I think you missed the point, and the root cause, of the boycott of Jones' sponsors and advertisers. The root cause of it all was actually his comments about women in power destroying the joint. That comment was seen as misogynistic and inappropriate and is what initiated the "Destroy the Joint" social media campaign. The call to sponsors started well before Jones' comments about the late Mr Gillard became known.

The "Destroy the Joint" campaign is about using economic influence. It is about the general public telling advertisers that there are some things that should not be tolerated (sexism being one of them). It is about telling advertisers that if they continue to be seen to support those who make inappropriate remarks publicly then it must be assumed that they agree with those remarks. It is about the public saying that if the advertisers agree with the remarks then they (the public) will no longer support the advertisers. If that leads the advertisers to (a) withdraw their support from Jones or (b) demand that he change his ways to retain their support, then that is the advertisers' call. I guess it all depends on how much they wish to retain their customers.

While i agree with general tone of this article, i also agree with Turnbull that Jones is getting a taste of his own medicine.

My opinion is that Jones is pretty ordinary(although he can give important attention to issues i am interested in at times), and that most Australians are right to let him know that his comments were out of line.

The events have confirmed my faith in wider public opinion to get most things right.

As for the fanatics that will ever let this issue rest, well i agree with the author of this article.

Chris well said.

R0bert

"While i agree with general tone of this article, i also agree with Turnbull that Jones is getting a taste of his own medicine"

The article is balanced and reasonable; as for Turnbull: he is a fool:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/get_jones_campaign_driven_by_union_and_labor_figures/

Standing Ovation!

I was looking for that law but couldn't find it.

The silly thing about it is the advertisers should know a little more about the behavior of people (Hell they're marketing people FFS).

'I'll write a letter!' has turned to 'I'll send off a nasty email!' to 'I'll press like on that critique on facebook!',

but people will jump up and down and make a song and dance, but when they pass that shop that sponsors that station that produces that show that they don't listen to anyway that they promised they wouldn't buy form any more....

In the first week: No, I'll buy from somewhere else.
In the second week: Well, just this once. It's just so convenient.
In the third week: Huh? Forgot all about that.

There are very few people that stubborn or principled or petty or deep down really give that much of a flying fock.

I worry about anyone who seriously could maintain the rage for more than a week. What empty lives they must lead.

can't wait to see how long the ABC will be able to maintain the rage against Abbott when he is elected PM. They managed over 10 years of bile and rage at Howard. Funny enough those showing such rage at Jones seem happy to have Slipper support the handbag mob.

As usual the troglodytes supporting hate speech in the name of freedom overlook the fact that Jones is given power via the airwaves that very few have. When people use new media to counter this imbalance in media power, the end of the world is upon us. Jones' approach to his role as a media commentator is completely irresponsible and no media organisation should sponsor such abuse of the role.

Re: Commercial radio and "I was looking for that law but couldn't find it."

Did you check out the law of the jingle?

...“The lynch-mob mentality” as promoted by the new-age social media: If opinions can be freely expressed then opinions can be freely changed at a “whim”.

...Some recent examples are, Assange, the Arab spring, Allan Jones, Jill Meagher and the march of the thirty thousand and more, mass party riots.

...Social media is becoming a threat to social stability!

Nick Ferrett – good, balanced article about the new zealots.

It raises the question: is it In Australia's interests to have twitter and face book campaigns forcing governments and organisation to make sudden decisions? Inevitably such decisions will be knee-jerk reactions and, therefore, poorly considered. Here are some examples of media campaigns that have forced government policy and commercial decisions that damage Australia:

• Cattle trade to Indonesia suddenly stopped and even after restart is severely damaged in the long term
• Fishing ship blocked despite it having been approved on scientific grounds
• Gunns in administration as a result of the campaign against the bankers for the Gunns Tasmanian pulp mill
• Gordon Gas project blocked by anti-development activists
• Catastrophic climate change – there has been massive cyber-bulling on web pages and on mainstream media, like ABC and Fairfax press, and other news outlets criticising those people who are sceptical that climate change is ‘catastrophic’ or ‘dangerous’. The ABC had been vitriolic about people who do not agree with the orthodoxy – for example calling such people ‘deniers’ with all that that term connotates and is intended to connotate.

The bullying about catastrophic climate change is extended to those who do not accept that carbon pricing or renewable energy will deliver net benefits.

It seems the ideological Left/’Progressives’ are the new wowsers

"Jones' approach to his role as a media commentator is completely irresponsible and no media organisation should sponsor such abuse of the role."

Jones said Gillard’s father died of shame.

