Alan Jones Retires

[SBD Gonzalez]

If you aren't getting kickbacks from The Guardian for spamming BigFooty with their stuff every day you should be!

Yeah, they're one of the few really high quality media outlets left. They should be paying me.

 

[Number37]

... He undoubtedly had influence in the political sphere ...

That is mostly a misconception.
Take as an example the Opera House furore.
Most people would say that was Jones trying to wield his supposed influence on the Premier.
What it actually was, was Jones being the paid mouthpiece for his friends.

When you read articles about the advertisers that have deserted him, often they mention Harvey Norman as one advertiser that has stuck fat with him.

Gerry Harvey & his wife Katie Page owns Magic Millions horse sales. Originally MM was owned by them in conjunction with John Singleton.
Singo is of course the former owner of Macquarie Radio & was Jones' former boss.
John Messara is the principle of the once listed company Arrowfield Stud which he privatised in about 2000. He was also the Chairman of Racing Australia.

**rumours** that private company Arrowfield Stud is part owned by Messara, Page & Singleton.

Messara wields considerable influence in racing circles, worldwide.

If you want to delve further, Singo was besties with Rene Rivkin, who was a silent partner in many of his early business endeavours.
Rivkin & Jones it is ** rumoured** were part of the same club that had a proclivity for boys in toilets.

 

[Kram]

Rivkin & Jones it is ** rumoured** were part of the same club that had a proclivity for boys in toilets.

 

[Number37]

View attachment 875770

In 1970, Jones was appointed Senior English Master at The King's School, Parramatta in Sydney. Again Jones was also heavily involved in coaching a number of sports with considerable success, including progressing to coaching the First XV rugby union side, which he took to the championship in an unbeaten season in 1974. At the end of the first term in 1975, following a meeting with the school's principal, Jones chose to resign from the school

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Jones_(radio_broadcaster)

 

[Number37]

No, he was on a flat $4M a year.

Jones' $4 million annual salary included entitlements based directly on his share of the radio market as well as the amount of money he generated from advertisers. The figure has fallen substantially over the past year as brands distanced themselves from Jones' controversial commentary.

But sources familiar with the arrangements said he would be paid out of his contract as long as he adheres to a non-compete clause preventing him from expanding his media commitments.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...-news-speculation-swirls-20200513-p54smu.html



You're welcome.

 

[Lebbo73]

I meant righties as a whole.

They wrote the book , we've had this exact argument 100 times already

And we’ll have it 1000 times more until you show some perspective when it comes to minor issues.

 

[HairyO]

I meant righties as a whole.

They wrote the book , we've had this exact argument 100 times already

They did indeed. Then something changed and the left stopped believing in freedom and started believing in censorship and hating anyone who saw or thought differently.

 

[Gethelred]

Excellent analysis here.

Alan Jones: end for the shock jock whose views on women, race and climate pandered to his tiny audience | Margaret Simons

Jones pioneered ‘vengeful campaigning’ and hectoring interviews but his influence was not what it seemed

www.theguardian.com

It's overwhelmingly opinion based, and doesn't use the statistics Jones held at his peak, preferring instead to use listener stats from 2018; hardly him in his heyday. It is selective in how it sources the information it provides. If we on the Left are going to say on one hand that the Murdochracy is a reason for people voting right during elections (not the whole reason, but a contributing factor) we cannot minimise the role someone like Jones has held for a decade and longer.

If an argument is to be made, it behooves us to ensure that it is the best possible version of the argument. This article is not the best version of this argument.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Accusing me of whinging regularly.

But you do.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

They did indeed. Then something changed and the left stopped believing in freedom and started believing in censorship and hating anyone who saw or thought differently.

*yawn* Such BS.

The left believe in freedom. Just keeps your worldview nice and comfy 'n snug to keep telling yourself we don't.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The Age running Tom Switzer's hagiographic rubbish today made breakfast hard to swallow.

Three great letters in today's SMH tearing strips off it.

