This article has found words to express the way I feel now and have felt for at least several years about shock jocks in general and Alan Jones in particular.

One thing I do disagree with, though, is the affirmation that Jones is not smart. Misguided, canny, wordy, aggressive, rude, energetic... and smarter than most of his listeners and Joe Public, who he has duped as he builds an audience and a multi-million dollar salary.

Here's hoping that extreme entertainers, on any medium, whose business plan is founded on being more aggressive or more one-eyed than all competing entertainers are no longer rewarded by either audience share or big bucks. I'm confident that Australians now have the necessary tools to respond forcefully if and when such entertainers arrive.

2GB will get along just fine without AJ.

I think you left out revenge and spite out of the motivations.

People really are blind to their own failings. I see a sea of schadenfreude here.

Like the left denounce the invasion of Iraq, citing the other targets where human rights violations occur where there is no oil. Well, it only seems to be right wing commentators that are deemed so offensive that they must be taken down.

'Here's hoping that extreme entertainers, on any medium'

Oh Reallllly! When the chaser does it, it's considered funny, when Deveney does it it's clever, 'stick that up you conservatives'! But when a right wing shock jock uses less extreme words, it must be stopped!

Why cant people just admit it, and be honest, that a large part of the motivation is that regardless of his methods, he says things against their political ideology.

This article is nothing but a slur by an author who admits to be partisan and biased against not only against Jones but primarily his political viewpoint.

The author should read the COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 45D; many of the advertisers on the Jones program were harrassed and 2GB suggested they temperarliy suspend their advertisements because of the duress to staff of these advertisers. One only has to think of the despicable Max Brenner protests to know how vicious left protests can be.

The Destroy the Joint campaign is a fraudulent campaign with union underpinning; the disgraceful comments being posted on their site once again reveal the disproportionate and hypocritical standards of left protestors; in any event the poll produced by this front organisation was completely infiltrated by not only joke participants but out of town, 'guns for the cause' contributors.

The author has said that Jones is sexist and mysogynistic; he does not provide examples; and given the Slipper affair and the rank rank support by the ALP feministas of Slipper that complaint is egregious.

The author would be better off turning his fine legal mind to this issue: documentaion from Slater and Gordon has shown that Gillard has conceded she knowingly and deliberately completed a legal document, the application for association for her lover, Wilson, with false information.

How is that act different from what Einfeld did? Or is that a mysogynistic insult under the new values espoused by this author and the protestors he supports?

Nothin that either Jones or Slipper can come up with could possibly 'out crass' Deveny!

For Plibasec to try to tie Abbot into this level of rhetoric adds a whole new level to the meaning of hypocrisy.

Alan's article is illustrative of the problem, attempting to disguise this blind leftist 'progressive' bile in 'pseudo academic' wank. Mr Austen, turn the radio off mate.

These boycotts are not political they are class warfare.

Rich companies getting richer via a BIG Australia baby-bonusing, immigrating PM. The mass marketeers are protecting their income streams by silencing the voice of the silent majority - Jonesy - and enabling Gillard to make the silent majority pay for the infrastructure needed to immigrate ever more ungrateful, infrastructure hungry foreigners & breed ever more bonused top the hilt children.

This is Class Warfare. Class warfare is a crime. So is turning a democracy into a DICTATORSHIP by importing and Baby bonus gerrymandering of electrorates to subvert the standard of living of Australian citizens who have already PAID for the infrastructure they need.

Another crime is Shepherding women who have more than 2 children. Gillard's anti misogynist rants do JUST that. The PM must know not all women are angels. Has she ever seen The film Disclosure or seen reruns of "The Knifing of Rudd"?

There are women of substance who must be treated with respect, but to include women who have babies because they failed at everything else is a crime. That is the root cause of OVERPOPULATION and all the ugly consequences from global warming to war and the coming famines.

There are good and bad in men and women. To shepherd all women from scrutiny behind a misogynist rant is an EVIL beyond all belief.

At the end of the day these rich companies, their ghoulish boycotts of the voice of Australias' silent majority, their political ALP implants and their mass marketeerss will yield to REVOLUTION. The next Marie Antoinette will be Big-W not Big-M.

One can agree that Jones is not the brightest star in the intellectual firmament?
I guess you don't have to be very bright to be a conservative or conservative voter? But it has to help?
As does simply opening your mouth just to change socks?
Nor do you have to play fast and loose with or quite massively exaggerate, the actual factual reality? But again it has to help?
One recalls how a single truck stopped for a few minutes by genuine roadwork, became a convoy, prevented by registering a protest by labour party thugs?
The reported truth seemed to reveal a single truck, held up for just a few minutes by road repair works? One also recalls the Canberra circus, where purple faced and clearly enraged Jones invited his then female target of choice, to come to the microphone and explain herself?
Almost as if he had a right royal right, to demand her kow towing subservient presence?
This patent Islamiphobe, needs to understand that our Muslim population here, are at lest as large as his target Audience.
And possibly a far more lucrative cashed up market!?
Or that to our immediate north, is the largest Muslim republic in the world, with many almost as well informed and massively offended as soon we are; and has a very much larger cashed up middle class than our entire population.
All of who are quite capable of also boycotting the locally available products, that Alan Jones promotes.
It is after all, a global village and or a shrinking world.
I believe Jones could do worse than emulate Peter slipper and gracefully retire.
There's an old saying that goes, when you are in a really deep hole, you need to stop digging! Rhrosty.

Though Jones comments were disgusting they are not nearly as vile as the smug tax payer funded ABC denigration of anything decent. The regular Q & A cronies along with National Broadcasters top the bill of father hating, mother hating, marriage hating, baby hating promotions. Anything perverse is acceptable, anything decent denigraded is the mantra of these broadcasters. No wonder they hate the fact that Abbott is happily married to a fine woman with successful kids. What could be more of an Anathema to those calling themselves progressives.

" There appear to be three distinct motivations: 'instrumental' – seeking to effect specific reforms; 'expressive' – seeking to have a voice of protest heard and acknowledged; and 'clean hands' – wanting to be free of any taint of involvement in a social evil."

It's all very selective though. Some issues are just ignored because they don't fit neatly into the political agenda of the protesters. They will just ignore far worse injustices when it's all a little tricky to pick an easy target. Not much demanding of government to come up with better solutions for complex issues where real harm is done but which are politically inconvenient.

It's all very hollow in my view and far more driven by politics and to a degree sexism (protecting the feelings of a female PM, how many would have been as outraged if a similar attack had been made on Howard or Abbott?) than any genuine desire for a politer and more honest public discourse.

R0bert

You'll love this runner

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

Hello all.
Interesting observations. Thank you.

@ JohnBennetts: Yes, agree with your comments mostly. Perhaps Mike Carlton was differentiating between smarts and wisdom. Not sure.

And yes, share your confidence also.

@Houellebecq: Yes, there may be traces of revenge. If so, they seem pretty insignificant and are definitely to be discouraged.

You’ll approve the Destroy the Joint page, I think, Houellebecq. They have zero tolerance for anything "threatening, abusive, defamatory, indecent, harassing, offensive, aggressively argumentative, bullying or trolling".

@Cohenite. Pretty sure there is adequate evidence for all assertions. But you have to click on the embedded links. There are 24 of them. So perhaps you haven’t had the chance to access them all. If after doing so gaps in the evidence remain, let me know and more can easily be sourced.

“Political viewpoint” Anthony? Really? This piece is about opposing misogyny, racism and sexism, fostering plain decency and valuing accurate dissemination of information. No?

Are you suggesting these values are held by only one side of politics?

No, Section 45D of the Competition Act refers to secondary boycotts. Ours are primary boycotts. Please read the Act, Anthony

Union underpinning? We wish. Just untrue, unfortunately.

Re Gillard at Slater & Gordon, pretty sure the PM has answered all questions exhaustively and satisfactorily. Flogging a dead horse there, Anthony. Not to mention way off topic.

@Prompete: Yes, agree entirely about Cath Deveny. But can you see the difference? She tweeted an offensive comment while employed by The Age and was dumped immediately. We are simply asking for the same standards to apply with Alan Jones.

@Runner: Just as an exercise:

This article has four YouTube clips of Alan Jones being highly offensive. There are plenty more where they came from.

How many clips can you find of a regular ABC broadcaster being just as “disgusting” and “vile”?

For companies to boycott by pulling ads from 2GB is fine,but to attack companies via the net and phone who remained loyal to Jones, is an attack on all our freedoms.

Freedom of speech and association surpasses all the vile hatred this unsavoury affair has brought to fruition.

AA,

I didn't realise that free speech was a social evil. While I am not a fan of Alan Jones style of rhetoric, he has been particularly effective in holding the present government's incompetence up to the light.

I bet Alan would love to have the government run censorship board in judgement over all media.

schadenfreude,
Houelebecq,
That's probably Germany's most successful export to Australia, it really was embraced here particularly by the lefties.

Yeah I love lefty talk.

Add to the list...