Parents should not be responsible for the failings of their off-spring when the offspring reach maturity, but as a broad concept, some exceptions to that rule should exist.

Gillard has presided over the largest compilation of national debt in Australia’s history; nothing worthwhile has been produced by that accumulation of debt.

Gillard has killed people through her policies, pink batts, boat people; she has vitiated the very concept of Australia as a nation since a nation requires borders which are controlled; Australia’s borders are porous to a state of non-existence.

Gillard has union affiliations which are demonstrably corrupt, sleasy and immoral; personally, her background of relationships, whatever you think about marriage or the notion of realtionship integrity, set a deplorable example and one which negates any claim that she may make about supporting the ‘sisterhood’.

Also personally, Gillard arguably has a case to answer for her actions at Slater and Gordon, where she admitted to forging the purpose of an application for association, an act which legally, as far as I can see, has no distinction with the offence which Einfeld was convicted of.

More recently, as has been revealed, a case can be made that she has authorised the expenditure, directly and through targeted foreign aid, of an amount of somewhere between $3.5 and 4 billion to buy a seat on the security council, which, also arguably, has no other purpose other than providing an avenue for getting rid of her equally destructive predecessor.

The list goes on. And Jones is pilloried and subject to potentially illegal activity per S 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act because he said her father died of shame.

I read a saying once, along the lines of "None of us is as stupid as all of us." In my opinion, mob mentality, especially when unchecked, rarely ends up at the right place. It always goes too far.

Alan Jones is a bully and he uses his position and followers to bully others on a regular basis. He misinforms and then ignores those who speak against him. I have rung a couple of times, to correct facts (not opinions) and have been howled down. This is unacceptable.

However, the solution to this is not to bully and belittle the advertisers (and in particular their poor receptionists), as this is simply repeating the behaviour you are supposedly protesting against. Protest by all means, but don't go too far. Don't bully the bully...

Too cute Trev:-)

Google let me down but I knew there was some law against blacklisting a company.

I imagine old people are far less likely to organize a social media campaign, so we have all these young people who don't listen to the guy denying all these old people who do like to listen to the guy by their social media power. The poor old dears must wonder what's hit them.

So, Godo, while I don't agree with diver that it's really all that potent, this power over who is or isn't allowed to entertain us (or other people with different tastes as it were), ala big brother evictions, are you happy with it yielded in such a random trivial whimsical fashion?

ie Get enough people outraged enough to strenuously toil in the endeavor of one click of a mouse, and bring down the hard work of a company that employs, produces and tows the wholesome capitalist line.

I'm a bit unsure of the sense in the idea of the plebs, the unwashed, randomly, unthinkingly shooting off their brain farts and causing havoc, which could even hurt themselves, and can be harnessed and manipulated so easily.

It's just so easy to whip up and outrage these days I'm not sure the gravity of the outrage, how deeply or sincerely it is felt, is in line with the gravity of the power it has; That power of course being the power of deciding who is allowed to entertain us!

I mean what if Juilar confessed she likes meat pies, then it is found that one brand of meat pies contains kangaroos, a digger with a heart rendering war story is offended about the denigration of the National Emblem, Juliar attempts to apologize and makes things worse by mentioning John Howard's pathetic attempt at bowling an off-spinner (In cricketing parlance, a pie. It was a terrible joke, and The Don would be outraged), and then everyone decides to boycott buying anything, and the country slides into deep recession, The Australian Kangaroo Pie Crisis (AKPC).

It's more likely than you think.

It is unfortunate so many people side with the cyber bullies and Labor Party on this incident. Although the comments were regrettable, they are nothing compared with what the union thugs that run the Labor Party say frequently. Why the hypocrisy? What have the Labor Party done to stop hate comments by their supporters? Here are some quotes from an opinion piece in "the Australian" (2/10) by Hon, Greg Hunt, MP:

“the ALP has been consistently silent about the language of hate and abuse from various left-wing commentators.

Journalist Mungo MacCallum declared John Howard to be unflushable faecal material, only in blunter terms. No criticism from the ALP here.

ABC First Tuesday Book Club panellist Marieke Hardy went much further, however, and published of Brendan Nelson, "glass the c . . .'s wife and their children because they don't deserve to procreate and have any children themselves".

This was accompanied by a demand for the genital mutilation of Tony Abbott and a piece published on ABC's The Drum calling for Christopher Pyne to be raped by a dog. I am not sure the ALP or others who support them have spent much time denouncing these extraordinary comments.

After appearing on the ABC's Q&A, left-wing writer Catherine Deveny tweeted of a Coalition frontbencher and family man who appeared on the same panel, "he has the face of a rapist". About as offensive as it gets. But silence from the ALP.

