People who strut the public stage must expect “intrusions” into their lives. It does David Flint no credit to seek to defend the loudmouth, thoroughly obnoxious Jones who should be able to defend himself if he feels the need.

No mature person with a life of their own to lead would be the slightest bit interested in paying for a book by a mediocre reporter about another media boofhead.

For once I agree with Leigh, except for the bit about the usual quality of Masters' journalism. Also, I expect that the book will be interesting reading: not so much for its revelations about the odious parrot, but rather in its description of the extent of his influence.

As for this - Flint: "...Jones's constant flaying of the rich and powerful..." - surely that's the sort of thing the parrot would like to keep private? Mind you, I'd like to know whom among the "rich and powerful" it is that Jones "constantly flays"... ;)

Maybe Masters could write a biography of the fragrant professor as his next project?

David you are on the public record as a supporter of Alan Jones. How can your defence of Jones be seen as anything other than biased? This book will do little to damage Jones.

It happens to be an interesting book for precisely the reason that CJ Morgan has given. Jones' influence is extraordinary. Especially so when you consider how blatantly (designedly?) ignorant he is on so many topics.

Who Cares,

Its been pulled off the shelves because they realised they where out of line and Jones had them over a barrel on some things that where unproven that they where attempting to publish.

Forget the legal standing, it is wrong for someone to write a book on you without your permission, unless your dead. If someone is a leech enough to write a book on you without your permission attempting to profit, they are lowlifes.

I am 25, not located in Sydney and too young to be a listener or a fan of Alan Jones, but good on you Alan for sticking it to him when he was out of line. You dont have to put up with that crap.

Mr.Flint
Methinks he doth protest too much.

I am in harmony with many here.

Flint comes to the aid of JOnes too often - however Masters made a mistake when he dealt with Jones sexuality in the manner he did - which surprises me as I think he is a fine journalist ( if Leigh thinks he is mediocre let us know the name of a better one).

Most Australians dont care overly much about his or any ones sexuality - inspite of some discriminatory legislation - we are too out come focused to worry about who does what with whom.

I think he can talk about it sure - describe the nature of the relationship with young men as best he can objectively - we'll draw our own conclusions - ( those who bother to buy extraordinarily over priced books in this country ) - he had no need to as Bolters stated to go down the nudge nudge wink wink path -

although I must admit I tihnk the former leader of the National parties revelations about Jones conduct does give some weight to Masters' inferences.

The saddestr thing about shock jocks and indeed some of the more polemic opiners in the press is that they foster an environment where the average punter abbrogateds his responsibiltiy to think for themselves - the commentators sum up the arguement and the mug punter regurgitates all over the place - like in these pages for example

Alan Jones' sexuality has never been much of a secret. I certainly have known of his sexuality since the his coaching days of the Wallabies back in the 80's where he was well and truely "outed".

Much fuss about nothing new.

Leigh would be a Bolt type I think.
Well Mr Flint why stop now you've been caught with your pants down before when it come to Mr Jones.

Flint has shown himself to be too close to Jones in the past to be able to objectively assess any criticism whether by Masters or any one else. It is about time Flint came out of the closet as well.

Oh! David, on your belly grovelling once again to big Al, don't you have any shame at all? regards, numbat

I'm certainly no fan of Jones. When Flint describes him as a "Renaissance man" I immediately thought of Machiavelli. But having got a quarter of the way through Masters' book, I have to agree that the amateur psychoanalysis of Jones' character based on his sexual preference is pretty tiresome and dumb. Maybe things will get better as the book progresses, but at this stage I don't reckon that biography is Masters' strong suit.

As one who was once told by a seasoned traveller in Greece that I was the only bloke he had ever known who could get away with wearing pink pants, it is interesting to contrast the responses of the Gucci left to Master's outing of Jones and a parliamentarian's outing of a certain Judge a few short years back. Back then the cognoscenti were outraged at such a low attack on the sexuality of the "progressive" judge and they made their collective distaste plain to anyone who would listen.

Where are the same people now? Could there be one moral standard for "fellow travellers" and another for "class enemies" like AJ? When can we expect Master's trial by media?

No surprises here, either in the reproduction of Professor Flint's Australian article or in the comments.

