests that he strikes a chord with many people. He is preaching to the converted. If you have concerns over his views, I would have thought that your problem is is not Jones, but the many people he represents.

No. I have a problem with the guy with the microphone. For instance, I don't think his demographic necessarily had a passionate belief in anti-science conspiracy theories before he started to spruik his anti-carbon price crusade. I don't have a problem with the fact that people are gullible morons, I do have a problem with people who take advantage of that fact to spread FUD through the electorate.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

No. I have a problem with the guy with the microphone. For instance, I don't think his demographic necessarily had a passionate belief in anti-science conspiracy theories before he started to spruik his anti-carbon price crusade. I don't have a problem with the fact that people are gullible morons, I do have a problem with people who take advantage of that fact to spread FUD through the electorate.

He appeals to a demographic that is going to be dead in 20 years.

The embarrassing leftovers of Menzies era..

 

[The Passenger]

I've never really understood all the hatred towards Jones. He's basically a harmless blowhard.

the problem is he is not harmless. if he were harmless you could just pass him off and not care less. but he's got one of the biggest viewerships of any media in the country (possibly the biggest?) and he's extremely good at riling that supporter base.

 

[richmonds]

no need for being a skeptic, have been a lifetime labor supporter, but try to be impartial

 

[Monniehawk]

Well, the fact that he has such a strong audience with that content and style suggests that he strikes a chord with many people. He is preaching to the converted. If you have concerns over his views, I would have thought that your problem is is not Jones, but the many people he represents.

Quite right! Jones is entitled ot his show, his opinions (within reason) and his audience, but...

We keep getting sidetracked. As soon as Jones is taken to task, out trots the 'Free Speechers' - forgetting that the issue is with what Jones said rather than his right to speak. (It is ironic that Jones is an avid fan of freedom of speech unless it is someone else's.)
Another tired old adage is "if you don't like it, turn off the radio". Silly on two fronts:
1. Jones' comments hit the ubiquitous trail. Everyone quotes him and so his opinions transcend just his show. In reality, you can't escape them.
2. Could that "don't like, don't listen" thingo be applied when Mundine told the US they deserved 9/11 - and basically called for more? Or Assange? Should the US stick its fingers in its ears?

So where does free speech start and end? Are there any responsibilities attending the right of free speech? If so, then what are they? When does abuse of the rights to free speech invoke censorship. What happens when the right of someone's free speech impinges on the inherent rights of others?

Free speech is not the ultimate right of mankind: there are other human rights that take precedence over any gratuitous burbling.
It isn't the simple "let him say what ever he wants" mantra.
There are huge ramifications behind such simple epithets.

 

[mantis]

jones comment now is over a week ago, its time you built a bridge and get over yourself, how long are you going to keep bringing it up , its getting stale and this is coming from a supporter of the labor party

ROFL, this has to be post of the year.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

So where does free speech start and end?

And I for one support Allan's right to free speech. But I also strongly support the right of people to use social media to explain to the sponsors that keep Jones relevant just what they think about the hateful bile he spews. If that results in him no longer in a position to spew his bile then I'd chalk it up as a win.

 

[Caesar]

No. I have a problem with the guy with the microphone. For instance, I don't think his demographic necessarily had a passionate belief in anti-science conspiracy theories before he started to spruik his anti-carbon price crusade. I don't have a problem with the fact that people are gullible morons, I do have a problem with people who take advantage of that fact to spread FUD through the electorate.

The idea that everyone who holds distasteful/contrary views to you is a gullible moron who is being manipulated by someone with ill intentions is just a defence mechanism. And a rather patronising one at that.

the problem is he is not harmless. if he were harmless you could just pass him off and not care less. but he's got one of the biggest viewerships of any media in the country (possibly the biggest?) and he's extremely good at riling that supporter base.

Have you ever listened to his show? He is completely reactive. Together with John Laws he has made a career out of telling his listeners exactly what they want to hear.

It's a curious phenomenon that people who would never in a million years be swayed by someone like Jones nonetheless have this belief that he is able to easily manipulate people. I can't account for it except for an overweening sense of vast intellectual superiority over people who disagree with them.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The idea that everyone who holds distasteful/contrary views to you is a gullible moron who is being manipulated by someone with ill intentions is just a defence mechanism. And a rather patronising one at that.

No. People who hold opinions which are demonstrably wrong are gullible morons. If you believe that climate change is a plot by international bankers to impose socialism, then you're a gullible moron. If you believe that humans are only responsible for 0.001% of the Co2 going into the atmosphere, then you're a gullible moron. I don't care if you find that patronising, it's a fact. And I don't care that people are gullible morons. But I do care that Jones taks advantage of that to spread lies and misinformation.

 

[Caesar]

Quite right! Jones is entitled ot his show, his opinions (within reason) and his audience, but...

We keep getting sidetracked. As soon as Jones is taken to task, out trots the 'Free Speechers' - forgetting that the issue is with what Jones said rather than his right to speak. (It is ironic that Jones is an avid fan of freedom of speech unless it is someone else's.)
Another tired old adage is "if you don't like it, turn off the radio". Silly on two fronts:
1. Jones' comments hit the ubiquitous trail. Everyone quotes him and so his opinions transcend just his show. In reality, you can't escape them.
2. Could that "don't like, don't listen" thingo be applied when Mundine told the US they deserved 9/11 - and basically called for more? Or Assange? Should the US stick its fingers in its ears?

So where does free speech start and end? Are there any responsibilities attending the right of free speech? If so, then what are they? When does abuse of the rights to free speech invoke censorship. What happens when the right of someone's free speech impinges on the inherent rights of others?

Free speech is not the ultimate right of mankind: there are other human rights that take precedence over any gratuitous burbling.
It isn't the simple "let him say what ever he wants" mantra.
There are huge ramifications behind such simple epithets.

Mon, I love you to bits but you sit squarely on the fence about absolutely everything.

Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be limits to free speech. But Australia already has quite a few limits on free speech. Forget all this flowery highfalutin musing - do you think that there are things Jones is currently legally allowed to say that he shouldn't be? If so, what?

 

[The Passenger]

Have you ever listened to his show? He is completely reactive. Together with John Laws he has made a career out of telling his listeners exactly what they want to hear.

unfortunately i have. but very rarely.

i agree he is reactive. he's not very original.

but i disagree, i think he unfortunately wields more power than what you believe.

ultimately you can't really judge that though. it's really just opinion.

 

[Caesar]

No. People who hold opinions which are demonstrably wrong are gullible morons.

Or maybe they are just uninformed. Most people have held opinions at some point which have been proven wrong. Including, I would wager, yourself. Are you a gullible moron?