Tom Switzer's fawning effusions over Alan Jones demand a response ("The kingmaker with an everyman touch", May 14). Much like those of the departing shock jock he so admires, Switzer's opinions are derived from indifference to the truth and a conveniently short memory. To claim that Jones's radio career in Sydney was a "watershed in public affairs" is to ignore broadcasting history. His brand of bullying, bombast and prejudice had already been well established by Eric Baume, John Pearce, Stan Zemanek and John Laws.

Next, in an attempt to prove his hero's kingmaker powers, Switzer proclaims that no one has ever won an election without appearing on the Jones show. The logic of this is puzzling. The losers in those elections also appeared on the same program. Does that make an interview with Jones the electoral kiss of death? Then, while grudgingly conceding that there were some "misjudgments" during the 35 years Jones was on radio, Switzer asserts that "the failures dim next to the overall legacy". The opposite is true. Those failures are, in fact, the real Jones legacy: his incitements to violence that preceded the Cronulla riots, his persistent misogyny, his false allegations that cost millions in defamation damages and, above all, the profound ethical travesty of "cash for comment". - David Salter, Hunter's Hill

Switzer reckons Jones "reflects the thoughts and attitudes of Middle Australia". Certainly Jones championed many worthy individuals and causes but he ridiculed many equally worthy ones. If Middle Australia means the majority of the population, I suspect he attracted as much disapproval as he did respect. Switzer's close friendship with Jones might have skewed his judgement a bit. He claims that it will be "hard imagining a morning without him". I can assure him that millions of us have happily gone every morning without him for years. - Col Nicholson, Hawks Nest

Switzer's statement that Jones represents the "thoughts and attitudes of Middle Australia" cannot go unchallenged. As a member of that fraternity, I would like to state that I am not a racist, belligerent bully, anti-feminist, persecutor of minorities, slanderer of innocent people or an idiotic denier of the science of climate change. - Phil Peak, Dubbo

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It's overwhelmingly opinion based, and doesn't use the statistics Jones held at his peak, preferring instead to use listener stats from 2018; hardly him in his heyday. It is selective in how it sources the information it provides. If we on the Left are going to say on one hand that the Murdochracy is a reason for people voting right during elections (not the whole reason, but a contributing factor) we cannot minimise the role someone like Jones has held for a decade and longer.

If an argument is to be made, it behooves us to ensure that it is the best possible version of the argument. This article is not the best version of this argument.

Weird response mate. I don't agree at all. I wasn't trying to prove anything about Jones. I never said it was anything but an opinion piece. I described it as "analysis", not "evidence".

Must say I'm surprised to hear 2018 wasn't pretty close to his peak. Are you sure? Although the advertisers had started to desert him after his foul comments, I understood he was still cruising high in the ratings, as always.

The article quotes research showing that Jones' huge audience was always rusted-on Coalition voters. Clearly part of the attraction for them was their belief that he was able to swing elections, whereas the reality was he was always preaching to the choir.

I concede that he was able to control the narrative to quite the extent, but that's not the same as actually swinging elections.

David Salter makes the point very well in his SMH letter I just posted. Every politician went on Jones's show (just to get him off their backs, is my theory). Half of them went on to win office, and half of them lost, so how can you say he swung elections? I'd be more convinced if he quite pointedly refused airtime to the pollies he had it in for, but there's little evidence of him doing that, and anyway, I suspect his ego was too huge. The chance to make yet another polly squirm under his withering barrage was always the thrill for him at the end of the day. Listeners loved it, and along the way they bought the myth that he was ensuring Australia stayed exactly how they were comfortable with it.

I don't think his influence was negligible. He was a phenomenon. But I do think a big part of the mythology depended on maintaining the belief that his influence was huge. Not convinced.

Anyway, good riddance to him. I never felt the slightest compulsion to pollute my mornings with his rancid indignation anyway.

 

[Gethelred]

Weird response mate. I don't agree at all. I wasn't trying to prove anything about Jones. I never said it was anything but an opinion piece. I described it as "analysis", not "evidence".

When I said that, I was referring to the author of the article, not you. I don't agree with how he's set out to establish his argument, and I don't agree with how he picks and chooses how to judge Jones at his apex.