It would be useful, though, if posters were to preface their comments with "I have read Jonestown, and..." or "I have not read Jonestown, but..."

We would then be able to distinguish between those who have formed their opinions based on the media commentary, and those who have done so on the actual material.

Part of the problem is that the vast majority of people will be in the former category, where the real criticism should more properly be directed at the Fairfax excerpts, which I can accept are heavily biased to the sexual angle.

All Prof. Flint has done is to scour the book's 400+ pages for the isolated examples that support his case that the book places unnecessary emphasis on Jones' sexuality, and put them together in one paragraph in order to support this impression.

In doing so, he is complicit in the fiction that this is all that the book has to say - a fiction that I would imagine Mr Jones, on balance, fully supports. In fact, given the relationship, I would expect that Flint's article has been endorsed, supported, or even initiated by Jones, as part of reputational damage control.

After all, it is no sin to be homosexual, so it is far better to blow up that aspect and "cop the plea", and draw attention away from the multitude of other - greater - iniquities that the book brings into the open.

I bought the book because it interests me how such an obviously flawed character, amongst other things a proven and unashamed purveyor of cash-for-comment, has reached the position of significant influence over our daily lives that he clearly has. For example, how he has affected the policing of NSW - and therefore our security - with his personal vendettas and playing of favourites.

I couldn't give a flying fig about his sexual orientation, but given that it has been an open secret for so many years, Masters would have been lax if he had ignored it.

At least Flinty is openly gay, but rushing to defend a guy who has been convicted more than once for contempt of court and defamation is a bit rich.

If it is OK for Jones to defame others why has he not brought an action against Masters?

He cannot, he will need to admit he is a homosexual and the 45% of his radio audience who think homosexuality is immoral will end his radio career.

Sad man but at least he has Flinty as a freind, the same freind who had to resign from too many inquiries due to conflicts of interest.

Its telling the number of Howard grovellers coming out to attack Masters for looking behind the Jones facade.. at least Flint does a better job than Andrew Bolt (damn with faint praise). Decades of homophobic bile provide ample reason to air all of Jones laundry, and the syncronised reactions of Liberal hangers-on confirm that Jones sits very high on the fagging-tree of neoliberal power in Australia.

Which for anyone worried about elite paedophilia/'boy love' in Australia is a very scary thought.

Strange that Nobody is drawing parallels with the dozens of publicly conservative US Republicans convicted of paedophile offences, Mark Foley being merely the most topical..
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals

I suppose thats a bridge too far for the sheltered workshop that is the mainstream media in Australia.

"comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable".

But only the comfortable not sensible enough to pass bulging brown paper bags his way. Jones is an insult to fine parrots everywhere.

Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of the book, if it tones him down a little it will have performed a great service.

I’ve been struggling with this one ever since David Marr was first into print with the confirmation that Jones is gay http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/talk-about-power-iheraldi-preview/2006/10/08/1160246011393.html

On the one hand, Jones’ outing has been greeted with a thunderous yawn – possibly news to some hermits, for most of us revealing Jones’ sexual preference has been utterly inconsequential. Frankly, no damage has been done to the man by revealing he’s gay.

Personally, I think that every gay person should be out. Remaining in the closet forces individuals into a life of contrived secrecy, and damages all other homosexuals by creating the impression that there is something shameful in being gay. In fact, there’s something shameful in allowing the world to go on assuming that you’re heterosexual, because you’re withholding all information to the contrary.

However, just as strongly I believe that coming out is a personal decision – it’s up to individuals to decide if and how to reveal their sexuality.

Jones has always vigorously defended his privacy with respect to his sexuality, and irrespective of his other sins, he is entitled to keep his private affairs to himself.

Outing him would have been justified if he were a homosexual actively campaigning against, say, homosexual rights, but this is not the case. As far as I am aware, Jones has always studiously avoided being drawn into gay rights issues. With respect to his sexuality at least, he’s not a hypocrite.

On balance I’d say that the other failings (enormous though they are) do not give Masters a justification for overriding Jones’ clear wish for his sexuality to remain secret.