At the second level, there are the comments from ALP frontbenchers themselves.
On March 11 last year, the Prime Minister's Cabinet Secretary, Mark Dreyfus, wrote an opinion piece for The Sydney Morning Herald comparing Abbott to a Nazi war criminal.”

Oh come on Pete, they were only joking.

Those conservatives had it coming anyway.

Is it just me or was the Brendan Nelson quote so hyperbolic-ally extreme that it was in fact comedy genius.

Fantastic stuff!

Dear Person of "above average intelligence"

Sorry, but I beg to differ.

I wonder whether you would feel the same way, if your professional ability had been denigrated or your ethic origins maligned by Alan Jones, the way that so many others have been over the years.

The issue is not of "free speech" on the one side, or "cyber-bullying" on the other. It's about having accountability for one's views, particularly when you have a microphone and a large audience.

This is not about Jones latest remark. This is about years of abuse, racist intolerance and darn right lies (witness the accusation he levelled at the Australian Federal Police while on his Canberra rampage last year.)

Advertisers are commercially backing his capacity to continue to spout his vileness ad infinitum. There is nothing wrong with 110,000 Australians telling them that this is unacceptable behaviour.

The article was well argued and cogent.
We live in a country which honours the concept of free speech, and even someone as abrasive as Dinosaur Jones, is entitled to put a view.
I played rugby as a young man. I occupied a position on the left wing. I and my right wing compatriot often combined and flew down the middle.
It worked a treat, with the big blokes running out of puff and leaving it up to the Fullback, to, hopefully, occasionally, stop us.
On one occasion, a particularly unpleasant individual tackled me on suspicion, using an elbow to the head.
Not long after I replied with a try and a returned compliment on the way to the line.
The Fullback appealed to the touchie, did you see the illegal head high stuff?
To which I replied, if you can dish it out you better be able to cop it sweet, all while spitting blood and teeth in the touchie's direction.
The touch judge duly noted the blood flecked spittle and teeth, and took off down the line to keep up with the play.
I and the other winger ran in several more unanswered tries right down the high diddle diddle, and each one was accompanied by a strong "shoulder charge" on the fullback.
Who finished his day stepping aside, as we ran in a plethora of tries, that looked more like a cricket score.
As for dinosaur Jones, this and other events has revealed, as advocated by moderate Malcolm Turnbull, we need not change the media laws very much, as the current raft of regulations has allowed the public to respond with feeling, over the, "Jones Boy".
Nor do I believe this will simply go away, but continue until Jones accepts the medicine, he is all too fond of dishing out, and simply steps aside, as graciously as he is able? [People power!]
Now the foregoing is a far more appropriate football analogy, than the one served up by a patently self pitying Jones, just a few days ago.
Rhrosty.

Couldn't agree with you more Runner. Isn;t it fun to watch!

As far as I can tell, the requests to boycott Mr Jones' programme have been made to the advertisers, not to his listeners.

So the primary concerns of the writer are by and large irrelevant.

"The current effort to collectively boycott sponsors of Alan Jones is designed to change behaviour."

Well... err, yes. Put another way, "...express our disgust to those who indirectly pay his wages".

But this activity surely falls outside the scope of...

"...section 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act [that] prohibits the intimidation of people to prevent them buying things from a company."

There is no power - that I am aware of - that would enable me or anyone else, on my own or in a mob, to prevent anyone single person from listening to Mr Jones, if they feel so inclined.

Which is the way it should be.

But I see no impediment to the public letting a sponsor know that they associate their products with the medium used to advertise those products. And the sponsor has the right to take note, or ignore, as they choose.

Which is also as it should be.

As Houellebecq so astutely observes:

>>...the advertisers should know a little more about the behavior of people<<

I expect they will analyse the various media and reassess the benefits of presenting their products to Mr Jones' audience - which is substantial within its demographic - and come to a decision. Will the outrage felt by these people - predominantly from an entirely different demographic - have a greater impact on our brand than the benefit we experience from advertising on this particular show?

A commercial decision. Which is as it should be.

As for the fuss about Mr Jones, I cannot generate any personal outrage. From the occasional early-morning cab ride I have gleaned that he is clearly a sad old man with a massive chip on his shoulder about life in general, and I feel genuinely sorry for him.

But not to worry. It will blow over in another few days, and we'll be "outraged" by something else entirely.

Allan Jones can dish it out but can't take it. I agree with MarkOstryn that if Nick, the 'person with above average intelligence' was to be the target of Jone's vitriol he wouldn't like it at all.

