Dear Alan: Shut the Fuck Up
Alan Jones has a big mouth. A big, fat mouth that transmits inflammatory ideas at a high volume: stupid, ignorant ideas. It’s a big mouth that has swallowed whole political careers: he is a megaphone opinion-maker that makes NSW State politicians shudder in fear and federal politicians – all the way to the Prime Minister – dread his wrath.
He is the Dr Evil of the Australian media. If I were a more sophisticated writer, I’d avoid making the obvious physical comparisons – the bald shiny dome, the rotund, almost comical physique. But I’m not about to pretend to be sophisticated, anymore than Alan Jones can pretend to be insightful, politically balanced, physically attractive or hirsute. He’s a hyperventilating caricature of a radio host, a high-rent whinger and a first class master of hyperbole.
But all this doesn’t boggle my mind. He’s an entertainer after all, not a journalist, as he often reminds everyone whenever he gets in trouble for some on-air controversy. In his own words: “I don’t pretend to be a journalist and I don’t know what that means anyway”. No Alan, you don’t know what it means. It involves a modicum of intellectual rigour and balance to be a journalist. Anyway, I digress. So if he is prone to whinges long enough to find him in the Guinness book of records, then that’s his business. He’s in the entertainment industry, and a circus needs clowns.
What does boggle my mind is that Dr Evil has put himself into a position of speaking for the “Aussie battler”. Now how on earth did this come to pass? I just haven’t been able to figure it. He’s a multi- multi-multi-millionaire and part owner of 2GB radio station. Some reports put him as the highest-paid media personality in Australia. And he didn’t start poor either – growing up on a bucolic dairy farm in Queensland and boarding at Toowoomba Grammar. There’s no rags-to-riches story here. Let’s face it, the last time Jones saw Struggle Street was from the back of a chauffeur-driven Mercedes. So why does he get a free-pass presenting himself as champion of the dispossessed?
Nor is it clear to me why he has this enduring credibility with any viewer, ‘battler’ or no. I assume we all remember the ‘cash for comment’ scandal. You know, where he’d pimp certain organizations after they paid his radio station an exorbitant fee (“one MILLION dollars, muah ha hah”). You know, organizations like Qantas, Optus and some of the major Australian banks. More recently, we also know that his station admitted Alan Jones had invented numbers for effect when dismissing the science of global warning – as 2GB stated, the “…statement made by the presenter [about the low-level of CO2 in the atmosphere] is more a hyperbolic gesture to elucidate this opinion, rather than as a statement of scientific fact”. In other words, he was making stuff up. You will have also heard about the recent 'no-confidence convoy', led by Jones, that ended up drawing 400 rather than the promised 10,000 protestors. In this case, Jones rather bizarrely claimed that the police had stopped 'thousands' of trucks entering Canberra. More nonsense.
So we know the allegations that he can be bought, we know that he doesn’t pretend to aspire to journalistic ethics, and we know that he can make things up for effect, so why does he still have so many ardent supporters?
Politics aside, has he done something to win himself into the hearts the common man – sports perhaps? Rugby League is the preferred game of the working class, so perhaps it was his dalliance with coaching that did it? Perhaps, though this is a hard case to argue if you think about it, given that he couldn’t coach for shit. His record was absolutely dreadful. I assume no-one who saw his dismal 3 years at the Tigers would call it ‘coaching’: he went to a club boasting Ben Elias, Steve Roach, Paul Sironen, Garry Jack, Mick Neil and Tim Brasher, and led them to three miserable years floundering near the bottom of the ladder. Paul Sironen said his coaching style (brought from Union) was ‘too simplistic’ for League; Jones was criticized for removing experienced players and introducing young players not ready for first grade, and left the club a lot weaker than he found it when Wayne Pearce took over in 1994. So, he’s certainly not loved for his services to Rugby League.
But putting aside the three years spent humiliating the Tigers, I’m just astounded at the things he gets away with saying. Recently he went on an aggressive on-air rant about the current Prime Minister which included his opinion that someone should ''put her in a chaff bag and hoist her into the Tasman Sea''. That sounds sort of like an incitement to violence to me. He’s got form – recall he was found guilty by both Australian Communication and Media Authority and the NSW Administrative Appeals Tribunal of inciting racial vilification and violence during the Cronulla riots. Paul Keating famously called the Jones program “middle of the road fascism”. But, while the chaff-bag quote is one of the more extreme examples of his vitriol-laden rants against the PM, I don’t think he is trying to incite someone to hurt the Prime minister. I don’t think he actually wants her to be injured. I’m sure most reasonable listeners would not draw that conclusion either.