In fact, it’s probably unfortunate that the book did reveal Jones’ sexuality, because it has allowed all the usual pitbull commentators to condemn the book as a tawdry collection of innuendoes. Jones’ venality, his pettiness, his bullying, and his disproportionate and corrupting influence on our politicians are issues which urgently need to be aired in public. Instead, they are being drowned out by his supporters, whining (with some justification) about how unfairly he’s been outed.

Oh, and as for the book – haven’t read it

I agree, Pericles - comment on 'Jonestown' is much more relevant from those who have read it, as I have, but I wonder whether Prof Flint has. If he had, he would surely have to admit that the book is very substantially about the power and influence Alan Jones wields through his position in the media and links with politicians and others, and the way it is wielded. The book is over 400 pages and the passages related to Jones's sexuality wouuld probably total about 10 pages. Yet, they are the passages that supporters of Jones , like Flint, have focused on in an attempt to discredit the book, ignoring the book's substance in the process.

Far from being just a hatchet job on Jones, the book acknowledges his brilliance as a sporting coach and the good works that Jones does. But it also describes the dark side of Jones' influence, such as Jones' major role in the downfall of NSW Police Commissioner Peter Ryan and Chief Supt Clive Small, and the setback that those losses had on the rebuilding of the Police after the Wood Royal Commission. In that saga, Jones placed total faith in the beliefs of a disgruntled former junior officer whose almost every assertion has been discredited. Jones also supported the convicted wife murderer Andrew Kalazich, forcing an expensive judicial enquiry into his conviction, with the result that the conviction was resoundingly supported. No-one but Jones could have triggered this wasteful exercise, operating under the narrow influence of Kalazich's defence team.

The book details the grubby cash for comments saga, that OLO readers might recall was investigated by the statutory authority that Flint used to head, and where Flint was forced to stand down from the inquiry because of perception of bias towards the suspect broadcasters Jones and Laws.

There is so much more to this book, Prof Flint. Perhaps you should take off the blinkers and read it.

Sounds like Chris Masters yearns the power and fame of Jones.Tall poppy syndrome?Why else would Masters attack his sexual orientation with such vigor? This attack on his sexuality really is the ammunition of a coward.

Alan Jones is no saint,however before passing judgement on anyone in public life,we have to weigh up all the positives and negatives.

Peter Ryan destroyed the NSW Police Force and we in NSW are presently suffering from Ryan's incompetence.That is the irrefutable reality.You put in systems based on evolution;Ryan went for revolution and we suffered chaos.Revolution pre-supposes that all existing systems are useless and Ryan promilgated the slash and burn mentality.What a debacle!

Chris Masters did not attack Jones' homosexuality; he merely threw this into the mix of his analysis in the book as it could not be avoided. His sexuality plays a pivotal role in his public life past and present. It always has, always will. Denying it is simply foolish.

It’s who they are, its part of their biological humanity.

How could you write a book about Alan Jones and not discuss his obvious non-heterosexuality? No kids or a girlfriend is not big deal but it does need an explanation of some sort. There’s no such thing as having no sexuality at all (which is what attackers of Masters want to believe it seems)

David Flint came out of the closet some years ago So what? Why is he locking the closet door on one of his best 'mates'?

Comon Gloria, we Lefties are more open minded and accepting than your conservative buddies. Yes being gay and right wing will be difficult but you’ll have plenty of supportive company. Leave David home if he insists on sulking.

You are wrong about Peter Ryan Arjay. When the Wood Royal Commission uncovered the full extent of corruption, and complicity with it, that existed in the NSW Police Force, nothing less than a revolution was required to deal with it, which Ryan did admirably. Ryan was hired to perform that role because no-one senior in the Force at the time could be trusted with the job. Jones' actions in forcing out Clive Small, one of the best crook-catchers NSW has ever seen, was really reprehensible. The force was in recovery mode at the time of Ryan's departure, however there will always be disgruntled officers in the wake of such a revolution, and those are the voices Jones chose to listen to, rejecting any other views.

It's his usual MO 'pick and stick', right or wrong. It wouldn't matter except that politicians listen to Jones and do what he wants.

Your accusation that Masters' book was 'professional jealousy' was a shallow, cheap shot. Masters is the most respected journalist in Australia, the one most admired in the profession. He has no reason to be jealous of anyone.

Thanks PK, my thoughts exactly.

