The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Psychosexual treatment of Alan Jones relies on rumours > Comments

Psychosexual treatment of Alan Jones relies on rumours : Comments

By David Flint, published 31/10/2006

His hatchet job on a renaissance man does Chris Masters no credit.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All
If The Sydney Morning Herald’s celebrity loony-right journalist Paul “Dog Whistle” Sheehan says its not true. Then to my mind it is.

Or to put it another way, he would say that wouldn't he.
Posted by Steve Madden, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:08:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David sweetheart, gays come from all aspects of life. The problem is "some" queens forget they are a part of a derided community.
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 6 November 2006 5:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus falsely claims that Justice Michael Kirby was "outed" in parliament by Senator Bill Heffernan, and implies that this is similar to what Chris Masters has done to Alan Jones. In actual fact, they are oceans apart.

Kirby was already known to be gay at the time Heffernan made defamatory allegations against him under the protection of parliamentary privilege. Heffernan claimed Kirby used CommCars to trawl for rent boys. Those claims turned out to be pure smear based falsified CommCar records.

Had Heffernan made these claims in the public arena (ie. on TV, in the media or written a book about it), he could have been swiftly prosecuted. It was a mark of Kirby's true valor that he forgave Heffernan and never uttered a public word of criticism against him for it.

The seriousness of Heffernan's actions cannot be credibly compared to Chris Masters' disclosure of Jones' sexuality. The absence of any credible defamation suit against Masters underscores this.
Posted by brendan.lloyd, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 11:43:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Flint, I still have a suspicion that you have not read 'Jonestown'. You haven't taken the opportunity on this thread to clarify that point.

I have read 'Jonestown' and do not agree with Paul Sheehan or your condemnation of the book. The book was very intensively researched and is full of references and sources and evidence of cross checking. Of course many details of Jones' (or anyone's) life are not documented. To stick only to provable, documented information would certainly have produced a very incomplete story. In the circumstances, it was necessary to use unsubstantiated material. Where this was done, Masters acknowledged it. For a defamation master like Jones, the fact that no defamation action against the book has yet been commenced is telling. So far, not even a rebuttal of any of the detail in the substance of the book has been attempted by either Jones or his supporters. Instead, an attempt at rebuttal by smokescreen.

If there is a 'hatchet job' here, it is that attempted by Flint, Sheehan and other right wing warriors of the culture wars in defence of their ally, Jones.
Posted by PK, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 12:41:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Following on from my earlier comment http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5083#59979
I’ve finally finished Masters’ book, and my initial impression of his skills as a biographer were perhaps a little unfair. I have to admit I was pretty bored of the endless dissection of Jones’ performance as a school sports coach and especially in his career in rugby - an area of human endeavour I have not the slightest interest.

His sexuality is a bit of a yawn as well, particularly as Jones has thoughtlessly failed to provide us with the kind of salacious life events and scandals we expect from any red blooded public figure (whether gay or not).

What Masters does do, though, is nail a very convincing portrait of narcissism. Thoughtfully, he even provides a description of Narcissistic Personality Disorder from DSM in his end notes. See also: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm

Narcissistic traits seem to be very common in politicians, media figures and many other celebrities. The insatiable need for constant, unquestioning sycophantic reassurance (which would be acutely embarrassing to any normal person), the brittle division between inner and outer circles, the rigidity of thinking, arrogance, and lack of empathy and insight into ones own limitations are characteristic. Jones appears to have these traits in spades, as did another of Masters’ targets, Bjelke-Petersen.

Jones, I think, is not an inherently bad man, and he is certainly not stupid or lazy. Narcissists are often energetic, charismatic doers. Where it becomes destructive, though, is when others start to believe the narcissist’s own self delusion. The question is whether alarm bells should be ringing about the kind of power Jones appears to have centralized on himself. Of particular concern is the disproportionate influence over the political process Jones seems to have acquired. Is this dangerous? Chris Masters’ choice of title, a reference to another narcissist called Jones, leaves us in little doubt as to the author’s views on that question.
Posted by Snout, Thursday, 23 November 2006 10:58:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have not yet finished reading Jonestown. After flipping through it, I then started from the beginning and am about half way through.

I am the author of Doubt and Conviction and have done a lot of research into the Kalajzich case. I know for a fact that Chris Masters' discussion of Alan Jones broadcasts in the 1990's concerning Andrew Kalajzich are wrong. He suggests that Andrew Kalajzich funded these broadcasts through Tim Barton, and Tim Barton has written a very good article refuting this, which was published in The Australian.

Andrew Kalajzich has written a response to Jonestown which has been posted on his website: www.kalajzich.com if anyone is interested in reading it.

When I watched the 4 Corners broadcast on Jonestown I was very critical of Masters for not mentioning homosexuality, and so far in the book I don't think he makes too much of an issue of it. I tend to agree that it's like "the elephant in the room" - you can't ignore it.
Posted by Pippa Kay, Sunday, 26 November 2006 1:49:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy