How low can Jones go?

[Hebe]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-30/j ... 27/4287770

Broadcaster Alan Jones has claimed Prime Minister Julia Gillard's father "died of shame" because of the political "lies" his daughter told.

I suppose this is political - move it if not. What a low thing to say. Jones has said some of the most hateful things in Australian politics - he hates the left, he hates (seemingly) women, he hates aborigines.

He's been charged with indecency, contempt of court and plagiarism, defamation, contempt of court, cash for comment.

He's racist, bigoted, and a misogynist.

And yet, he's noted for philanthropic work, he opposes coal seam gas mining and has a wide audience. The man is an enigma.

He's also an a*sehole (am I allowed to say that?) and this has to be one of the most sheerly nasty things he's said. He's being widely condemned for his comments, but I suppose that apart from public contempt, there can be no repercussion. Except that Gillard might get another poll bounce, and I hope she does.

[AnimalMother]

You're definitely allowed to say Jones is an arsehole, because he is.

The only things nobody is allowed to say about him are defamatory allegations which could possibly lead to legal action. Such will be removed.

[Hebe]

Even Andrew Bolt has condemned him.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... um=twitter

[boxy]

We know where he gets his material now.

[IQS.RLOW]

I demand royalties

Just add this to the long list of things that lefties are 'offended' by

Jones only said what everyone else was thinking

[Hebe]

I demand royalties

Just add this to the long list of things that lefties are 'offended' by

Jones only said what everyone else was thinking

Not, apparently Andrew Bolt, unless he's become a leftie.

And I suggest that any decent person, which obviously excludes you, would find that remark distasteful, made in public - about the death of ANYONE'S parent.

[IQS.RLOW]

She's a distasteful public figure who will be subject to distasteful remarks.

She lies, she has affairs with married men, she rips off taxpayers, she leads a party that is damaging Australia - id say Jones was spot on

[Rorschach]

Jones is blatantly political, so yes I suppose this should be here.

It's been clear for a number of years that his rhetoric has been becoming worse year after year... chaff bags now this...
He's not the brightest light on the xmas tree, and perhaps senility is taking hold. It will be interesting to hear his "apology" if there is one.

As for hebe's personal comments (some baseless)... get a grip hebe. Your hyperbowl is almost as bad as his.

[Rorschach]

Of course Farr tends to be in the labor camp, but no amount of spin, can excuse Jones' behaviour. This article will go a way to explaining my previous comments.

Put your hand up if you’re an offensive bastard
Malcolm Farr
30 Sep 09:25am

With one nasty comment to a bunch of giggling Young Liberal university students, broadcaster Alan Jones crushed the myth that he is a respected commentator on whom politicians must rely for survival. Yet they did not all giggle. Some and a very vocal majority actually gasped and reacted badly to Jones' comment and his reaction was to try and justify his comment and chide them for their reaction. labor however this morning have been saying only that the liberals found it funny and that they are therefore unworthy of political power. Something which seems to be labor's obsession these days. Just ask Lindsay Tanner.

Despite many rushing for the position, Mr Jones now has a firm grip on the job of his own worst enemy, following his assertion that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s father died of shame for his “lying” daughter.

This remark, cruel by any measure but particularly so given Mr Jones’ fond memory of his own father, was intended to cause as much pain as possible to its absent target.

And it was just the latest episode in the Jones decline. One would say mental and physical.

In little more than a year he has gone from being the dapper and eloquent god father of the shock jock clan, to the embarrassing uncle who has to be kept away from the microphone during the wedding toasts.

The reason for this has been the great failure of his recent career. The central task, almost an obsession, of Mr Jones has been to remove Julia Gillard and he has flopped. He can’t even boss her around.

There is a wider political consequence to this latest controversy.

One is the comparison between Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s silence this morning and the swift rebuke of Mr Jones by front bench colleague Malcolm Turnbull, who said the broadcaster had to apologise to the Prime Minister.

And the furore has added to the list of people Tony Abbott cannot be seen with, at least not in total comfort.

Mr Abbott can’t have Senator Cory Bernardi as his parliamentary secretary because of his gay marriage comments; he can’t associate with supporters who publicly reject climate change, because he is now a qualified believer.

And it is difficult to see how now he can appear on Mr Jones’ radio program without firmly distancing himself from his host’s comments about Ms Gillard’s father. Mr Abbott’s role in past appearances on the 2GB breakfast program have been as patient listener to Mr Jones’ views, occasionally interrupting the monologue to agree. In fact Abbott has been more than polite when on Jones' show, patiently putting up with his tirades and only occasionally disagreeing politely. Then being spoken over egregiously.

They have been parodies of interviews which Mr Abbott and others have suffered through because of the belief Mr Jones has the power to wield his audience to decide matters of political life and death.

He never has been able to, and today that is more obvious than ever before.

The Jones threat was based on a fixed audience base of people whose opinions he reinforced rater than swayed. And that audience has been too limited to have any real effect on the political process.

Mr Jones is a Liberal Party backer and former Liberal staffer and preselection candidate. But his Gillard offensive cannot be seen merely as a party political exercise.

It has been a vanity venture and Mr Jones cannot bear the swipe at his ego. So he resorts to nastiness, such as his on-air suggestion the Prime Minister be put in a chaff bag and thrown into the ocean. Such as his claim that women leaders were “wrecking the joint”.

His political campaigns, those which have more resembled imperial commands than strategies of persuasion, now are being highlighted as conspicuous failures. And not just those against Ms Gillard.

Carbon pricing has been introduced over his objections; an early election has not been called despite his loud demands; Clover Moore is still Lord Mayor of Sydney, despite his public rally and on-air campaign against her.

And the great communicator became the great embarrassment to anti-carbon pricing rally organisers in August last year when he stood in front of Parliament House and accused police of obeying political orders and blocking protest trucks entering Canberra. It was a fabrication.

Mr Jones has been more successful in his campaign against coal seam gas mining on prime agricultural land, a valid concern and, not coincidentally, a campaign he has based on science and not personalities.

But he has not been able to direct the political course, and today that is more obvious than ever before.

The Jones threat has been based on a fixed audience base of people whose opinions he reinforced rater than swayed. And that audience has been too limited to have any real effect on the political process.

Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce believes talk-back radio will be crucial to the Coalition’s electoral success and has been a frequent radio guest of Mr Jones. It was on his program that Senator Joyce said the Federal Government should have bought Cubbie Station. That didn’t go down well outside the studio, despite the broadcaster’s full agreement. Actually Barnaby spends more time on another commentator's spot.

Mr Abbott’s and Senator Joyce’s appearances would not have changed a vote and opened themselves to making mistakes which their host might not bother with but others would.

The shock jocks of Sydney have not always been destructive. John Howard used them to avoid other forms of scrutiny and to talk directly to voters.

When Paul Keating was Treasurer he said that if you educate John Laws, who then was widely syndicated, you educate Australia.

It was to Mr Laws, in May 1986, that Mr Keating entrusted the alarming view that without reform Australia could become a banana republic. Mr Laws missed the significance of the remark at the time but others didn’t.

The days of a national debate of that substance on the shock jockery end of the radio dial have long gone, and Alan Jones had a role in its demise.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/put ... e-bastard/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hebe]

Thanks for that. Of course, it's all over the net now and TV and in the papers. Good article by Farr. I've always hated talkback radio of the Laws/Jones kind and it bothers me that so many idiots both call in and are influenced.

What were the baseless comments you referred to?