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.