But there’s the rub. A significant minority of Jones’ listeners are not reasonable people. They are the sort of people that think there is a conspiracy to impose a one-world government run by the United Nations; people who think scientists, the CSIRO and the teacher’s union are involved in a global conspiracy to fake evidence for global warming; and people who think that environmentalism is a communist plot to de-industrialise the West (I am not making any of these examples up – these are common nut-job theories). So I wonder what these people think when Alan Jones gets on his megaphone and tells his audience to throw the PM in the ocean. We certainly know how some of his audience responded when he told them to go down to Cronulla one hot summer’s day in 2005.
Maybe that is his trick. Maybe it is irrelevant that he is an aging, ethics-free, overpaid, whinging, ‘middle-of-the-road fascist’. Maybe all this doesn’t matter. Maybe the most important talent he has is appealing to people’s worst instincts and darkest fears. I worry in particular about the segment of his audience disconnected from the world except through the radio. 68% of Jones’s audience is over 50; 35% are over 65, and many of these people – if you listen to the things they say when they phone-in – live in fear of the changes wrought in Australian society the last couple of decades. A lot of these listeners seem willing to retreat into the easy answers and simplistic slogans of Alan Jones. But it is not just the old of course, this fear is alive in everyone: we all – to paraphrase Lincoln – have the good and bad ‘angels of our nature’, and if there are people out there willing to ruthlessly exploit our baser instincts, then they’re going to find themselves an audience.
So Alan, do everyone a favour and shut the fuck up. Not completely of course – you get the right to speak as much as everyone else. You own a radio station, after all, so it wouldn’t be easy to stop you. But stop pretending to be a champion for the average Australian (or that you understand them); stop making stuff up, and don’t even make hints or metaphors about committing violence – your show just attracts too many crazies. Even an entertainer needs to observe some basic tenets of civility.
Alan Jones is a sad, pathetic creature! He used to have a keen intellect. I attended a lunch time speech he gave at the Canberra Club many years ago. He gave an entertaining and thoughtful speech covering a wide range of issues. It's unfortunate that he has withered into a sad, pathetic husk of what he used to be years ago. His ego and delusions of self grandeur have outstripped his intellect by a long way.
Looking at the background footage of the recent protest reinforces your point penshy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX-RjL-vjUY
I have to say this is more accurate than your previous rants about Gina Rinehart but it still appears you have the same "this bloke has more money than me. wah. wah. wah. lets throw the toys out of the pram" chip on your shoulder.
I have to say that in your habit of stupid comments, this is dumber than most. Aren't you the guy who thought regulation was the same thing as prohibition?
The Jones article has nothing to do with money. It's about spewing hate in the public sphere, and being held accountable if you do so.
Bob C
The Jones article has nothing to do with money, does it? Maybe I misread "He’s a multi- multi-multi-millionaire and part owner of 2GB radio station. Some reports put him as the highest-paid media personality in Australia. And he didn’t start poor either – growing up on a bucolic dairy farm in Queensland and boarding at Toowoomba Grammar. There’s no rags-to-riches story here. Let’s face it, the last time Jones saw Struggle Street was from the back of a chauffeur-driven Mercedes."
P.S. You were actually the guy who thought that regulation was the same as prohibition, Bob. I said that prohibition was the most extreme form of regulation.
Or maybe you lack basic reading comprehension
Seriously. The above sentence you quoted, even in isolation, isn't about money. It's about a multi-millionaire pretending to empathise with the people on 'struggle street'. Get it yet? He's no hero for the battler.
The article wasn't about money. It's about a guy's poisonous commentary. As has happened (again) in the last week.
And don’t misrepresent what I said in previous comments.
Bob C
To be quite honest Bob C, that sentence really is about money. If you can't see that then I really don't know what to say…
I'm no Alan Jones fan – I agree with some of the things that Tim has said in his article. Though, to be fair, if you compare the "controversial" stuff that Alan Jones has said to the stuff that Tim Nappertime says in his articles here on MTN, I think Alan Jones looks pretty mild in comparison.
As for the allegation that I'm misrepresenting your previous comments, I'll copy and paste them here for you so that there's no ambiguity. I know who I think is more confused about the difference between prohibition and regulation…
I'm not confusing anything Tim, prohibition is simply the most extreme form of regulation.
What are you talking about? So licensing alcohol and breath testing drivers is an extreme form of prohibition? Stupid comment Avoozl. Just dumb.
I for one would be happy to see online poker be legalised and treated like any other business.
Bob C
Wow. Comments on an article over a year old.
Not a surprise I guess that my own personal troll has started them.
You’re wrong about the article avoozl. It’s been a while since I wrote it, but looking at it and re-reading it the main theme has nothing to do with money. You can interpret whatever you want of course, no matter how wildly incorrect. I am glad you enjoyed the rest of the article.