Zeitgeist
De Rigueur
Anything with Emperors new clothes
Beggar belief

Just read the SMH letters page and play bingo!

"This piece is about opposing misogyny, racism and sexism"

Every female member of the federal ALP, including Gillard, supported Slipper; how do you justify that?

Gillard has NOT answered any of the questions about her actions when with Wilson; I raised this point because Gillard's answer to the issues was to use the misogyny card. How do you explain the revealed discrepancy between the declared purpose of the application for association she drafted and Gillard's admission that a different purpose was intended?

Hello again.

Thanks for these further observations.

@R0bert: “It's all very selective though.” Really? Are you sure?

“It's all very hollow in my view and far more driven by politics and to a degree sexism (protecting the feelings of a female PM, how many would have been as outraged if a similar attack had been made on Howard or Abbott?) than any genuine desire for a politer and more honest public discourse.”

But that’s the whole point, R0bert. There have never been radio presenters who have attacked John Howard or Tony Abbott day in, day out with anything like the venom, vindictiveness and sheer fabrications that the present PM has copped since day one from Jones, Hadley, Smith and all the others on the Macquarie network, has there? Can you name one?

Isolated snarls now and again. Sure. But there's not been a concerted, relentless radio campaign with such profound hatred and misogyny, has there?

Have you looked at the embeded links in the article, RObert?

@Arjay: “Freedom of speech and association surpasses all the vile hatred this unsavoury affair has brought to fruition.”

Not sure what you mean by this, Arjay. Do you agree that it's the years of “vile hatred” spewed forth by Alan Jones which is the cause of the current protests?

Do you agree that freedom of association means that those of us who are offended by Jones’ continual lies, distortions, smears, racism and hate speech are free to disassociate ourselves from those organisations which pay him to broadcast?

More soon (word limit). AA

Hi again,

@Shadow Minister: re Jones “has been particularly effective in holding the present government's incompetence up to the light.”

Alas, just not true. We wish it were otherwise. Have you counted the number of time Jones has been found by the Australian Communications and Media Authority to have fabricated his ‘information’?

Have you counted the number of defamation actions taken against him?

“government run censorship board”? Really, Shadow Minister? Why do you raise this? No-one else has, have they?

@Cohenite: “Every female member of the federal ALP, including Gillard, supported Slipper; how do you justify that?”

Do you mean the Peter Slipper who was endorsed to run for the Liberal Party at the last election when Tony Abbott was leader? Should Tony Abbott resign, Anthony? Should Tony Abbott refuse to accept Slipper’s vote henceforward?

Pretty sure you will find every ALP member, male and female, were appalled at Slipper’s behaviour and are relieved he’s been sidelined.

Re Gillard and Wilson, Anthony, yes she has answered all questions. Every one. Don’t be sucked in by the paid anti-ALP activists in the blogosphere or the Murdoch and Fairfax press or on 2GB. As has been clearly proven in courts of law, Anthony, they lie.

Remember that 50 minute press conference in August? Gillard took “every question that the journalistic elite of this country have got for me. If that doesn't end the matter then, with respect, I don't know what would."

Even the anti-Gillard Mark Baker conceded “The journalistic elite was impressed. Even some of the more hardened hands were quick to applaud her pluck and candour. She had answered every question. She had faced a wide-ranging grilling.”

She did not leave that press conference until all journos had completed their grilling, Anthony. She answered every question. Baker should know.

Of course that won’t silence the media nutjobs. Such is Australia’s doom, it seems.

And again, Anthony, this is way off topic. Why do you keep doing this?

Cheers, AA

Alan, you are either a zealot or naive to a degree that rivals Forest Gump.

I told you why I raised Gillard; I'll repeat it; when she was being questioned by the "journalistic elite", a nonpareil oxymoron, she raised the issue of misogyny being the motivation for the raising of her dealings with Wilson.

Those dealings, I'll also repeat; she misrepresented the purpose of a legal document; are you so witless as to not understand the import of that?

In addition it now appears that she may have incorrectly witnessed a Power of Attorney execution:

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

I had assumed you had some legal background; you obviously haven't; if you had you would realise that these issues go to the heart of the legal process; lawyers in their performance are under oath; if they lie under oath that is contempt of court.

The wider point now, which Gillard seems to be creating, is that any criticism of her and her like-minded political cronies is nothing more than sexism and misogyny.

IMO she is setting back the status of women decades.

I have looked at your examples of sexism by Jones; please select one that you think fulfills the definition because I can't find one.

Hi again Cohenite,

No, not naïve at all. Well, maybe a little bit sometimes. Zealot? Yes, definitely a zealot. For factual accuracy, fair comment, honest reporting and just plain decency in our interactions. (Plus world peace, an end to global poverty and free dental care for men over 62.)

Regarding the Wilson matter, Anthony, the problem you have is that your linked article is by Andrew Bolt. You simply cannot claim this as a source of valid information, can you?

Twice now Bolt has been found by courts of law to be a serial liar. Several times he has been found by reputable external bodies, including the Press Council and Mediawatch, to be a liar.

In the most recent court case, the judge found more than 19 instances of assertions "shown to be factually erroneous", comment that was "unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous", asserted facts that were "untrue", contentions that were "incorrect" or "grossly incorrect", inferences which leave "an erroneous impression", "gratuitous references" based on "a selective misrepresentation", and omissions which "meant that the facts were not truly stated".

That was in just two articles.

So we cannot believe anything written by Andrew Bolt, can we? Nor, for that matter, anything in any publication run by the Herald & Weekly Times, which the judge found guilty of inseminating “racial hatred” and “racial vilification” and articles which “contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language”.

Those who do read Bolt and HWT, as with those who listen to 2GB – to return for a moment to the topic in hand – will inevitably find themselves profoundly misinformed.

Bolt and the Murdoch press have never reported fairly on the PM and the ALP, have they, Anthony? Nor have political reporters with Fairfax since 1990. With Tony Abbott currently on the nose and Gillard resurgent, why would they start now?

Sexism by Jones, Anthony? Try these:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/04/australian-radio-host-female-leaders

Or, if you only want your news via Murdoch:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/dont-panic.-its-alan-jones/

Cheers, AA

Alan; your response to the evidence presented at Bolt is disingenuous; are you saying the Power of Attorney and the procedure whereby it was executed are made up, fabricated by Bolt?

Are you saying the material released by Slater and Gordon about their interview with Gillard and the admission she made about the application for association are false and made up by Slater and Gordon?

Your position is at best confused; the fact that people like Bolt and Pickering and Smith are presenting this information does not impugn the evidence; or are you saying that only people deemed acceptable can present evidence; that is, people like yourself who agree with Gillard and who do not entertain any taint on her behaviour and past, are entitled to make criticism and present evidence against her? But you would not do so ever?

That's a Catch 22.

I put it to you; does the evidence suggest Gillard misrepresented the application and did not properly witness the signature on the Power of Attorney?

Hi again Cohenite,

Having worked in the Australian media most of my life I’m starting to get the hang of it.

We all have our angles. When I ran a Friday half-hour religious current affairs show on Radio National in the early 1990s we had our aims. One was to get our top stories onto ABC News through the day Friday, then into Saturday’s Age, and – just occasionally – also onto AM or PM.

A bit earlier I wrote for Nation Review. Our goal there was to prepare lengthy exposés the dailies wouldn’t touch and get MPs to privilege them by reading them into Hansard.

The shtick of Andrew Bolt in Melbourne and Piers Ackerman in Sydney is to emulate the incredibly successful Kelvin MacKenzie in Britain – world famous for writing stories he knows are false but wishes were true. And then seeing how many readers swallow the fabrications, watching the damage it causes their victims, and hoping the defamation payouts will be within budget.

This became known as the ‘Murdoch effect’ – and was great sport until it began to unravel recently in the UK. (Google: Kelvin MacKenzie fabricated news)

So, Anthony, we should all know by now that much of what Bolt/Ackerman/MacKenzie write will be false and aimed at damaging their enemies. And we should know that they and their colleagues are laughing out loud at the poor saps who believe their concoctions to be true.

So, no, Anthony, I won’t bother even reading Andrew Bolt. Find evidence from a source with no recent convictions for malicious racist fabrication and I will look at it for you.

“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”

- Joseph Heller, Catch 22

AA,

" Have you counted the number of time Jones has been found by the Australian Communications and Media Authority to have fabricated his ‘information’?"

No Alan, I haven't. With AJ presenting nearly every morning with new information about Labor's incompetence how many were shown to be incorrect. I would guess that a fraction of 1% were found to be incorrect.

If you are a zealot for the truth then I assume that you will be demanding an apology for the sexist comments made to function including most of the cabinet, who only condemned the comments well after the event. I guess you are only a zealot for your version of the truth.

Also:

"Pretty sure you will find every ALP member, male and female, were appalled at Slipper’s behaviour and are relieved he’s been sidelined."

Except every single ALP woman supported him in the parliament.