I often wondered why AJ had taken so heavily against Ryan, whose entire career was based on the premise that the police force needed to clear itself of corruption before it could realistically combat crime.

But that was not his only concern.

In 1999 he went back to the UK to be interviewed for the position of Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police. Associated Newspapers reported it thus:

"Peter Ryan... told the country's leading police officers today that getting rid of corrupt policemen was dealing only with part of the problem, when some of the leading people in society were also involved."

Given the range of Alan Jones' friends, and his "pick and stick" mentality, one has to wonder whether one of the "leading people in society" had put the word in his ear that Ryan was getting too close.

Or perhaps it was just because Ryan was a Pommy policeman, and brought back too many unpleasant memories.

Well here we have Soapy Flint complaining about what he calls the psychothexual treatment of his favourite cash for commenths, The Parrot, whom he describes as some sort of "true renaissance man". Quite hillarious and a bit of a soap opera to say the least. How can anyone take Soapy Flint seriously? However, one wonders where that "true renaissance man" description comes from when all we get from The Parrot is an emotional, trashy, aggressively ignorant, hate radio show that incites the redneck element. 'Corse the redneck element doesn't comprehend that shockjocks like The Parrot are living out of their pockets with their advertising drivel.

The Parrot is not hamstrung in the manner of the censorship placed on our ABC as the Government goes about silencing dissent, but if he rates big time it is because he simply sees radio as the true medium of the dictator, the dictator of the loud voice.

ps Caught The Parrot on ch9 this morning ........ he doesn't look the picture of health one would expect from a "true renaissance man" .......... I'd say he has serious high blood pressure problems.

Hi there...
Gee, this subject has certainly generated some interest! I have purchased the 'Jonestown' book, but have not yet read it. Although I do know a little of Alan Jones and his work. And I am aware of the journalistic quality and style of Chris Masters too.

Some years ago I was not 'travelling' very well at all. I'm a veteran and a retired copper. I now reside in Melbourne, and have done so for the past 10 years, since my medical retirement from the police force.

At the time in question, I was in quite a 'state', and was in a fairly serious emotional mess. The Repat. Hospital called it PTSD. For some very strange reason, I wrote to Jones, and essentially poured my heart out. He wouldn't know me from Adam. Neither was I a listener of his programme. Naturally, I was not expecting any reply to my written ramblings and whinging, and promptly forgot about it. A couple of weeks later, when I was an In-patient at the Repat. Hospital, my wife during visiting hours, bought me a letter, and the letter was from Alan Jones! In it (it was two typed pages long)he urged me to look at life quite differently, injecting many positive thoughts and suggestions on ways to combat depression et al. I was absolutely 'gobsmacked'! Imagine my surprise when a follow-up letter arrived, some two weeks later. Again, speaking of positive things and offering many stratagies to help overcome the normal pressures of modern life. He also sent me two really beautiful CDs too.

I don't know what Jones has done or hasn't done. Whether he's Gay or straight...cash for comment, or no comment. But I do know absolutely, that he's a very real human being, with an enormous heart, and a great capacity to help another. As I said herein, he wouldn't know me from Adam - Yet he did what he did ! I say "God bless you Alan Jones, and thank you so very much for what you did for me".

Cheers...O Sung Wu.

O Sung wu, they are standard letters he sends everyone. Sorry to break your heart.

Just the other day my neighbour told me how she despised Alan Jones and considered him to be a dangerous man.With a few short questions I found out that she had never listened to his programme on 2GB and being the good old retired lefty school teacher had passed judgement without any facts or intellectual rigor.

Regardless of our political differences,I still installed all her smoke detectors for free and loaned her a fridge when hers failed.

You see Rainer,even though all you weak kneed lefties cry foul too often,the real producers in our society will still provide sustenance,even though you and your ilk continually bite the hand that feeds you.

Nice story, Arjay. It says something about you and your neighbour, but not about Jones or the 'Jonestown' book. Taking after Pericles' first post, can you tell us whether you have read 'Jonestown'? No, don't worry, I'm sure you have. You'd never be like that neighbour who had a view about AJ without listening to him, would you?