As for saying I’m worse than Alan Jones. Well, I don’t racially vilify anyone, nor do I engage in misogynist rants, so I’d disagree on that count as well.
As for the discussion between you and Bob C. In the case of online poker (which i think was the article that started the discussion), two things will kill it: prohibition and zero regulation. The former for obvious reasons, the later because of the appalling corporate standard of unregulated online poker companies (google UB Poker or Full Tilt Poker and you will understand why).
What will save online poker is regulation. For it to be legalised in Australia (and the US) and to have properly run companies abiding by credible laws on transparency, accountability, fiduciary systems and so on, is exactly what the poker industry and poker players’ need (and have been demanding). The legal protections and the certainty provided for companies working in Australia (or the US in this case) is also good for the industry.
Now if you can't get this, if you can't figure out why regulation will save the online poker industry, then you're a fool.
Sorry if you feel I'm your personal troll, Tim. I guess I'll back off if it upsets you. I just get annoyed at the fact that you rarely seem to see the other side of the coin while you get carried away with your stinking communist rants, and I hope to bring some balance to the force with my comments. Given the large amount of hyperbole that you use in your articles, I thought you'd be happy to receive comments of a similar nature.
Bob C brought out the skeletons from the closet with his comment about the article from last year – I merely corrected his inaccuracy. I stated that prohibition is the most extreme form of regulation which is true. Bob C showed that he didn't know the difference between his arse and his elbow by saying that he thought this meant that "licencing alcohol and breath testing drivers is an extreme form of prohibition" which makes very little sense at all.
I don't think the main theme of your article on Alan Jones is money, either. I do, however, disagree that it has "nothing to do with money" which is the specious comment that Bob C made and which I wanted to correct. I feel that the specific paragraph which I quoted is an example of the distaste that you appear to have towards people who have more money than you.
I'm not saying you're worse than Alan Jones – just that he is milder in comparison to you – obviously the forum here on MTN is (somewhat) appropriate for your crazy communist rants whereas Alan Jones is in a completely different ballpark on a nationally broadcast radio station so it is not a fair comparison. You do, however, just like Alan, have your own pet peeves and you don't hold back at all on the ad hominem attacks when you want to complain about various people whom you dislike.
I'm also sorry that you feel that government regulation is the solution for the online poker industry. Full Tilt Poker went down because the directors of the company stole money from segregated player accounts, not because of the lack of regulation. If you think regulation saves gambling companies, then how do you explain Sports Alive going down? They were a sportsbook regulated here in Australia's Capital by the ACT Gaming and Racing commission and it turns out that they were trading insolvent for 2 years without their auditors even noticing that anything was wrong before everything went belly up and anyone who had a balance their lost their money. With all Australia's regulations demanding "transparency, accountability, fiduciary systems and so on", Sports Alive met a similar fate to Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker. These are all instances of criminal activity which is already proscribed by the Crimes Act – we already have too much government regulation. Ffurther government regulation would not fix anything. It would just waste more taxpayer dollars.
Outstanding! Back to you Nap.
I'm not convinced our mystery friend here isn't one CCP…
Ha ha ha – Sports Alive fails and your solution would be less regulation. Sure. That’ll fix it.
Sports Alive was an example of the regulators not doing their job properly. In the Australian context it is the exception rather than the rule. Fisky in that (excellent) article you mention even makes the point of saying that punters should place bets with an agency located outside the ACT in where the regulator is actually doing their job. He cites NT as a place where some more rigorous rules are in place.
So while Sports Alive is the exception to the rule, in the world of online poker (largely unregulated), dodgy companies ripping off players or going bust has become the rule rather than the exception.
Outside Pokerstars, every major company has been involved with a major scandal – Full Tilt, UB Poker, Absolute Poker. And a host of small site have either ripped off players or been engaged in shady activity. All these companies were domiciled in areas with extraordinary lax regulations (the most prominent being Native American territory (Kahnawake) in Canada). Sometimes these territories have even colluded with the company to rip players off.
As for the trolling – no, I wouldn’t want you to step back. We want our readers engaged with the site. And to be frank, Nick and I especially are very over-the-top and opinionated – indeed this is a trademark of MTN – so we can hardly expect readers not to react. Even if it is with crazy tea part logic or personal insults.
I'm glad we finally see eye to eye on something and that you've acknowledged that Sports Alive is a good example of regulators not doing their job properly. In fact, you don't have to go too far to extend that argument to say that since government regulators are flawed human beings driven by incentive just like the rest of us, they will also fail to do the right thing all the time (just like the rest of us).
Just like all other ad-hoc government regulation, you can, of course, say things like "well surely you should just bet with NT regulated sports books – they haven't had any problems yet" but this doesn't help the people who lost their money at Sports Alive in the ACT jurisdiction which also had a clean record prior to this.