However, what I find most disturbing about your article is your desire to silence AJ. I believe speech should be free within the boundary of the law and people have the right not to listen. You obviously don't listen to AJ, but also want to make sure that many others who do cannot.

Except every single ALP woman supported him in the parliament.
Shadow Minister,
ALP woman ? Is there such a being ? Forgive me but my personal observation shows me that there are only highly vindictive & incompetent females in that lost group.

Alan, you are completely partisan; you ignore the grotesque sexism and misogyny coming from the left and focus on poor old Jones; the example you gave about his alleged sexism was pathetic; the women ARE wrecking the joint: Roxon's gross interference with the Slipper case and Gillard's disdain for married women; have you heard her say anything about the wives of her paramours or the unfortunate Mrs Thompson? And I repeat, they all supported Slipper, they voted for him! And yet you say:

"Pretty sure you will find every ALP member, male and female, were appalled at Slipper’s behaviour and are relieved he’s been sidelined".

Alan, they VOTED for him!

Alan, your unquestioning loyalty to the ALP/Green/left side of politics is so evident that anything you say is worthless; and your attempt to silence a genuine voice, Jones, in the political debate shows your contempt for freedom of expression.

This country is going down the gurgler and all this talk of sexism is a deliberate distraction.

And just so you know that I am not partisan; I used to be a member of the ALP back in Whitlam's time; the ALP of today has no resemblance to what the ALP of 40 years ago was.

the ALP of today has no resemblance to what the ALP of 40 years ago was.
cohenite,
cheers for that, great to see somebody else realising that. You've made my day. Hmmh, I just spoiled it again bey remembering that we're still paying good money for big Goagh.

Good morning all,

Excellent discussion.

@Shadow Minister, we are on the same page at last! I agree with you about the sexist comments made at the function cabinet members attended.

This must be treated exactly the same as the disgusting comments by Alan Jones at the Young Libs dinner.

That is, the CFMEU and the Labor Party must disassociate themselves from the comedian and never employ him again; the CFMEU - which invited him – must apologise; all MPs present should repudiate the offensive joke; and MPs should henceforward have nothing to do with the comedian.

Similarly, the Liberal Party must disassociate themselves from Alan Jones and never employ him again; the Liberal Party – the group which invited Jones – must apologise; all MPs present should repudiate the offensive comments; and MPs should henceforward have nothing to do with Jones.

I agree, SM, that both are equally serious and must be treated equally.

Re: “desire to silence AJ”. No, that is not true, is it, SM? Pretty sure the article is clear. Re-read the part with the seven-point list and the following paragraphs. Thanks.

@Cohenite, regarding Peter Slipper, what do you mean “Alan, they VOTED for him!”

Also Shadow Minister, what do you mean “Except every single ALP woman supported him in the parliament”?

What period are we talking about? After the text messages came to light? Or before? Do you really want to compare the number of times throughout his career Labor MPs voted for Slipper to take on a Parliamentary role with the number of times the Coalition voted for him?

Which party endorsed him for the last seven elections?

Finally, Anthony and Shadow Minister, have you noticed how you and others point to my “unquestioning loyalty to the ALP/Green/left side of politics” or similar?

This is a curious thing. Because when we re-read this article and subsequent comments, my arguments are only supportive of honesty, integrity, decency, equality, truth and consistency – and opposed to sexism, misogyny, racism, fabrication, lies and abuse of power.

Why do you automatically associate this stance with the ALP/Green/left?

Cheers, AA

AA,

The left is associated with lies, dodgy dealing, double standards, abuse of power, corruption, and rampant hypocrisy.

AJ's remark has little to do with Your attacks on AJ and are a pretext for your real target which is to get AJ to:

4 tone down his belligerent anti-Labor attacks or abandon them altogether
5 be shifted to a role where he cannot wield his present destructive influence
6 resign or be sacked from 2GB altogether

Which is effectively silencing him politically, (the real objective of the disproportionate attacks on him, his employer, and his employer's sponsors.)

As for Juliar, While her tirade initially won her Kudos, as the public digs deeper into the reason behind her dummy spit, they are waking up to the blatant hypocrisy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pms-speech-goes-from-bad-ass-to-bad/story-fn59niix-1226494771520

"On Thursday, John Chalmers, group communications manager at Buzz-Numbers, warned that while the Australian public had largely lauded the Prime Minister's attack, on Twitter, Facebook and other sites, "our analysis suggests support for Gillard may change as the public connects Gillard's contradictory stance".

As the tone of the commentary changed, Jezebel started a debate on double standards."

Every single ALP MP woman and man, while giving lip service to condemn Slipper's texts, (after having access to them for months) to a person voted to keep him as speaker. Actions speak louder than words.

Hi again Shadow Minister,

Yes, you've now read the article correctly. Thanks. Yes, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are reasonable. None of these seeks to silence AJ’s legitimate analysis, does it?

I don't support 7. We should all have free speech.

Your other observations relate to universal questions – in Australia, here in France where we've just had elections, and in the USA where elections are looming.

Questions arising from your recent posts:

1. Remember I asked if you'd counted the times Jones was found guilty by the Australian Communications and Media Authority of fabrication?

You said you hadn’t, but you guessed "a fraction of 1% were found to be incorrect.”

Okay. How about you actually go to the ACMA website and then report back as to whether that may be an underestimate?

2. You claim “the left is associated with … abuse of power, corruption, and rampant hypocrisy.”

Maybe. But the question is: how does it compare with the right? No?

With regard to corruption, for example, do you acknowledge that the 5-year Rudd/Gillard period has actually had the lowest rate of ministerial sackings/resignations of any government anywhere in the world among Westminster nations since 1820?

3. Do you accept that the number of Government backbenchers accused of offences in the last 5 years is also at a world-record low?

4. Regarding your reference to The Australian, SM, do you realise that’s an article by Denis Shanahan?

Do you agree he's the Murdoch fabricator holding the Australian record for the greatest number of lies in a front page scoop – set earlier this year – as shown here:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13338

Do you have a reference not from a proven Murdoch liar? If so, will be happy to look at it. Thanks.

5. Finally, just for clarification: You claim “every single ALP MP woman and man” gave “lip service to condemn Slipper's texts (after having access to them for months)”.

This is a central point, SM, I agree. How do you know that they all had access for months? When precisely was access achieved?

Thanks, SM.

Cheers, AA

"This is a curious thing. Because when we re-read this article and subsequent comments, my arguments are only supportive of honesty, integrity, decency, equality, truth and consistency – and opposed to sexism, misogyny, racism, fabrication, lies and abuse of power."

Saint Alan.

Flawed Saint Alan; every women in the federal ALP voted for Slipper knowing about his emails and his grossly derogatory comments about women; yet they decry Abbott for...what exactly; ostensibly supporting Jones; but Abbott publically castigated Jones for his tasteless, that is not sexist, comments.

Gillard is abusing the very real issue of misogyny in the world, primarily from religious sources, especially Islam, to deflect legitimate criticism of her equally very real governmental defects and possible criminal past.

The 2 possible criminal issues Gillard is avoiding are the false declaration of purpose in the application for association and the false witnessing of a signing of a Power of Attorney; there is cogent evidence against Gillard in respect of both these potential criminal acts, yet what we have are self-congratualtory articles from supermen like Alan about their virtuous defence of the frail womenfolk in our midst.

Well, Gillard clearly does not need defending Alan; why don't you go to Pakistan and defend women in real need like these:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frank-crimi/the-talibans-barbaric-shooting-of-child-activist/

AA,

In what universe are your objectives reasonable. "4 tone down his belligerent anti-Labor attacks or abandon them altogether" is a direct attack on his free speech and trying to get him fired for an off colour remark to a student function is waaaay out of proportion.

I looked up the ACMA cases against AJ, and could only find a handful over the last couple of decades. This would make my previous estimate of AJ's attacks being >99% correct spot on.

As far "greatest number of lies in a front page scoop" That goes to the labor election manifesto including such gems as "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" and "the east Timor solution". Poor Dennis reporting on what comes from Labor whose statements' truth have a half life of minutes. DS is also far from the only political commentator saying the same thing.

According to the financial review, Nicola Roxon (running Slippers case) had access to the texts months ago, (which labor has not contested) which puts paid to their claims that they intended for Slipper to resign.

Good morning all.

Thanks for these responses.

@Cohenite: The question remains, doesn’t it? That my “unquestioning loyalty to the ALP/Green/left side of politics is so evident”.

Evident where? There’s nothing in the article or following posts positive or supportive of Labor or of the Left as a party, movement or philosophy. And there’s nothing negative or critical of the Coalition or the Right as a party, movement or philosophy, is there?

So it's somewhat curious – and wryly amusing – that someone advocating civility, honesty and integrity is automatically labelled a partisan of the Left.

Think about it, Anthony. What are you admitting?

Regarding Pakistan, that is precisely why the sexism and misogyny of Abbott, Heffernan, Bernardi, Jones and other prominent Australians must be resisted.

Are you familiar with the genesis of Australia’s RDA, Anthony?

