Alan Jones: Freedom of Speech or Bullying?
I felt moved to comment on this controversy over Alan Jones and his comment that the Prime Minister’s father had died of “shame” because of the political “lies” she told. Of course unsubstantiated, insensitive and negative. Yet this is the world of talk back radio where it seems target practice is what gets the ratings.
I want to start with a few musings. I noticed on Q&A the ABC program that has a panel of guests talking about topics. They spoke of Alan Jones last night. I can’t help but see he is talked about as he has talked about others, putting his life under the spotlight and unsubstaniated opinions flying. I think of Murdoch here being inundated by the paparazi, nothing like empathy, standing in the other’s shoes to awaken the senses. None of this of course is problem solving or conflict resolution, it is a free flow of sound bytes where people reach for the moral level playing field or simply just join the mob. People graple to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate in public forums. The reaction to such comments is a gauge of where the moral levels are in society today. Of course if this was 30 years ago there would be great outrage, there is no question it would be totally inappropriate. However today we live in a world where murder on television is mainstream, where sexuality is seen as soft porn and winning is seen as more important than living an ethical life. I wonder at a younger generation who have no idea what the moral standards are given less parental presence and direction, I wonder if they would say ‘whatever’. The moral standards of society come from embedded values of what we perceive as right or wrong, appropriate/inappropriate as a societal norm. These norms are changing.
From my own perspective I felt inspiration around bullying and got a sense that it is publicly endorsed bullying. Indeed it is unquestioned, it is just saying a few things, giving opinions and they have the right to say. In addition, I also see the patriarchal society here in Australia and I do feel that women can appear threatening to some men, there are complex dynamics beneath the surface. I find men of the old school may feel uncomfortable about women rising into positions of power, somehow undermining their traditional power. In addition to this is media promoting the right wing perspective where they see the left as the enemy, so competitive adversarial mindsets that look to discredit for political advantage. I think of the US Fox News and a documentary called ‘Outfoxed’ I saw recently about how the media was pushing a right wing agenda and shutting down opposition, particularly the left wing. It was politics playing out in the media. I found it very interesting.
There are lots of complex layers, ultimately the behaviour is negative and strategically designed to maximise entertainment and ratings. There is nothing about educating society in higher ways of seeing or seeking solutions. I smile when I think of where we could go.
I just want to say on the bullying front, when a person repeatedly uses words or physical behaviour to hurt another they are engaged in bullying. Bullying is the seeking of power by a powerless person over another person. The bullying person is the one seeking power. I think what we have here is behaviour on radio which encourages the attacking of public figures this adds to the pressure of opposition, perhaps the intent is to make them crack. If so, abuse is the issue definitely. The comment about Julia Gillard’s father was definitely designed to hurt. I have heard she had a close relationship with her father and you can imagine trying to work and grieve the death of your parent. What the comment reveals to me is the hardness in Alan Jones that he doesn’t feel for the ‘other’. He is so wired for criticism and abuse of others (the enemy) that he feels justified in his vitriol, emotionally detached and removed from the impact of his words on another’s life. This is the profile of those bullying, they objectify others and they detach emotionally, they don’t feel for the other, they actually enjoy the feeling of power over them. They like to watch them cringe. It actually comes from insecurity deep inside where a person actually feels smaller and needs to put another down in order to feel bigger. As Eckhart Tolle states it is the pain body that is active and the ego protecting its sense of self. The person of course will create the hard shell to protect their self image, for if that crumbles they typically go down quickly themselves. You can see that in dictators who are used to being upheld as the ‘king’ and bullying others for years, when they are removed from power they quickly lose health. In the case of many who bully in Australian public life that soft centre and insecurity will never be seen, they will play the big man in control, they will go on the attack to ensure no-one gets in to the soft underbelly. Moreover, the fact that people like Alan Jones keep their jobs means that others support what they are saying and you will find what is beneath that is the profit in power and the power in profit. Morality or compassion is seen as ‘motherhood statements’ and ‘cotton candy’ identified more with women then strong men. Yet in truth it is the opposite, the real power is in loving others rather than hurting them. The real power is in facing ourselves, but denial will be the first line of defence. Why not find power in inspiring balanced dialogue or monologes that are respectful and inspiring of solutions, particularly given the times we are in. We actually don’t need distraction we need to really get engaged in what is happening locally and internationally, yet this type of thinking is not in the ball park, it doesn’t make money.
I ran a radio program for 5 years called ‘Bridges to Peace’. The idea was to try and raise and discuss issues that dealt with peace and conflict but in ways where I didn’t demonise the ‘other’. I was more interested in raising the discussion to inform the public about the issues and then seek for solutions. I did invite people with opposite views so that the public could make up their mind. I also brought in inspiring people to discuss peace and how many are making a difference in our world. I even conducted a conflict resolution session on radio with Dr. Stella Cornelius (Conflict Resolution Network). I was mindful on radio to try and provide good information and live the peace I so believe in. I was unpaid as I am into peace, yet I smile when I think of the highly paid controversial media persons who win audiences through negative rhetoric rather than respect and expressing in a way that reflects a civilised society rather than a Roman coliseum.
Metaphorically, what I see is a democratic Agora (Greek Agoras) of public opinion where people are seeking truth by debating and questioning others. It is not designed to destroy the other but to illuminate truth for the public good. The Roman Coliseum (I visited in Italy) is about creating a public spectacle of combat between man and beast or to have men killed by lions as a blood lust sport. It is the enjoyment of seeing competitiveness where one wins and the other loses, where pain is paraded, there is a cruelty underlying it. Yet if I rise above this I see pain in the person who is advancing the coliseum as his or her freedom of speech. Those who are seeking the Agora (democratic forum) are seeking for higher ways to evolve society based in values of freedom of speech, equality and civilisation.
