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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

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

Psychosexual treatment of Alan Jones relies on rumours : Comments

By David Flint, published 31/10/2006

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

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
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.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 4:31:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 4:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Liam, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:01:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"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.
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 6:10:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by w, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 7:09:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by PK, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 7:28:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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