Racism and misogyny are global phenomena which must be confronted everywhere. Australia cannot speak with integrity to Pakistan or anywhere else while we allow these evils in any form – however mild in relative terms.

Good morning Shadow Minister,

You are doing it again, old son. You say “trying to get him [Jones] fired for an off colour remark to a student function”.

Pinocchio !!

Just not true, is it, SM?

The key movement striving to boycott 2GB – Destroy the Joint – was set up six weeks ago, well before the tawdry remarks at the Liberal function.

Don’t let the liars and fabricators suck you in, SM. You will end up believing Bob Carr is not foreign minister, Geoff Clark is not Aboriginal, and your PM has a criminal past.

Reading the Murdoch media in Australia, SM, is like watching Fox TV in America. It just makes people really really dumb:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

By way of illustration, SM (and Cohenite), you say “Nicola Roxon (running Slippers case) had access to the texts months ago, which puts paid to their claims that they intended for Slipper to resign.”

Questions arising:

When did Roxon learn the content of the texts? How do you know? When did other MPs learn the content? How do you know?

Cheers, AA

"When did Roxon learn the content of the texts? How do you know? When did other MPs learn the content? How do you know?"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/attorney-general-nicola-roxon-admits-government-solictors-knew-of-former-speaker-peter-slippers-vulgat-texts-in-may/story-fndo48ca-1226493765591

Hi again Cohenite.

You are doing it again. You are reading political reports in the Herald Sun as though they are true. They are not true, Anthony. They are distortions at best and fabrications at worst.

You really should understand this by now. This is why you keep losing arguments and credibility.

(Except sports results. The Herald Sun sports journalists generally get things right.)

If you go to the actual Hansard of October 11, Anthony, you will find the Attorney General repeats the earlier information that "material was provided to the Government Solicitor at the end of May. Undertakings were made, as required by the court, by all parties that the material could only be used for the purposes of court proceedings."

Have you checked the Hansard, Anthony?

If you compare the report in the Herald Sun with the actual proceedings in Parliament you will spot the typical Murdoch falsifications. They are pretty obvious, as always.

So the questions remain: When did Nicola Roxon learn the content of the texts? How do you know? When did other MPs learn the content? How do you know?

To try on the answer: "In May, because I read it in the Herald Sun" is just risible.

But we are laughing at you, Anthony, not with you.

So, any advance on the Herald Sun?

The other questions, seeing you are persisting with Slipper, are these:

When did the Liberal Party become aware of Slipper's dodgy dealings?
When did the Liberal party refuse to vote him into senior Parliamentary positions?
Should the leader of the Party at the time he was last endorsed as a candidate be forced to resign?

Cheers, AA

AA,

The facts brought up in the Newscorp papers are very seldom challenged, and when they are, it is mostly on minute details such as incorrect terminology, or as in your case, with 20/20 hindsight when things had changed, and Juliar had managed to put down the resistance to Bob Carr.

If as you say, your Don Quixote like crusade against the "hate" media started long before AJ's comment, then I would add paranoia to the list of things linked to the left.

At least Juliar has abandoned the media censorship board proposed by the Frankenstein report commissioned by senator Conjob, the minister for excommunication.

As for when Roxon had access to the texts,

http://www.afr.com/p/national/labor_had_slipper_texts_for_months_d1ITfu4zPbLq7ot0G8f9yK

"A large spreadsheet of text messages on Mr Ashby’s phone was sent by his lawyers on May 28 to the Australian Government Solicitor and to lawyers defending Mr Slipper against the sexual harassment case brought by Mr Ashby........

Asked when she was made aware of the former speaker’s text messages, a spokesperson for Ms Roxon said last night the government’s legal advice and preparation was under legal professional privilege and was confidential."

With Slipper his misdeeds prior to 2010 involved over claiming on his allowances which he had to pay back, and was dropped as parliamentary secretary. His repeat action lead him to be dis endorsed for the next elections.

All of this Juliar knew when she endorsed him as Speaker.

As for Craig Thomson:

When did the Labor Party become aware of Thomson's dodgy dealings?
When did the Labor party refuse to vote him into senior Parliamentary positions?
Should the leader of the Labor Party at the time he was last endorsed as a candidate be forced to resign?

Juliar knew of CT's dodgy credit card purchase of prostitutes with union funds prior to the 2010 election, and had full confidence in him even when the evidence of about $500 000 of fraud was surfacing.

In the film "Disclosure", the lead character was stitched up by an abusive woman in power. He was ostrasiced and written off worse than AJ is. His companies version of Hansard had him done to rights.

But then an accidental answer-machine recording of the REALITY came to light like the arrow-of-truth and the woman was exposed for the liar and cheat she was.

There was pity. Everyone thought she was crushed. We felt sorry - till she exalted her abuse as women's rights and attempts to humble her as MISOGYNY. But astoundingly her abuse continued, till she was caught out in a large enough forum to bring her down.

Can AA or anyone tell us that this scenario is not playing out in Canberra as we speak, making this clumsy afore-planned boycott triggered by AJ's betrayed boo boo, totally insignificant.

The key quote form "Disclosure" was "a woman in power can be every bit as abusive as a man".

The Australian electorate has yet to come to terms with this truth.

No pillow smotherings from the south of France nor sterile political leadership from Canberra (which may as well be in the south of France or on the Moon as to its relevance in multi-culturally gridlocked Australian life) can change the way this unfinished script, "The Knifing of Rudd", will play out.

Its not over!

I have deeper concerns about the ALP that cannot be silenced vis-a-vis an AJ/free speech assassination.

Womens' reproductive rights and immigration are the core pillars of ALP economic growth plans. It cannot be called misogyny or racism to speak against these iniquities. Never mind decency in discourse, we all, including our ecologies and environment need & want a decent place to live in. The enviro-degradation of Australia cannot be blamed on AGW when BIG population increases by economic Growth politicians wielding Misogyny like a sword, are at its core.

The danger in extending an AJ boycott to misogyny and thus to reproductive rights resulting in environmental destruction is a vile "disclosure" that can bring this country to a modern version of French revolution.

Alan, your Hansard quote proves Roxon, and therefore members of the government, knew about Slipper's sexism in May; or are you saying the chief legal officier was not privy to what her employed solictors' knew about a highly politicised case? We know you are naive but surely not that naive.

So, we can say Roxon and her fellow feministas knew in May and therefore they had had plenty of time to consider their position when the texts became public; and their considered position was they still voted to keep Slipper as speaker despite his comments being far more egregious than Jones'.

Jones' comment was particular, not related to Gillard's sex but entirely in the context of Gillard's incompetence, lying and unreliability. Slipper's were generic and indicative of a highly personal animosity towards all women.

That you cannot distinguish the difference says all that we need to know about your unfettered partisan support of Gillard and your inability to perceive true sexism, which is coming from this government.

Tropical cyclone in a teacup. Do we really have nothing better to argue about than one grumpy old man and his tiny audience of rusted on listeners?

Cheers,

Tony

Morning all.

Intriguing observations.

@Shadow Minister. No, your arguments are still unconvincing.

Newscorp’s fabrications are plainly not “mostly on minute details”.

ACMA proves this. As do courts of law. Remember in the 2010 Guthrie matter the judge’s “reservations about a number of features” of the evidence of News Limited chief executive? “In my view Hartigan was an unreliable witness ...”

He was even more scathing of HWT boss. He “did not present as a witness that was confident in his testimony” and “the explanations given by Mr Blunden in evidence … do not survive scrutiny”.

No, SM, the corporation is riddled with liars – with exceptions in sports units.

No, the PM hasn’t “abandoned the media censorship board proposed by the Frankenstein report”. The report didn’t recommend censorship and the Government hasn’t contemplated it. Don’t let them suck you in, SM.

And it’s definitely not convincing when you try to avoid unanswerable questions with “Look over there! Craig Thompson!”

@KAEP: Vive la Révolution!”

@Cohenite: The AFR piece exposes the falsehoods in your Herald Sun piece, doesn’t it? But did you read what was actually claimed?

“As the first lawyer in the land, it is normal practice for the Attorney-General to brief counsel … it would seem likely Ms Roxon would have oversight.”

It would seem likely, Anthony. You cannot go further than that.

Hansard shows “material was provided to the Government Solicitor” in May. What remains unknown are: 1. Did Roxon see the texts in May, or some time later? 2. Did other MPs see the texts in May, or later? 3. If they all saw them in May, why was there no whisper before last week?

At this stage you have no smoking gun, Anthony [and SM]. Your blunderbuss is soaking wet and in several rusty pieces.

@Tony, we are making progress. Slowly. We have disposed of the S45D nonsense. We have eleminated Andrew Bolt. We've established that racism, misogyny and hate speech are restricted to the Macquarie network radio commentators. And we agree that the misogyny of Slipper, Jones and Abbott must be eliminated. Baby steps.

Cheers, AA

AA,

Any government appointed board that has the authority to interfere in editorial content and has the power to fine and imprison journalists is censorship in all but name.