PS, I've helped my neighbour, an elderly widow, too. I have no idea whether she is a leftie or listens to AJ. Wouldn't matter. I gather that your last para is tongue in cheek. Humour on OLO, well done.

Congratulations Arjay, it appears that you’ve now entered the hard-nosed world of politics in a big way.

That you ruthlessly interrogated a little old lady to ascertain if she did or did not listened to Gloria on the wireless is just rat cunning to me. Was this conditional on whether or not you did some chores for her? What a charmer!

It’s simply a breathtaking demonstration of how to politically wrong-foot a struggling pensioner. But wait, that’s not all.

Your intentions were much more sophisticated it seems. You psycho analysed this unsuspecting lady to reveal (for our humble benefit) that she had Leftist/Bolshevik/ perhaps even communist ideological sentiments!! What a great accomplishment! What a merciless political sleuth you are! I’m in awe of your powers of persuasion and deduction. Bravo!

-

But hang on - has it ever occurred to you that your dear old neighbour might just be politically astute enough to determine that Jones wasn’t worth listening to twice, let alone once?

As for your hand-biting feeders quip, I’ll put my own personal work history and that of my family up against you and yours any day. Let’s see who worked and struggled and who profiteered from unearned privileges. Ready when you are

Oh Gord, the Alan Jones thing. David Marr and half of Oxford St, most of Macquarie Street and even half of Tamworth knew about Alan Jones' escapes, it's just that it's too nauseating to think about.

I certainly hope he is not gay. How embarrassing for the gay community! Haven't they suffered enough?

The problem with the "Nouveau Royales" is that they tend to be the Swiss guard in covering up libertine indulgences for the rich and powerful. People in this country are either too frightened, stupid, or careless to want to know the truth. Such a public figure who has a reputation of probing private lives cannot in turn expect his private life to be treated any differently. If Allan Jones wants his private life protected so much, then it would serve him well to stay out of the private lives of so many ordinary people and innocent people: he loves to bully. We are not talking about an innocent victim here, we are talking about a pit-bull terrier.

In this country, we have expert brown nosers. They so elegantly crawl and grovel to crown and establishment with more ease than a dung Beatle in an abattoirs.

Jones has no respect for privacy--deserves no respect in kind. No one is really interested in this old fat comb-over and his whizzer in local dunnies at train stations or football locker rooms. Apparently children are involved. It is just that he is such a tired old bore.

Likewise, Flintstone must be ready for the glue factory by now. I hear we have a shortage of fossil fuels.

Too right saintfletcher, nobody cares if the 'fat old comb over' is gay. But nobody has the guts to consider that kids are involved - thats not homosexuality, its paedophilia, still illegal in this country, even if shockingly common among rightwing fundamentalists and routinely played down by media and politicians.
Any Public Prosecutor with morals or ambition has a unique opportunity.

-

Arjay, don't let the critics get you down. Your talent to assessing the political correctness of neighbours will be a rewarding sideline in this Fourth Reich

Yea, in Godwin we trust. And verily, he giveth us the law, and that law letteth us not down. Reductio ad Hitlerum!

Good afternoon to you Rainier...
Whilst in the process of attempting to repair my 'shattered heart', I came to the realization that your enormous interlect is essentially lost to all of society. Your inate ability to tease out complex solutions, on matters of macro significants, in such vital areas as law and order, justice and other social issues, is absolutly remarkable. And, I've noticed that some foolish and less erudite contributers to this august forum, have had the temerity to even question your views. And they've mistakingly asserted that, in reality, your're simply a sarcastic, poisonous little (figuratively of course) know all. Who only has the capacity to engage other contributers with bile and invective, instead of producing a valued opinion, yet preserving the dignity and respect for the opinions and views of others.

I quiver at the thought that I should ever fall foul of your formidable perspicacity. Lest I too be challenged to..." see who worked and struggled and who profiteered from unearned privileges (sic)..."! Heavens, I wouldn't dare to try and usurp your position with those great thinkers on high. I certainly don't wish to be banished to a fate of ignominy, in the twilight of my life. So Rainier, I shall adopt the 'prone' position and crawl away to a place of safety.

Cheers...O Sung Wu.

Now look what's happened. The comments have gotten all personal, poisonous and nasty. It's starting to sound like a radio talkback show.