What I really like about the consumers taking an active stand against Jones is that it has been started by young people. How wonderful to see the initiative of young people in saying that they are sick of the hate and venom put out by the likes of Jones.

It makes me very happy that young people are being active in reprimanding old fogey's like Jones. (For the record it has been quite a while since I was young).

So, from one smarty-pants to another, Nick I think you are witnessing a wonderful event of young people taking up their responsibility of shaping a more considerate future for Australia; an Australia where dog-whistling and hate/fear campaigns lose favour.

'How wonderful to see the initiative of young people'

Yeah gotta love a bit of slacktivism.

Ooh ohh my finger is worn out from clicking on that link to rid the world of jokes in bad taste recorded in secret!

Where is Kony!

And what about Wah Wah, that kid who was about to be eaten by Naomi Robson? Or was it her pet lizard?

Houellebecq, ain't it grand.

I think this is more than the Kony thing as it is in real time and the organisers are able to stand up and talk openly about what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Young people might use a click here and a like there but they seem to be wonderfully successful in making their point heard.

It is kind of odd though to think of us oldies commenting on this thread, going around and around in circles and achieving not much at all in change - whereas the campaign against poor little Alan Jones is an instant change bringer.

I honestly believe that the young people of Australia are a lot smarter than many people give them credit for - and they are putting forward their view on what they would like to see Australia become, more respectful and less hate-fueled.

It might be time for some oldies to look and learn from the younger folk.

'section 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act... prohibits the intimidation of people to prevent them buying things from a company'

Exactly how has anyone been intimidating the BUYERS of products from Alan Jones sponsors? Are people being threatened if they set foot in Harvey Norman, shunned if they buy a Mercedes? Of course not - the social media campaign is aimed at getting Jones off air by diminishing his value as a broadcaster, which is working quite well so far.

I'd be interested to know if there has been research on the duration of boycotting behaviour - mine tends to stick, but what do the majority do? I will never set foot in Cotton-On because of their 'Shake Me' baby clothes some years ago, which were as offensive as Jones' suggestion that the PM should be put in a chaff sack and taken out to sea. My boycott of Kraft goes back decades, Hewlett Packard about 10 years.

Jones comment palls into insignificance when you call on Australian wives and mothers to be regarded as prostitutes.

"PROSTITUTION TAKES MANY FORMS AND IS NOT ONLY THE EXCHANGE OF MONEY FOR SEX....PROSTITUTION IN MARRIAGE IS THE TRANSACTIONOF SEX IN RETURN FOR LOVE, SECURITY AND HOUSEKEEPING"

Policy adopted and promulgated by the Australian Union of Students in 1993.

Julia Gillard was a member of that Union, a member of the Executive of that Union, and the President of that Union at the time of the formulation and proposal of the policy.

Did she support that policy or did she raise her voice in opposition to people calling for her mum to be labelled a prostitute?

Or the counter-view Aka:

...Maybe more of the younger generation should get off drugs and alcohol and take an objective view of how the world really is, and not a look through the sop and soap of counter revolutions, motivated at the drop of a hat through social media sites for example, with little or no forethought to consequences of a "stampede mentality" that engages life on the level of a "clicking mouse".

...Pick up a rifle and join a counter-revolution and feel the hotness of the lead, is how life is "lived". Something akin to Egypt or Syria at the moment: Mix and match! Dedication and personal risk! Then you have a right to a say!

'"PROSTITUTION TAKES MANY FORMS AND IS NOT ONLY THE EXCHANGE OF MONEY FOR SEX....PROSTITUTION IN MARRIAGE IS THE TRANSACTIONOF SEX IN RETURN FOR LOVE, SECURITY AND HOUSEKEEPING" '

and those ascribing to this view are happy to see nothing wrong with sex that breaks up marriages! How self righteous can people be?

imajulianutter,

...True what you say...but where is the life of a politician, (especially one with such gall as our Julia), without a huge slice of hypocrisy and amnesia of the past?

Hey this site is becoming as much fun to read as world news daily. Just reading the little right wing posters, wiping spittle from the corners of their mouths as they type away.

Come on guys start throwing words in like "treason" or the "founding fathers". Or even my favourite "return to God" or it that just for Americans. Diver Dan you're playing your part well. you almost make runner sound like he is on a even keel. Let's have a tea party of our own

Kenny

'Let's have a tea party of our own'

we will on election night.