Having spent a little time reading through some of your articles I am struck by their similarity to most conspiracy theories. There is a collection of a few factoids (i.e. that Newscorp in Australia has occasionally got it wrong) followed by logically deficient expansion to the general (i.e. All newscorp journalists must be lying all the time.)

As far as Labor having access to Slipper's texts, it is clear that Roxon's team defending the commonwealth and Slipper received these at the end of May. It is entirely possible that it took a few days to review and give a summary to NR. However, even if NR's office was wildly incompetent and NR only vaguely interested, it beggars belief that the content of the texts would not have filtered through by the end of June.

Given the huge personal involvement of Roxon in the case, the concept that Roxon or Juliar were unaware of these texts before they came out in October is so ludicrous that either you must believe everyone else in the country is really stupid, or you are delusional. Labor had no intention of removing Slipper and was caught with its pants around its ankles. Juliar's dummy spit was fury at having been beaten and exposed as a hypocrit.

Alan, it's a tossup in my mind whether you a genuinely gullible idealist or a partisan cynic.

When this mendacious, corrupt and destructive government is thrown out of power the RDA will be either removed in total or severely amended.

Good thing too.

Gillard will have to confront her past and answer possible criminal charges. While on Gillard do you believe she once said that married women are prostitutes? I can't find a reference to this; but if true it would have a wonderful symmetry with the Thompson saga.

A point you have overlooked is that women themselves can be sexist not only towards men but women as well; Summer's book God's Police and Damned Whores outlines this.

I think there is a pronounced hostility and even disdain amongst the alpha women in the ALP and Greens against women who conform to the traditional standard or role for women.

This is ironic given Abbott's relationship with his wife, who is a successful professional; also about Abbott, who I initially disliked but am warming too, his grace under pressure when he was confronted with the possibility that he had a son from a student relationship which turned out not to be true, was remarkable.

I thought he acted honourably, calmly and with immense respect to the mother who come across as being rather tawdry.

I can't think of any ocassion when Gillard has demonstrated grace under pressure; her 'spontaneous' speech against Abbott and sexism was as phony as she is.

Anyway, as with the Bolt case, there is no need persisting in discussing it with you; you have an idealogical position; good luck to you, I had it once; I grew up.

cohentite,

"...with immense respect to the mother who came across as being rather tawdry."

How so?

Hmmm, I have come late to this discussion but the whole campaign, and
surely no one can acknowledge it otherwise, to denigrate Alan Jones
and tie it to Tony Abbott talks like, walks like and looks like an
orchestrated labour party campaign.

A clever campaign because it has been designed to attract a whole lot
of fellow travelers.

It is a waste of time to engage in the execise as people will make their own mind.

"How so?"

You're a smart girl Poirot; I'm sure you know who fathered your children.

Which part of the texts were harassing Ashby, certainly not the ones published.
Isn't this supposed to be about sexual harassment, not obscene writing on a text.
The case against Jones was building for years. Deserves every bit of backlash given.

579,

Asking the same naive question after already getting an answer to the identical question yesterday is pathetic.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5416#147830

Good morning all,

Well, have we reached an amicable conclusion, then?

Just to wrap things up:

First, let’s set aside the red herrings: Craig Thompson is a bad person; Ms Gillard once said married women are prostitutes; women themselves can be sexist; alpha women in the ALP and Greens don’t like women who adopt traditional roles; Peter Slipper’s texts were not sexual harassment; and Tony Abbott’s paternity from student relationships.

Interesting claims, but irrelevant.

Second, let’s dispense with the falsehoods: the Government wants to set up a censorship board; all Newscorp journalists must be lying all the time; Julia Gillard has a criminal past; the Destroy the Joint boycott is an orchestrated Labor Party campaign.

All easily shown to be untrue.

Third, let’s set aside assertions which may well be true but await further evidence: all Labor MPs knew the contents of the Slipper texts in May; Australia has a mendacious, corrupt and destructive government; Alan Austin is really stupid or delusional.

These all remain to be proven.

Now, to summarise the assertions in the article and subsequent discussion:

1. Alan Jones has a long history of fabrication, receiving corrupt payments, vilification, hate speech, abuse of subordinates, racism, sexism, misogyny and fake apologies.

2. These are damaging to the fabric of Australian society.

3. Commentators are perfectly free to express whatever opinions they want about any topic, however offensive or wrong.

4. Consumers are entitled to “clean their hands” of support for Jones by withdrawing their custom from the companies that pay his salary.

5. Consumers are also entitled to seek to have Alan Jones removed from 2GB if they believe this will contribute to a more harmonious, less violent, less corrupt, less racist, less sexist community.

6. Peter Slipper has also shown unacceptable sexist conduct. He, along with Jones, does not deserve support any longer to continue in an influential public role.

6. Politicians who continue to support Slipper or Jones in maintaining positions of authority must be condemned and voted out of office.

Agreed?

Thanks for the contributions. Excellent.

Cheers, AA

AA

This is as close to a slam dunk as it is possible to get:

"After days of claiming that legal professional privilege prevented her from saying when she first knew of the messages, Ms Roxon last night confirmed she learnt of them between May 28 and June 15 when the government filed its application to have the case struck out claiming it was an abuse of process.

"Yes, we were certainly aware of the range of material that was provided," she told ABC's 7.30 Report.

Roxon then used the court to suppress these texts, and spent $700 000 of taxpayer's money pursuing a frivolous motion to have the case thrown out as vexatious. The judge thought so little of the case brought by Roxon that this motion was dismissed with costs. Shortly after this Roxon settled with Ashby to avoid a long, costly and losing court case. After which the texts could be released.

Labor (not necessarily all labor ministers) knew well in advance that the texts would make it impossible for Slipper to remain as Speaker and was happy to spend nearly $1m of taxpayer's money to keep him in the chair. What they didn't count on was the unrepresented Slipper making the mistake of releasing the texts.

It now looks like Juliar's pet independent Thomson might be otherwise occupied.

Good morning SM,

Slam dunk? Hmmm. Don’t think so.

Check the slow motion replay.

Remember, you posted: “Every single ALP MP woman and man, while giving lip service to condemn Slipper's texts, (after having access to them for months) to a person voted to keep him as speaker.”

Question arising was: “This is a central point, SM, I agree. How do you know that they all had access for months?”

“ …they ALL” ?

If your info from the ABC is correct – and unfortunately that's no given these days – then Roxon would have been keen to keep the content of the texts from anyone other than those who needed to know.

So no evidence they all knew, is there? In fact, the opposite.

Your ball has bounced off the rim back into play, SM.

The other significant point – seeing the Slipper matter was brought up here as diversion from the offensive sexist attacks by Alan Jones – is that Jones’ slurs and sleaziness were all for public consumption. They were intended to hurt their female targets. Slipper’s texts were in private conversation to an intimate friend.

There’s a world of difference in both law and morality, isn’t there, SM?

Looks like the rebound is a goal against.

Cheers, AA

AA,

I have shown conclusively that Roxon had the texts, and thus the ALP had access to them several months ago. Who Roxon shared them with is a different matter. If you want to play semantics, having access to something does not mean that everyone has seen them.

However, since the texts were published days before the Slipper vote, and robust discussion was held it would be difficult to claim that any ALP members were ignorant of the texts at the time the vote occurred, and all shared in the hypocrisy.

That is a slam dunk.

Andrew Bolt quoting the Australian has a good analysis of Roxon's role in the Slipper affair:

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

I find this a more reliable source then Alan's fanciful support for Gillard and opposition to the denounced ogre, Jones.

And this point needs repeating whenever the likes of Alan get up and start their sanctimonious sermonising: Jones can be switched off; Roxon and this wretched government can't.

Hello again Shadow Minister and Cohenite,

Why are you so agitated about Slipper and Roxon? This really is way off topic. No?

Yes, Shadow, we now agree all the MPs had the texts in October. But not in May. Good. We are making progress.

Cohenite, you are quoting Andrew Bolt again. Why?

It has been overwhelmingly established in courts of law, in ACMA hearings, in academic findings and elsewhere that he is a serial fabricator. So why consume his ‘data’ which will almost certainly be false?

It seems an odd approach to education and awareness. Oh well, it’s your education and awareness, I suppose, Anthony.

Anyway, we seem agreed that Slipper is not worthy of support. And I trust we agree it is good that he is gone.

But this thread is actually about Alan Jones – whose offensive sexist abuse was far more serious than Slipper’s in that:

(a) it was aimed at specific named women – the PM, Christine Nixon, Clover Moore and others;
(b) the language was deliberately insulting – “lying bitch” Julia Gillard, “brain-dead Sarah Hanson-Young”;
(c) the slur was extended to all women via the comment “women are destroying the joint”;
(d) the insults were made in a highly public forum; and
(e) they were clearly intended to provoke fear and hatred.

Slipper’s offensive texts, in contrast, were none of the above.