Eloquently spoken, especially for an ex-policeman.

I did want to ask you why 'apropos' do you code switch between quasi lawyerly jargon and Standard English? It doesn’t become you at all.

You might have noticed that I was responding to Arjay's barb, but you're very welcome to join the party. More the merrier.

But please don’t go to the trouble of crawling away to a place of safety. I'm sure the rock you live under is shelter enough. Regards,

Rainer,Alan Jones answers most his emails personally.If you had an an original thought or the intellect to catch his attention,you too might actually learn something.I've received many emails from him over the last few years.He has an enormous intellect and memory to match.

I think that in many ways he is a lonely,tortured individual,full of ambiguities,compassionate,disciplined,generous,hard task master,arrogrant,and seeks power like most of us insecure humans.He ,however makes a difference,and that's what sticks uneasily in Chris Masters' gullet, who yearns Alan Jones' power and status.

Whether or not Alan Jones has put himself into a position of having too much power,can be debated,but he is resonating with a large percentage of the electorate, much to yours and other lefty dinosaurs' chagrin.

Arjay, you say 'I've received many emails from him (AJ) over the last few years'. Explains a lot about your far right tory position here on OLO. Not something you should boast about, though. In a lot of people's opinion, there is more than a faint stench coming from that direction these days.

Yes, AJ makes a difference, but too often to the detriment of NSW and Australia but possibly to the benefit of AJ and a small coterie of his mates.

Since you have avoided saying so, I think it is safe to assume you have not read "Jonestown". If you are so interested in the topic, why not take the obvious step of informing yourself properly, and refrain from comment about it until you have done so? Or do you prefer to shoot from the hip like the man himself?

I love it. Every time Flinty bobs his head up, WHACK. Keep it up posters, maybe we can whack him to oblivion.

PK,we are not all non-discerning suck ups who wait with baited breath upon all Jones' utterances.Just today he suggested that we should drop the company tax to that of Ireland ie from 40% to 12%.Now Ireland has been booming over the last 10 yrs when it invested in education and lowered taxes.Now if companies pay almost no tax,that means the workers have to pay for all the infrastructure,education and services,while the multi-nationals cruise the planet searching for the lowest tax regieme.The difference being is that Ireland has no natural resources to sell,so they have fewer options but they are close to an enormous European market.

Now Alan Jones also takes umbridge to the lowering of tarrifs for our farmers,the loss of IT jobs to India and the demise of our manufacturing.Global Capital without the moderating influences of Unions is just playing one country off against the other.What doesn't stand up in his argument is that if we lower company taxes to that of Ireland, we will have to increase personal taxes to pay for all the non productive pollies and their public servants.No one mentions the need to reform the size and efficiencies of our bloated bureaucracies.

Globalisation through the share market is condensing more wealth in fewer hands.There needs to be a better way of sharing wealth than through taxation and Govt handouts.Presently we are all slaves to the power of Global capital,we have flogged off everything Australian for instant gratification.Why not have a long term plan to create our own capital and be masters of our own destinies?

No I don't believe in a totally laisse faire free market,but I also despise too much Govt regulation and control.We seem to have a contradiction of international,preditor Globalisation,and domestic over regulation with high taxes.

Thanks, Arjay. I confess that I may have misjudged you and that you are in fact more open minded and less ideologically driven than I gave you credit for. So, where do you think a reasonable compromise between a totally free market and a command economy may lie?

We're off the topic so I'll be brief.All our international sports have a set of rules to make competition fair.International business in regards to employer/employee relationships or taxes they should be contributing to infrastructure have no such rules.People in poor countries have no bargaining power.We will see India take more of our IT jobs.With energy and resources getting scarcer and more expensive,only the really wealthy will live well.

Since we will have to develop international laws to save our environment,why not also develop international laws that will make the Multi Nationals more responsible in paying their employees enough to save and pay corporate taxes for education and infrastructure?Just a few basic rules without all the red tape will create this illusionary level playing field that the economic rationalists boast about.

It is interesting that Ireland is one of the fasted growing economies in the world It is also a signatory to Kyoto, and has one of the most centralised and regulated industrial relations systems in Europe.

Their system seems to work, but, alas, our is becoming dysfunctional and industries are actually leaving the country.