Must say I'm surprised to hear 2018 wasn't pretty close to his peak. Are you sure? Although the advertisers had started to desert him after his foul comments, I understood he was still cruising high in the ratings, as always.

The article quotes research showing that Jones' huge audience was always rusted-on Coalition voters. Clearly part of the attraction for them was their belief that he was able to swing elections, whereas the reality was he was always preaching to the choir.

Which is something that is said a great deal, but one questions how true it actually is. I don't live in Sydney, and I wouldn't have ever listened to Jones even if I did; my parents, though, being left wingers their entire lives, listened plenty to Neil Mitchell, Stan Zumanic on 3AW.

As someone earlier in this thread stated, people like to think they're varied and independent enough to form their own views.

I concede that he was able to control the narrative to quite the extent, but that's not the same as actually swinging elections.

David Salter makes the point very well in his SMH letter I just posted. Every politician went on Jones's show (just to get him off their backs, is my theory). Half of them went on to win office, and half of them lost, so how can you say he swung elections? I'd be more convinced if he quite pointedly refused airtime to the pollies he had it in for, but there's little evidence of him doing that, and anyway, I suspect his ego was too huge. The chance to make yet another polly squirm under his withering barrage was always the thrill for him at the end of the day. Listeners loved it, and along the way they bought the myth that he was ensuring Australia stayed exactly how they were comfortable with it.

I don't think his influence was negligible. He was a phenomenon. But I do think a big part of the mythology depended on maintaining the belief that his influence was huge. Not convinced.

Anyway, good riddance to him. I never felt the slightest compulsion to pollute my mornings with his rancid indignation anyway.

My issue isn't that he didn't have the ability to swing elections. As I said, I'm not from Sydney, and talkback doesn't do much for me. My issue is that you cannot on one hand say that the conservative forces in Australia's media - of which Jones formed a part - shape Australia's voting patterns during elections - the way we can and have, when Murdoch gifted copies of the Telegraph to voters in marginal seats last election - and then spend an article deriding the idea that 'he never had that much influence, anyway'.

We can't have it both ways; either he was influential over our politics, and this was a bad thing, or he wasn't and his inconsequentiality should be emphasised by no-one caring about his retirement, and we should stop insisting that conservative opinion in journalism doesn't play a role in circumventing the democratic process in this and other countries.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

My issue isn't that he didn't have the ability to swing elections. As I said, I'm not from Sydney, and talkback doesn't do much for me. My issue is that you cannot on one hand say that the conservative forces in Australia's media - of which Jones formed a part - shape Australia's voting patterns during elections - the way we can and have, when Murdoch gifted copies of the Telegraph to voters in marginal seats last election - and then spend an article deriding the idea that 'he never had that much influence, anyway'.

We can't have it both ways; either he was influential over our politics, and this was a bad thing, or he wasn't and his inconsequentiality should be emphasised by no-one caring about his retirement, and we should stop insisting that conservative opinion in journalism doesn't play a role in circumventing the democratic process in this and other countries.

You don't have to have it both ways. It's perfectly credible to say that Jones was part of an extremely powerful right wing media force in this country but that his individual power was over-rated.

There is nothing in the latter that contradicts the former.

 

[NSWCROW]

And we’ll have it 1000 times more until you show some perspective when it comes to minor issues.

See that's the difference , you're willing to let things slide.

 

[Gethelred]

You don't have to have it both ways. It's perfectly credible to say that Jones was part of an extremely powerful right wing media force in this country but that his individual power was over-rated.

There is nothing in the latter that contradicts the former.

And I come back to what I said before; when putting forth an argument, it behooves us to put forth the best possible version of it. Do you really think, if I can make this argument and for it to be sound, those opposite cannot make the same argument (probably with some version of "lol lefties" in there)?

It is absolutely an either-or proposition, not in this argument but in the other one. You cannot say that the right wing media has a hold over the electoral process until they don't and they never did. You undermine your own argument.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

And I come back to what I said before; when putting forth an argument, it behooves us to put forth the best possible version of it. Do you really think, if I can make this argument and for it to be sound, those opposite cannot make the same argument (probably with some version of "lol lefties" in there)?