So do we agree that:

1. Peter Slipper and Alan Jones have both shown unacceptable sexist conduct and do not deserve support any longer to continue in influential public roles.

2. MPs who have supported Slipper or Jones in the past should not have done so and should be ashamed of themselves.

3. MPs who continue in the future to support Slipper or Jones in maintaining positions of authority must be condemned and voted out of office.

I trust so.

Cheers, AA

“women are destroying the joint”

A nasty comment but it seems fair to ask why feminist writings that suggest the worlds problems are all the fault of men don't rate the same outrage.

From the US version of Emilyslist comes a quote that seems to be a close mirror to Jones comment.

"Men have been running this country long enough, and look where we are."
http://emilyslist.org/blog/what-women-want

There is plenty more around using various phrasing that claims men have wrecked the joint.

R0bert

"MPs who continue in the future to support Slipper or Jones in maintaining positions of authority must be condemned and voted out of office"

By all means vote for whoever you like for whatever esoteric reason you wish; but I repeat Jones is not in a "position of power".

You can switch him off; what you really mean is that you think people who are 'influenced' by him will continue to be 'influenced' by him and not vote in a way you approve of. That is straight out of the Finkelstein handbook of hubris ridden justification for censorship.

You mention a number of women; Gillard, Moore, Hanson-Young and Nixon.

Each of these holders of high public office is deserving of criticism, and in Nixon's case public opprobrium due to her disgraceful behaviour during the bushfires as well as law and order policies.

I have explained the episodes in Gillard's past which deserve much more scrutiny; Hanson-Young's hypocrisy in disavowing any Green responsibility for the deaths of boat people and Moore's general hair-brained schemes all justify Jone's criticism but not his manner of criticism.

So, Alan tell us, is it Jone's criticism of these women or the manner of this criticism which disturbs you?

G’day R0bert,

Fair questions. Have been pondering those throughout this saga.

The answer pretty much is that we just don’t hear the same gender abuse in reverse.

For example, we hear criticism in Melbourne of Premier Ted Baillieu, Lord Mayor Robert Doyle and Planning Minister Matthew Guy. But we never hear anyone add “men are wrecking the joint” or anything like that, do we?

I’m trying to think of anyone with power or influence in Australian public life who slander all men as Alan Jones and his ilk do with women.

I just can’t. Can you, R0bert?

Yes, we sometimes read quips in feminist manifestos or hear it as an expression of exasperation. And I expect the sentiment is fairly widely held.

But it seems nowhere is there a relentless, sustained, vicious campaign maligning both named individuals and the entire gender.

I'm struggling to come up with even a one-off abusive anti-male comment from anyone significant.

Anthony, the answer to your question is in the article, at about the two thirds mark:

“From the various online groups it is clear there are long-held, deep-seated concerns at Jones’ activities on many levels. These include: his history of fabrications, receiving secret cash payments for on-air comments, fomenting racial hatred and violence, abuse of staff, ridiculing and censoring callers who challenge his facts, unbalanced treatment of political parties, crude sexist attacks on the Prime Minister, false accusations against political opponents, calls for the death of political enemies, public vilification of those he disagrees with, hypocritical exploitation of charities, the hypocrisy of calling for direct community action but complaining when the community acts directly against his excesses and, finally, his hollow apologies when cornered.”

If you go to the piece, there are 12 embedded links to the source articles or audio.

His malignancy is multi-layered.

Cheers, AA

Alan as someone who has spent some time looking at the handling of DV research and has recently fallen back into the hands of CSA it's clear that there are plenty with real power who slander men with real effect. Maybe not so often in Jones terms, rather dressed up a little more.

Spend some time reading material from the gender studies departments of Australian Uni's for a while then consider how often those same experts do the research that underpins policy involving both men and women.

Have a browse at how often DV is defined in the broadest terms including emotional, psychological and financial abuse and how often those definitions are accompanied by a claim that it's mostly done by men to women - then talk to some men about their experiences when they step out of line at home.

Have a think about how long the attacks on Tony Abbott and the wearing of budgie smugglers has been going on and the nature of some of the comments in the public space, a very sexist core to that attack. I've heard female Labor ministers on that particular track.

I recall "comedy" on the ABC busy painting a picture of John Howard as a lack lustre lover and it was funny but the kind of attack that some would suggest only female pollies experience.

Attacks with sexual connotations have been around for a long time, maybe we've gotten so used to them that most don't notice. They seem to be a common tool to try and reduce the image of political opponents.

R0bert

AA,

What I find disturbing about your crusade against Jones is level of political correctness that you intend to impose on ordinary citizens, and your willingness to abandon free speech in order to deflect criticism.

An example is:

"Peter Slipper and Alan Jones have both shown unacceptable sexist conduct and do not deserve support any longer to continue in influential public roles."

Where the roles and expectations of Speaker of the house, and radio presenter are confused. MPs are elected by the voters to represent them in setting laws under which they will be governed, and are elected only every 3 years. Alan Jones represents only himself, is listened to only by those that desire to do so, and can be turned off within seconds.

AA, If you and your ilk don't listen to Jones, buy the products he advertises, then why do you wish to make sure that anyone else who does want to listen to him can't? I can only put it down to activism to silence someone with a different political viewpoint.

'I’m trying to think of anyone with power or influence in Australian public life who slander all men as Alan Jones and his ilk do with women.'

Backhandedly, of course, but Peter Hartcher recently and many feminist social commentators over time have opined that women would do better than men, and a different, superior performance would be expected of our first female prime minister.

So while they might not be explicitly saying men are destroying the joint, they expect that the poor conduct of men in positions of power since the year dot would not be replicated by women in power.

So, men are always wrecking the joint.

It always bemuses me how feminists simultaneously decry that women are held to a higher standard than men, while maintaining women would maintain a higher standard than men if given the chance.

Good point R0bert.

Good morning all,

Some intriguing further points. Excellent. Thank you.

@R0bert: Agree with most of your observations, I think.

But not sure I understand who you mean by this: “there are plenty with real power who slander men with real effect.”

Is there any individual or group which does so openly, is paid to do so, is applauded from the gallery for doing so, and who feeds off and in turn feeds such behaviour among his/her followers?

I can’t think of anyone.

R0bert, have you seen any research linking the continual anti-women attacks by Alan Jones and other commentators with domestic violence among 2GB listeners? Does this also feed into DV by woman against men? I don’t know.

It seems accepted that Jones has fomented racial violence. So it’s probably a fair question re domestic violence. Might ask the Destroyers if any have data on this.

Just one other query, R0bert, is whether cartoon or photographic depictions of Tony Abbott in budgie smugglers is actually an attack. He is usually shown as well-proportioned, muscular, hairy-chested, bronzed, succeeding in an athletic event and often surrounded by young admirers. That seems pretty positive.

Sexual connotations? Not sure. I’ve never sensed it as such.

@Shadow Minister: No, the article specifically deals with silencing Jones.

“Do we want him to lose his job? No. We want the freedom to say that this is NOT acceptable to us”

Please read the article, SM.

@Houellebecq: Yes, agree.

What is that famous quip from Charlotte Whitton, Houellie?

“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”

Cheers, AA

"R0bert, have you seen any research linking the continual anti-women attacks by Alan Jones and other commentators with domestic violence among 2GB listeners?"

No I've not spotted any in that vein but would not be surprised if some appears soon. I don't know enough about the demographic of Jones listeners to make much of a comment, my impression are mostly formed by what his critics say rather than any first hand knowledge.

"Is there any individual or group which does so openly, is paid to do so, is applauded from the gallery for doing so, and who feeds off and in turn feeds such behaviour among his/her followers?"

It's difficult to relate the scale of voice that advocacy academics have compared to a radio shock jock preaching mostly to the concerted.

I went searching some time back to try and rebut claims by a then poster about academic feminists in Australia never saying positive things about men or masculinity. I'd expected that to be an easy find and for the most part failed. The closest I came was an article on men's sheds, the rest was only positive where men were seen to be behaving in a more feminine manner. I have missed stuff but from what I could find masculinity is overwhelmingly portrayed in a negative manner in the material coming out of gender studies units of Australian Universities.

Eg look at the research overview for the Uni of Wollongong's "Centre for Research on Men and Masculinities" http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/research/cromm/research/index.html - what's there that's looking at what works about men and masculinity?

This one appears to be US based but is in interesting take on Feminist research http://www.unb.ca/par-l/win/feminmethod.htm I didn't find serious contradictions to the themes expressed there.

In theory Michael Flood's http://www.xyonline.net/ site is pro male but in my view it's mostly about transforming men to conform to feminist expectations.

A comment on an academic perspective at http://www.sociology.org/content/vol7.3/02_crawford.html

There are some interesting points in
http://irw.rutgers.edu/lectures/connelllecture.pdf , I've just skimmed part of it but could be worth a further read.

R0ber

AA,

I did read your article. It is clear that the real reason that you are going after Jones is that he continuously hammers the labor government for its incompetence, and even worse is that thousands of people listen and agree with him. The few inappropriate comments by Jones are a fig leaf for a far less honourable motive.