On second thoughts, one thing I will give AJ credit for is that I can't remember a time when he has mentioned a homophobic comment. Someone may like to enlighten my memory. Laws: yes. AJ: I can't remember.

Fint had one point that it is wrong to pick on flamboyant clothes and large personalities.

When those flamboyant personalities bully vulnerable people and do not respect privacy in the first place, however, this is where we have a problem with the need for privacy argument that Flint calls for.

We all follow the same standard rules and laws.

Arjay - not in fundamnetal disagreement with what you say, but third world labour is at a severe disadvantage so any international agreements would have to avoid locking that disadvantage in. I'm not convinced that jobs going from here to India is all bad - as India becomes more prosperousw it in turn can make a greater contribution to world prosperity - what goes around comes around.

What about this - an international agreement to put a 1% tax (or more) on all money market transactions. The money goes into the World Bank for sustainable development projects. The tax might act as a deterrent to the wild money market speculation that contributes nothing positive to world trade or economics as far as I can tell. Any country that provides a tax haven for money market speculators suffers severe trade sanctions. Reckon it would work?

Correct, fletch. Jones doesn’t make anti-gay remarks, and to my knowledge he has avoided commenting on gay rights issues. An apparent contrast: according to Phillip Adams, “When the Seven Network repeatedly branded [the late Sydney lawyer, John] Marsden a pedophile, Jones, to his credit, took up Marsden's cause.” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,20671925-12272,00.html

And Arjay, yes, you’re right. Jones is as entitled as the next man to express his opinions on fair trading, globalisation, or any other issue he cares to take up. The problem that Masters is trying to explore in his book is that Jones exercises disproportionate influence on our politicians. Regardless of your view on the sale of the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Scheme, Jones’ influence on the decision to block it is of urgent public interest. His sinister role in the lead-up to the Cronulla riots needs to be examined publicly, and the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Authority has been sitting on its report into this matter since June is, on the face of it, very disturbing.

As I said above, because Masters has outed Jones (and done so using snide, borderline-homophobic references to Jones and schoolboys), attention has been diverted from the really important issues in the book to the utterly inconsequential fact of his homosexuality.

Objecting to a school teacher salviating over school boys IS NOT HOMOPHOBIA, its paedophobia, and last time i look that has law and public opinion on its side.
Its horrifying that so many want to smudge the lines.

Citing Ireland as some exemplar of the free market shows hilarious ignorance, the EU pumped tens of billions in structural adjustment funding over 1983?-late 1990's, which combined with tax holidays and direct grants (bludging for billionaires) created the appearance of a post industrial economy. Now all the grants and tax holidays are/have dried up and the multinationals are packing their capital up and shipping it off to China (the economically rational thing to do). RightThink always has been a fact free zone.

OK. Settle Liam, settle.

Masters’ accounts of Jones’ dealings with his students border on homophobic (note the use of the word “border”) because they reinforce a primitive notion that if a man is homosexual, then any attention he pays to a younger male is sexual. A heterosexual male teacher going the extra few yards to get the girls’ soccer team into the grand final would never be subjected to this kind of innuendo. It would even be unremarkable if once or twice that heterosexual coach took a second glance at the backside of one of his charges.

Masters finds it acceptable to leave the most damaging inferences dangling, by providing hearsay evidence, a letter found in a desk, and entirely innocent photos of Jones with his students. Heaven help the male homosexual coach if his eye ever went roving.

Although there are lots of Jones’ ex-students (including the former Deputy Prime Minister) saying that he was a pretty unpleasant character, not one of them has claimed that Jones ever acted illegally, or even improperly towards them.

The borderline homophobia comes in when it’s permissible to apply one standard to heterosexuals, and another to homosexuals. In my view, this is what Masters appears to be doing to Jones.

That said, I hate the fact that I’m defending Jones, because I really do believe he’s an unredeemably repulsive character. It will be difficult to prove criminal liability for inciting the events at Cronulla last December, but I believe he bears a heavy moral responsibility for what happened there.