It is absolutely an either-or proposition, not in this argument but in the other one. You cannot say that the right wing media has a hold over the electoral process unless they don't and they never did. You undermine your own argument.

Sorry, I disagree completely. As I said, there is no contradiction whatsoever in saying that Jones's role as a force for right wing viewpoints was just part of a much larger arsenal of right wing media, and that the significance of his role, while not nothing, was often overrated.

If your opponents refuse to grasp nuance, that's their problem, not yours.

 

[AM]

That is mostly a misconception.
Take as an example the Opera House furore.
Most people would say that was Jones trying to wield his supposed influence on the Premier.
What it actually was, was Jones being the paid mouthpiece for his friends.

Of course Jones panders to his 'mates'. He's the one who regularly talked of 'pick and stick' when talking about them. That's not in question.

The fact is Jones through abuse and influence had the Opera House CEO place an advertising image on the sails in contravention of the OHs regulations and it was Berejiklian who forced the issue after Jones' intervention.

A classic insight into his political influence is this quote from 'The Drum':

In the early 2000s, Jones was for a time a de facto member of the NSW state cabinet. In 2001, when Premier Bob Carr was about to appoint Michael Costa as the new police minister, he told Costa to go and see Jones at his home and talk about policing policy with him.

And the following quote from The Conversation sums it up well:

Alan Jones has a rusted-on group of listeners, a share in a radio station, and a bunch of sponsors who find it profitable to advertise with him. But the people who are really enabling him, who are inflating his sense of ego to the level where he feels comfortable telling after-dinner stories about how an old man died of shame - with apparently no awareness of the sheer lack of humanity such a remark entails - are the politicians who pander to him by obediently appearing on his show and refusing to interject when he says equally appalling things in their presence.

 

[DAlembert]

If I was knobbing a 22 year old I'd probably want to spend more time at home too.

M or F. I believe the Australian Rugby Team were issued with sharp sticks upon selection in the Ozzie Team back in the day...Heh not that there is anything wrong with that .,.

 

[Gethelred]

If your opponents refuse to grasp nuance, that's their problem, not yours.

Or, you could've argued it better.

There's a reason we keep losing elections; the other 'team' will do anything to win. You cannot simply wash your hands of half the population, you must seek if not agreement at least some measure of compromise. Sure, it keeps you from ideological purity, but it also keeps the Libs out of office.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Or, you could've argued it better.

There's a reason we keep losing elections; the other 'team' will do anything to win. You cannot simply wash your hands of half the population, you must seek if not agreement at least some measure of compromise. Sure, it keeps you from ideological purity, but it also keeps the Libs out of office.

Now you're changing the topic. Happy to discuss that topic at some other point.

I'll put it as a metaphor that would make Confucius proud.

A brick is not a wall. A brick is part of a wall.

Calling a brick a "wall" is overrating its significance.

The RW media in this country is the wall. Alan Jones was but one brick.

 

[NSWCROW]

They did indeed. Then something changed and the left stopped believing in freedom and started believing in censorship and hating anyone who saw or thought differently.

Only the racists and bigots......

 

[Gethelred]

Now you're changing the topic. Happy to discuss that topic at some other point.

I'll put it as a metaphor that would make Confucius proud.

A brick is not a wall. A brick is part of a wall.

Calling a brick a "wall" is overrating its significance.

The RW media in this country is the wall. Alan Jones was but one brick.

There we go, you've explained it better.

And, isn't it all part of the same argument? You want your ideas to be the best, you want to be able to win arguments against those who disagree with you, bring them around to your point of view?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I like to think Alan's career died of shame.

 

[HairyO]

*yawn* Such BS.

The left believe in freedom. Just keeps your worldview nice and comfy 'n snug to keep telling yourself we don't.

Freedom ? Is that why people who dont believe in climate change should be locked up?
Violent protests try to shut down right wing people running conferences?

That kind of freedom ?

Bill Maher used to be a darling of the left. Now he is hated because he hasnt changed his views but the modern left now hate everything he believes in.