Labor would fare far better if their stuff ups went unnoticed, however, a free society fares better in the light. Perhaps Labor should create their own station more sympathetic to their ideals and more inclined to overlook their failings. We could call it the ABC.

Here you go, SM.

Looks like there'll be more lessons than just those from history.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-18/alan-jones-ordered-to-do-journalism-training/4320534

Good morning,

Well, things are moving forward intriguingly.

Every day more advertisers seem to be deserting 2GB's breakfast show.

And the concerns expressed in the article that Alan Jones has a long history of fabrications and of ridiculing and censoring callers who challenge his facts have been addressed by ACMA.

Back to school for Jones, it seems, as Poirot has noted:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/alan-jones-ordered-to-undergo-factual-accuracy-training-20121018-27srs.html

The question then is: will Jones pay attention?

According to this evidence, probably not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSXPHm2dtO8

@R0bert, thanks for those links. Have checked them all.

They led eventually to Chris Masters’ book, “Jones Town, the power and myth of Alan Jones.”

http://www.allenandunwin.com/_uploads/BookPdf/Extract/9781741751567.pdf

It’s clear Jones has been a bully victimising those weaker than himself for his entire adult life.

He has been a fabricator – concocting a world of lies, deception and fantasy – since early childhood.

So is it really likely any of this will change now Jones is 65? Or is it 68? 71? 73?

Cheers, AA

So Jones got his figures wrong in a statement 18 months ago. Should he have checked? Absolutely.

Should things be put in place to stop these slip ups in the future sure. Should this apply to other public figures that tell porkies on a much larger scale? Absolutely, Juliar Gillard should be sitting with Allan Jones.

Does this mean that AJ is " a fabricator – concocting a world of lies, deception and fantasy" Absolutely not.

Is 2GB the only one to get things wrong? Also not:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/murdoch-demands-abc-apologise-for-lie-20121018-27tvb.html

Have his listeners abandoned him? Apparently not, and this means that his airtime is hugely lucrative for advertisers.

I know I'm running somewhat off thread but I do think the rate of outrage at Jones is telling given how often actions that align with other political views are either ignored or encouraged.

In relation to accuracy in statistics, Qld health had for a long time the following on it's website (it's been gone for a while now).

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship. One of my earlier references was at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3538#8327

Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women."

It might be a case of juggling definitions, if you use as a baseline the assumption that men almost always have the power in a spousal relationship then it's difficult for a woman to abuse said power.

If you skip that assumption and look at incidents of physical, sexual emotional or psychological abuse then it's a difficult claim to support. Even the gendered DV research rarely puts the physical abuse at that range, good luck on substantiating the emotional, psychological or trust parts from credible research.

Alan Jones should take more care with his figures but it's a lot more concerning when government departments push stats and views which are not soundly based on credible research.

I've seen similar claims in other government material, there was an article on OLO some time back which touched on inclusion into various acts a statement about DV being mostly perpetrated by men. I'm sure most of us saw the previous governments add campaigns which portrayed DV is an entirely one sided manner.

Why are those so outraged by Jones claimed hatred of women not even more outraged when government pushes a gender agenda?

R0bert

Speaking of lessons from history maybe Alan can take this to his mate Bromberg:

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/boxing/mundine-mocks-geales-heritage-20121018-27tgp.html#ixzz29dKl5MNC

Good morning all,

Well, this is the issue that keeps on giving …

Supabarn, First National Real Estate and Mitre 10 have now cancelled advertising with Alan Jones also.

Satirists are having a field day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0K5RrDYVLU

@Shadow Minister: Yes, Jones concocted false data 18 months ago. But that’s not all, is it? He fabricates, distorts and lies every day. And has been doing so most of his life.

ACMA – and 104,000 petitioners and protestors and ex-advertisers – are now saying ‘Enough is enough’!

As Chris Masters wrote some years ago, “My own research found little that is honourable in the way Alan Jones and his controllers exercise influence …

“Close examination of Alan Jones’ attitude to giving his audience the facts, be it about Telstra, Optus, Labor or Liberal, reveals a fraud at work. There is a wealth of evidence to show Jones lies, flatters, dissembles and excludes. While he does work determinedly for his Struggle Street audience, by underpinning his power base they also work effectively for him.”

It is important to understand this, SM, so we are not sucked in.

SM, did you actually read that SMH article about Rupert? They are mocking him. The article shows there’s no basis for demanding an apology.

Can you find this story in a Murdoch rag? It depicts Rupert in a tawdry light – effectively as the godfather of lies, deception and fabrication.

And no, SM, as proven elsewhere, the PM has never told a direct, blatant lie like those of Alan Jones or his sycophants John Howard and Tony Abbott:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvYzLIywCiA

@R0bert: Yes, agree all organisations must strive for accuracy.

“Why are those so outraged by Jones claimed hatred of women not even more outraged when government pushes a gender agenda?”

Fair question, R0bert. Probably because Jones’ misogyny is combined with so much fabrication and personal malice. And because he has succeeded in getting listeners to believe his lies are the truth.

@Cohenite. Why would that link be of interest to Justice Bromberg? Are the views of Anthony Mundine riddled with multiple malicious lies? Don’t think so.

Cheers, AA

AA,

As proven elsewhere, Julia Gillard did tell a direct blatant lie. The intent was shown in an interview where she said that she had always intended to put a price on carbon. (tax on carbon) Another was the East Timor solution that was promised prior to the election based on a single phone call.

Juliar Gillard would make Allan Jones look as pure as the driven snow.

Shadow Minister, Gillard has never been proven to have lied; where is your proof. If you want to prove something you need facts, evidence and a rational argument. You have nothing except your own 'spin' that is backed up by the delusional views of others on th is forum who feel very badly about the way the world is changing.

Speaking for myself, not all women, I am sorry that some of you blokes have been mistreated by individual women and I understand that you are now attempting to ameliorate that pain by paying out on all women.

It is a shame that you can't see the benefits of having women participate fully in our society. Thankfully there are enough men now who actually do see that women have something important and valuable to offer, so you don't really matter. The number of men, including my sons, who value a society that includes every person is increasing.

You can't 'win' this war you know; the war you are waging against 'the left' - which isn't the Labor party by any means - and against women being accorded equal rigthts. This boycott of Alan Jones may be 'politically' driven, but the huge numbers who signed the petition to stop Mr Jones's did not come from politically partisan people.

I know this because I was able to easily encourage my apolitical friends and relatives on facebook to sign, when for any 'political cause' they are not at all willing to be 'encouraged'.

These days the political is the personal and most of the young people I know believe that if we all behave well, things will get better. They, unlike you partisan fellas, see that both sides do it and that although the 'left' behaved badly in criticising Howard so personally, that doesn't make it ok for the 'right' to payback with even more venom and less reason.

Did you forget that two wrongs don't make a right?

Hello again,

@Mollydukes: I agree entirely. Just wish I could express it so eloquently.

@Shadow Minister: just wondering if you have had a chance to consider this treatise thoughtfully:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/why-julia-gillard-didnt-lie-about-her-carbon-tax-plans-before-election/story-e6frerdf-1226421929786

Pretty sure this will be on the reading list for the remedial broadcaster classes the 2GB lads have to attend.

On the same topic, SM, what do you understand as the justification for John Howard, before the 1998 election, to say he wanted the GST to on the Coalition’s platform, when he had specifically promised earlier that "there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy ... Never ever, it's dead.”?

We know Ms Gillard had a cliffhanger election, a hung Parliament, a bunch of ornery Independents and the unyielding Greens forcing her to change her carbon price position in 2010.

But what forced John Howard to to change his GST position in 1998, before the election?

Thanks, SM.

Cheers, AA

AA and MD,

There are always more than one accepted definition of a word. This definition also applies:

"A fifth alternative definition of lying avoids the objection that an intention to deceive an addressee is necessary for lying by dispensing with any intention to deceive addressee condition (Carson 2006). According to this definition, lying is not necessarily a form of intentional deception. In place of an intention to deceive an addressee, it substitutes two further necessary conditions, namely, that the context is one which warrants the truth of the untruthful statement to the addressee, and that the person who makes the untruthful statement does not take herself to be not warranting the truth of the untruthful statement to the addressee. It also adds a third necessary condition that the untruthful statement be false (falsity condition), and amends the untruthfulness condition slightly to allow that the statement can simply be not believed to be true:"

Conditions 1 and 2: Juliar emphatically and unconditionally made the statement "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" This meets the condition of warranting the truth of the untruthful statement to the addressee, and the second condition that the person who makes the untruthful statement does not take herself to be not warranting the truth of the untruthful statement to the addressee.
Condition 3, i.e that the statement was false is self evident.

Q.E.D Julia Gillard lied.

Shadow Minister, lol you hang on to that argument. It is a scary world for men who don't trust women and I do understand that your certainty about this one thing keeps you warm at night and gives you a reason to get up in the morning.