His comments, particularly in relation to the courts, regularly go to the edge of what’s legally permissible. If not this one http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jones-on-contempt-charge-over-witness/2006/11/03/1162340049846.html I hope that pretty soon one of his sprays will get him into big trouble.

w, yes that's one way of reading Master's references to Jones' homosexuality. This exerpt from the ABC 7.30 Report interview with Masters suggests his intentions were honorable.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But how confidently can you lay that at the door of his sexuality, because when you look through the whole of the book, although you on a number of occasions refer to his sexuality, there is only one incident in the whole book where you actually go to any detail of a relationship or attempted relationship?

CHRIS MASTERS: Well, I think that was being responsible. I mean, I had my own rules about staying out of the bedroom and if I was going to deal with this issue of sexuality then there had to be a point to it. I just think that if you look at the pattern of behaviour, I'd be astonished if you could come to any conclusion that there's not a connection between the disguise of his sexuality and this constant habit of playing favourites. I don't know how else you would have dealt with the subject.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1771701.htm

Thanks for pointing out the obvious about Ireland Liam.

It is a typical piece of Jonesiana to paint one side of a complex picture in simple, populist terms, and then turn the tap of his invective against his chosen target. It is for this reason that I find him such an appalling poseur; he chooses only those targets that will amplify the "let me do your thinking for you" aspect of his ego.

At no stage does he consider an approach that concedes a single point to his opponent - no doubt this was good practice on the rugby field, but society at large is infinitely more complex.

The result is little short of intellectual fraud.

Incidentally, I noticed recently that Channel Nine still uses him on their Today programme. While everybody seems to have pinned the blame for its dying ratings on poor Jessica, is it possible that AJ has passed his use-by date, and is beginning to curdle?

Readers may care to look at Paul Sheahan’s piece in The Sydney Morning Herald today ( 6/11/06). His conclusion would be that of any fair- minded reader, including those who disagree with much or most of what Alan Jones says or does. Jonestown, he says, is so replete with “distortion, dishonour, innuendo, and caricature…” and so “built on a foundation of anonymous accusations, the most dubious tool of journalism “ that it is in fact “ … the work of an inquisitor, not a biographer.” He concludes that it is “ a monument to malice.” It “ is not a biography, it is a lynching.

If The Sydney Morning Herald’s celebrity loony-right journalist Paul “Dog Whistle” Sheehan says its not true. Then to my mind it is.

Or to put it another way, he would say that wouldn't he.

David sweetheart, gays come from all aspects of life. The problem is "some" queens forget they are a part of a derided community.

Perseus falsely claims that Justice Michael Kirby was "outed" in parliament by Senator Bill Heffernan, and implies that this is similar to what Chris Masters has done to Alan Jones. In actual fact, they are oceans apart.

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

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

The seriousness of Heffernan's actions cannot be credibly compared to Chris Masters' disclosure of Jones' sexuality. The absence of any credible defamation suit against Masters underscores this.

David Flint, I still have a suspicion that you have not read 'Jonestown'. You haven't taken the opportunity on this thread to clarify that point.

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

If there is a 'hatchet job' here, it is that attempted by Flint, Sheehan and other right wing warriors of the culture wars in defence of their ally, Jones.

Following on from my earlier comment http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5083#59979
I’ve finally finished Masters’ book, and my initial impression of his skills as a biographer were perhaps a little unfair. I have to admit I was pretty bored of the endless dissection of Jones’ performance as a school sports coach and especially in his career in rugby - an area of human endeavour I have not the slightest interest.

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

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

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

Jones, I think, is not an inherently bad man, and he is certainly not stupid or lazy. Narcissists are often energetic, charismatic doers. Where it becomes destructive, though, is when others start to believe the narcissist’s own self delusion. The question is whether alarm bells should be ringing about the kind of power Jones appears to have centralized on himself. Of particular concern is the disproportionate influence over the political process Jones seems to have acquired. Is this dangerous? Chris Masters’ choice of title, a reference to another narcissist called Jones, leaves us in little doubt as to the author’s views on that question.

I have not yet finished reading Jonestown. After flipping through it, I then started from the beginning and am about half way through.

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

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

When I watched the 4 Corners broadcast on Jonestown I was very critical of Masters for not mentioning homosexuality, and so far in the book I don't think he makes too much of an issue of it. I tend to agree that it's like "the elephant in the room" - you can't ignore it.