I'm also glad that you're happy for me to continue my crazy tea party logic-driven comments. I'll try and avoid the personal insults though and I apologise for anything I've said in the past which you've construed to be a personal attack.
Wait a minute Avoozl. You are the one who said: "Regulation and prohibition are almost always stupid and counter-productive."
So are you saying RBTs are stupid and counter productive? Speed limits? Child-proof fences around swimming pools? Smoking in cafes?
Idiot.
Bob C
I don't think you understand the difference between regulation and criminal law either by the looks, Mr Specious.
I think RBTs are fine. They are ways of enforcing traffic laws, they are not regulations. Speed limits are traffic laws themselves, and are obviously required in order to prevent people from hurting others on public roads.
Fences around swimming pools are a very good idea and making them mandatory in order to protect children (and you could also extend this to other people who have diminished capacity to assess risk vs reward properly such as the mentally ill) is justifiable. Same with seatbelts/bike helmets – very justifiable to make it illegal to not put your child in a seatbelt or bike helmet. Very stupid, however, to force adults to wear them. Adults should be able to determine whether a risk is worth the reward themselves. e.g. is the risk of my parachute failing worth the enjoyment of jumping out of an aeroplane? Is the risk of me drowning at the beach worth the enjoyment of enjoying swimming on a nice day? If you do not allow adults to evaluate risk themselves, the majority of society is simply determing what an acceptable risk is as a collective group and imposing their own views upon the minority. There is absolutely no justification for this. Society does not benefit at all.
Banning smoking in cafes is ridiculous. If people don't want to go to a cafe with smoking, they can easily vote with their feet and go to a cafe where smoking is not allowed. It should be up to the cafe to decide whether they want to be smoking or non-smoking. If there is enough demand for non-smoking cafes then there will be a market for providing non-smoking cafes and those people who do not want to go to a cafe with smoke will have plenty of options.
You say “Society doesn’t benefit at all” from seatbelts? No – not at all. Just a few thousand Australian lives saved every single year.
Banning smoking in cafes is “ridiculous”? Well, tell that to all the serving staff who used to be at risk of getting lung cancer from second hand smoke. And for what, so some ar*ehole can express his ‘right’ to smoke in an enclosed space?
Yes, I understand that traffic authorities have responsibility for speed limit regulations (not legislators – but they set up the authority in law). I get all that. What I didn’t get was what on earth you trying to say regarding regulation. But the ‘people shouldn’t have to wear seatbelts’ line made it clear – you’re a wingnut.
I choose to wear a seatbelt because I believe that their benefits outweigh their cost. You are showing that you are even more ignorant by construing my previous comment to suggest that I don't think they are beneficial to society. There is a big difference between something being subjectively beneficial to an individual and something being manadatorily imposed upon every single member of society regardless of whether they also believe them to be beneficial. If someone doesn't believe they are beneficial, why should they have to wear one? I also think smoking is stupid, however if someone else wants to smoke why shouldn't they be able to? Maybe the other person believes that the enjoyment that they get from smoking is worth the risk. If someone doesn't want to work or attend a smoking cafe then they can just simply not attend it…
Bob C, just to be safe maybe you should wear a helmet and a kevlar vest next time you walk down the street. Might save your life. Maybe you could even petition the government to pass a law to make it mandatory. You'd be a wingnut not to reduce your risk – who cares about the cost?
Serving Staff Smerving staff. Work in a non smoking cafe if you are that precious.
In any event, there's actually no conclusive medical evidence to support the theory that passive smoking has any impact on an individuals chances of developing lung cancer.
Its widely accepted that a walk (or ride) through the city and the subsequent exposure to carbon monoxide emited by the traffic is far more detrimentel.
So you might want to employ a gas mask along wih your kevler vest and bike helmet when next you venture out. You can never be to careful.
Jones has always extolled the virtues of responding to events not creating them.Like a lot of his over 65year old listeners who were brought up in the reign of Laws(John), Askin(Robin) and Menzies, Jones believes in the "old fashioned values" of respect, kow towing to people on radio and basically being pushed around in the most conservative way possible.Currently Jones' best buddy, Speedoman, is learning that this is the way to gain the confidence of these rather frightened people. The 21st Century is scary to them, they find it hard to make a computer work, and they are scared that their world is disappearing from underneath them,They are, in fact, targets for the ramblings of a demagogue.Dont forget DH lawrence once said, "Australia is one step away from facism"
Top notch again Tim. It must have made you so angry tuning into Alan each morning to undertake the comprehensive research required to put such an article together.
I even read an research paper about his listeners. Nearly puked.