But... the Courier Mail article Alan linked to. Shadow Min, read it and move on; you've got nothing.

SM,

"Condition 3, ie, that the statement was false is self evident."

"The GST will never become part of Liberal Party Policy."

"...never, ever..." (John Howard)

What's the difference?

All,

There is a serious issue of credibility here – and it ain't about Ms Gillard.

Here’s Alan Austin on another recent thread telling us why we should NOT source material from the Murdoch press:

<< Never believe anything you read in any Murdoch publication, except sports results and arts reviews.[It's] Almost certainly untrue or seriously distorted>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13993#241885

But a short time later, on the current thread, we see Alan linking to the Murdoch owned Courier Mail to bolster his argument:

<<@Shadow Minister: just wondering if you have had a chance to consider this treatise thoughtfully:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/why-julia-gillard-didnt-lie-about-her-carbon-tax-plans-before-election/story-e6frerdf-1226421929786 >>

And in this case, I don’t think Alan can point to any extenuating circumstances like needing to form a coalition -–to quote Graham Richardson it's more a case of “whatever it takes”.

Yes, I'm afraid so; it is evident that Alan is a mouthpiece for the ALP and therefore slots right in with the other political cowboys [or in Poirot's case, cowgirls] who comment.

The attention to Jones is grotesquely disproportionate compared to the destruction which the Gillard government is doing to this country and the defects in her personal history and her egregious values make Jone's character defects seem like minor skin blemishes.

A Murdoch newspaper giving support to the ALP, its enough to have the rightwingers buying the "Green Left !

Poirot the most important difference is that the Australian people had a chance to vote on the outcome of that change of mind before we got the consequences. Howard went to an election with the GST spelt out as policy and as far as I'm aware it was implemented as close to the announced policy as they could get through, some exemptions but mostly the announced package. Despite years of Labor scare mongering to the contrary there were no mid term hikes in the rates of GST either.

Most of us have had reason to have a change of mind at times, sometimes despite some really strong earlier certainty. That parts normal, the part that makes the difference in the kind of person we are is how thats dealt with. Howard gave the voters a chance to have their say before the GST became part of law and government revenues, Julia told us there would not be a carbon tax in a government lead by her in the lead up to an election and introduced a carbon tax in a government lead by her without going to the polls.

I don't mind a change of mind as long as the one changing their mind does not then take advantage of that to the detriment of others. Btw, Newmans failure to honour his commitments about not sacking public servants would appear to be in the same category, he should not have not made the committment if he was not prepared to keep it or go back to the polls if he could not keep it.

Changes not announced at an election but not denied in the lead up to the election are a tougher question, the warning for politicians wanting to impliment big policy initiatives that were not announced might be the electoral fate of Howard.

R0bert

RObert,

Yes, I appreciate that aspect.

But SM is going to the purity of statement - and I can see no appreciable difference between his undertaking and that of Julia Gillard's in that respect.

Drat!

To clarify:

That should be "...and I can see no appreciable difference between "Howard's" undertaking and that of Julia Gillard's in that respect."

Good morning all.

The plot thickens …

Destroy the Joint now has 20,000+ supporters, including former Prime Ministers. Advertisers abandoning Alan Jones are growing steadily.

Jones' hypocritical defensiveness continues to be exposed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSXPHm2dtO8

@Mollydukes and Poirot: Agree. Well put.

@SPQR: Almost but not quite. I’ve never said we shouldn’t “source” or read Murdoch articles. Just that we shouldn’t pay for them, and shouldn’t believe them without external confirmation of veracity. There is a subtle difference, SPQR.

Exceptions are sports results and articles by George Megalogenis.

Actually there are sound reasons to read Murdoch publications sometimes. Last November Piers Akerman wrote in The Daily Telegraph, the Government “cannot point to a single major policy success".

Knowing Akerman almost always writes the opposite of the truth, I checked. Sure enough, that was the day after Australia gained its triple A credit rating for the first time ever. And the week The New York Times reported “Australia’s economy has been booming” and “during the global financial crisis, Australia, unlike many Western economies, registered modest growth, a trend that has since accelerated.”

So that was handy.

@Cohenite: you are doing it again. I’m arguing for decency, honesty, truthfulness, transparency and integrity – and you accuse me of defending the values of the Labor Party.

Hmmm.

@R0bert and Shadow Minister: The question remains: What is the justification for John Howard, before the 1998 election, to put the GST back on the Coalition’s platform, when he had specifically promised that "there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy ... Never ever, it's dead.”?

We know Ms Gillard had a cliffhanger election, a hung Parliament, a bunch of ornery Independents and the unyielding Greens forcing her to change her carbon price position in 2010.

What forced John Howard to abandon his promise before the 1998 election?

The point of this unanswerable question, of course, is that all leaders break commitments, some with more justification than others. But these are not lies.

The problem Australia has with liars is analysed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk

Cheers, AA

@Alan Austin,

<< I’ve never said we shouldn’t “source” or read Murdoch articles. Just that we shouldn’t pay for them, and shouldn’t believe them without external confirmation of veracity. There is a subtle difference,>>

Alan, you said [QUOTE] : << Never believe anything you read in any Murdoch publication…>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13993#241885

<<NEVER BELIEVE>> (without qualification)

Now because you think you’ve found something in a Murdoch publication that supports one of your pet theories you’re asking SM to BELIEVE it.

Tell us again, why was it they banished you to Transalpine Gaul?
It wasn’t on account of being a slippery character was it?

"Cohenite: you are doing it again. I’m arguing for decency, honesty, truthfulness, transparency and integrity – and you accuse me of defending the values of the Labor Party."

Yes Alan; one of these 2 alligned, in your mind, factors is wrong. Let's look:

"Labor party".

"I’m arguing for decency, honesty, truthfulness, transparency and integrity".

Which one is wrong?

I don't think there is any honesty or transparency or integrity in Destroy the Joint or its activities.

I also think your litany of complaints about Jones are, with one exception, either trivial, or based on a disagreement by you of a legitimate stance taken by Jones, as for example your complaint and one upheld by ACMA that Jones villified the Lebanese community; the Lebanese community did play an active part in the disgraceful retaliatory activity in that event. I think Jones' comments about that involvement were justified.

The one exception is Jones and cash for comment; he deserved to be hauled over the coals for that one.

But as I say, all your other examples deal with issues which are trivial or because Jones has a view point which you and others of the left disagree with.

Nothing the Labor party has done since it came to power has had anything to do with "decency, honesty, truthfulness, transparency and integrity", so when I allign you with the Labor party it means I think your article has little to do with "decency, honesty, truthfulness, transparency and integrity" either.

It's a political statement; are you an ALP or Greens supporter?

Morning all,

Well, some advertisers who told Destroy the Joint they had left Alan Jones are sneaking back. Some claim ads were run against their express wishes. But who really knows?

Looks like the Destroyers will ramp up their campaign.

@SPQR: Thanks for the clarification.

I like this quote (source unknown):

“Never believe anything you read in a Murdoch publication. Should you read something you know to be true, you must begin to doubt it at once.”

Actually, SPQR, my earlier quip to which you refer was not exactly “<<NEVER BELIEVE>> (without qualification)”, was it?

Here’s the paragraph:

“A couple of tips, SPQR: One of your sources was The Australian. Never believe anything you read in any Murdoch publication, except sports results and arts reviews. Almost certainly untrue or seriously distorted.”

So, in context, there was some qualification. But I think you understand me.

@Cohenite: Re “I don't think there is any honesty or transparency or integrity in Destroy the Joint or its activities.”

You will find their ethical position here, Anthony:

http://www.facebook.com/DestroyTheJoint/info

There’s a link to their commenting guidelines, which are rigidly enforced.

This is their new website: http://www.destroythejoint.org/

Re: the “litany of complaints about Jones”, have you accessed the links, Anthony? These provide fairly compelling prima facie evidence for the complaints. No?

Try listening to this in its entirety:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUSYkrReu2U&feature=endscreen&NR=1

This shows how Jones views charity work, his colleagues and audience. And, towards the end, what he really thinks about his advertisers.

Plenty more evidence of workplace bullying and misogyny. Some posted earlier here.

Re: “ALP or Greens supporter?” I’m not a member of any party and don’t vote in Australia any more.

Some Greens policies are sound. That's true of all parties.

Labor is succeeding in economic management, social justice, foreign affairs, the environment, ministerial integrity and extensive reform despite being in a minority. It is also commended worldwide for its stance on sexism. But I think it has failed Indigenous people and asylum seekers, as argued elsewhere.

Your earlier alignment of Labor with "decency, honesty, truthfulness, transparency and integrity", Anthony, seems pretty right.

Cheers, AA

You are hopeless Alan; I listened to that stupid YouTube of selected quotes from Jones; I nearly fell off my chair laughing when he blamed the loss to the All Blacks on the Indiana Jones movie frightening his team.

You will find their ethical position here, Anthony:

Yet they are strangely silent on the Credlin jokes. In fact he media is deathly silent on the exact joke. Must have been bad.