I must admit I never thought of the Alan Jones situation in the same way as this author points out.
While I am not a fan of the man, I don't believe that his right to free speech should be stymied by people who never listen to him. There are apparently many people out there who are fans of this bitter old man's radio show, and they should be allowed to continue listening to him.
.
If his listeners turned away in their droves after his recent nasty comments, then so be it, his job would be finished. But I don't agree with the way his detractors , for whatever reasons, have waged this online vendetta to get Jones off the air.

I don't necessarily believe that his detractors are all right-wing conservatives at all.
One doesn't have to be a God believer or supposedly have 'high morals' to be upset by what Jones says on occasion. I think his sort of nastiness is fairly universally condemned.

I doubt if his alleged sexual orientation is a cause of the vitriolic outcry either, or he wouldn't be a 'guest' speaker at Liberal Party functions, nor would Abbot attend his radio station.

I doubt very much though if Jones would be welcome at Abbot's Tea Party...

Kenny:

...Howdy pardner! Yep, the same old "tumbleweed" comes roll'n-on over this heir sart, pushed along by the chilled winds from the narth...A wind not helped bah the beans packed so lov'nly by Ma for-araden old faitful from the old Katter ranch, an headin down the dursty trail through "Barnaby" kurntry for-a hitten old Capital hill; o'l "Glory Hill", for us wat luvs our queen an kurntry...Get on board boy!

I wrote a frank letter to Getup a few months back, offering a considered critique of their populist nonsense. I never got a reply, of course. I think I must have been brushed aside as an eccentric, or statistical anomaly.
I loath and despise Alan Jones and his ilk, of course, but that's been the case for decades and he's never taken a single watt of his "power" from me.
I despise the PC army almost as much---it's admixed with sympathy.

I defend the right Of Alan Jones to say what he likes on air.

I also defend the right of people to organise boycotts against him.

Free speech cuts not just "both" ways but all ways.

Full disclosure: I don't like either Alan Jones or the mob that is organising the boycott but the right to free speech is not limited by my personal likes or dislikes.

The "new zealots" are a good example of the herd mentality at work. Few , if any of them, would have heard Alan Jones speak. Most of them would have made private comments as insensitive as, if not worse than, Jones' assumed off-the-record comment about John Gillard.

How Malcolm Turnbull can say that the new zealots are not bullying Jones, is impossible to fathom. One suspects that Turnbull's motives are to show up and destabilise Tony Abbott. Turnbull likes to be seen as progressive and politically correct, both of which do not appeal to a large percentage of the population.

Jones acts in the national interest by expressing alternative views and debating those of the Left-wing ABC and Fairfax Press. The ABC in particular chooses not to air the excesses, omissions and poor performance of the present Government

Not content with absolutely cracking us up with "Jones acts in the national interest...", Raycom then finishes us off with, "debating those of the Left-wing ABC and Fairfax Press".

Alan Jones has never debated anyone in his life. Yelled at, spoken over the top of, hung up on - yes, but never debated. I have been subjected to all of these when I have attempted to correct glaring errors in comments he has made (comments in the area of my expertise, not his) but he refuses to listen. I can say with complete integrity I have only ever rung to correct errors and not express opinions, and I have always done politely and respectfully, but I am treated appallingly.

He has a right to his opinion but if he expects to be taken seriously by the considered listener, he needs to learn to listen and to accept correction from those more knowledgeable than he.

So why do I listen you might ask? I channel surf when tired, and find that he tends to wake me up! Not sure why...

candide,

'Exactly how has anyone been intimidating the BUYERS of products from Alan Jones sponsors?'

They're not. If you read the article he claims the populace are employing an organised intimidation of the buyers of advertising on Jones' program. It's like if Woolworths intimidated producers who sold milk to Coles, nothing to do with the end consumer.

Where are these moral guardians of taste when poor old Alan Jones is the subject of tasteless remarks?

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/call-to-axe-ten-show-over-jones-joke-20121009-27aw6.html

Oh, that's right, it's just a joke!

It transpires that Wayne Swan leaned on Woolworths' CEO O'Brien to remove its advertising from Alan Jones' talkback sessions on 2GB (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/swan-comes-out-swinging-in-gender-and-class-wars/story-fnahw9xv-1226498087115).

This demonstrates the double standards of both Woolworths and Wayne Swan. Swan chastised Abbott for not correcting Alan Jones about his insensitive remark about the PM's father, but chose to sit through the grossly obscene joke about Tony Abbott told by the socalled comedian at the CFMEU function. Woolworths purported to take a public stand against Jones' comment, but chose to accept the obscene joke about Tony Abbott.

It is farcical that Swan, who is renown for his coarse language even in the presence of women, puts himself forward as an arbiter of the standard of public comment.