So for myself, going back to the radio shock jocks we have here in Australia, for me, they are the latter, seeking entertainment and pain to create drama and revenue streams. I would like to further comment in respect of the article below in reference to ‘fools’ and humour, as I am a fool. The fool is the one who is unafraid of saying what is true, the fool is an archetype of truth speaking. Often shock jocks are seen as those who say things others wouldn’t say. There is truth in that, but the real fool speaks truth to power. There is a difference between bullying a person and revealing wise truth. The ancient fool was wise using humour to make truth digestible, never was it used to hurt. Moreover, in respect of the defence often used when abuse occurs ‘its just a joke’, many of those who bully speak of their abuse in terms of just joking to make out they are not serious. If the joke is discriminatory or a put down it is not just joking, it is a form of subtle violence that aims to hurt another under the veneer of ‘a joke’. I have taught peace and nonviolence and one thing I make clear to children is that blonde jokes, negative jokes or jokes that put down are not having fun, they are actually designed to take anothers power or assert power over someone. The jokes undermine their reputation and are cruel, it is violence not humour. Power over others is a form of bullying when negative.
In Australia sadly we do have a culture of put downs, tall poppy syndrome and sexism. There are slow improvements at the same time where more men and women are coming together to live and work more fairly. However, in the older generation you can still see the old boys club happening. Another point I’d like to raise before the article below is the companies that sponsored Alan Jones program and station. That of course will get minimal attention. The fact they are withdrawing their advertising dollars is to do with the public outcry regarding the inappropriateness of his comments. I would like to know why they are sponsoring his program when he is having a go at a wide range of targets with a right wing orientation, why not promote democratic dialogue of both sides, or programs that give the public more truthful insights into politics etc. So I think questions should be asked there. I am sure I am not alone in saying we don’t want a biased media promoting one side of politics against the other, we want a media to give us balanced information so we can make good and fair decisions. I found it illuminating who the companies were including Woolworths, Telstra, Coles, Bing Lee and ING Direct and Harvey Norman etc. My question to them is – did they withdraw advertising spend because they felt the comments were inappropriate as a social statement or because they were concerned about brand image? So the essence there is to do with values or commercial advantage. I am sure what the answer to my question is and it forms the very centre of the issue with Alan Jones. Is his work about moral conscience (make the bastards honest as they say) or commercial advantage? Again, for me the answer is clear.
So as for society, you decide what is important to you. If you were Julia Gillard how would you feel? Should people be personally attacked in public office as a means of creating controversy or do we have a moral level where we deem it inappropriate and cruel to treat persons in this way. Do we leave their personal life out of it and focus on the economic facts to discover the truth about an issue? Is it freedom of speech or is it slander or bullying? You decide, your decision frames the society you live in. Our society is a reflection of us. If ‘whatever’ is the choice, one day it may be you under the spotlight. I guess we all learn through experience one way or another.
This is an article by the Sydney Morning Herald about Alan Jones and well known ‘shock jock’ critic.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-low-can-this-shameless-old-dog-of-the-old-media-go-20120930-26tqf.html
How low can this shameless old dog of the ‘old’ media go?
- Date
Typically, Alan Jones used his ‘apology’ to the PM as a bully’s pulpit.
Alan Jones said ‘It seems to be… fair game to say anything about me… Anything is fair game about Tony Abbott even if it happened 37 years ago. But it does seem as if there is an attempt to quarantine Julia Gillard from all of that.’ Photo: Paul Matthews
CALL that an apology? While ostensibly prostrating himself on the altar of public forgiveness yesterday, Alan Jones was busy taking the opportunity to dig his bile-streaked knife just a little further into the rapidly decaying corpse of civil discourse in this country.
This cunning old dog of the ”old” media invoked the scary world of the ”new” social media in his defence, contrasting his dignified non-response to the slings and arrows shot his way on Twitter (by no less a person than ”a cabinet minister’s wife”, a phrase he used repeatedly) with the howls of protest over his suggestion that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s father had ”died of shame” over her ”lies”.
He had in recent times been assailed, he said, by ”any number of twitters” – and only a fool would dismiss the possibility that in thus misspeaking he was playing straight to the social-mediaphobic gallery that constitutes his key audience.
”That doesn’t really affect me much because I suppose I might be a different sort of person,” he said, adding almost as an aside: ”I don’t know what the constitution of Julia Gillard is on these emotional issues.”
He then slipped in the apology, but the damage had been done. She’s a sheila. Emotional. She can’t take a bit of rough and tumble.
Again, he invoked the notion of the double standard. ”It seems to be … fair game to say anything about me … Anything is fair game about Tony Abbott even if it happened 37 years ago. But it does seem as if there is an attempt to quarantine Julia Gillard from all of that.”
Besides, he told us, what he said was (a) at a function he thought was private, (b) merely a quotation, not his actual personal thoughts on the matter, and (c) ”black parody”.
Come on, people. Lighten up.
And yet, he insisted, the lines he allegedly appropriated about John Gillard dying of shame ”was not a joke, they were serious”. It was the sort of thing said by people who ”feel a sense of frustration, and they don’t feel as if they’ve got anywhere to turn”.
Alan Jones giveth the apology, and Alan Jones taketh away.
He let us know that we’ve all got it wrong on that business about taking Gillard out to sea and dumping her in a chaff bag, too. ”I wasn’t suggesting we kill off Julia Gillard. It was a joke,” he said to the guffaws of absolutely no one.
His father used to talk about putting damaged goods in a chaff bag, he explained helpfully; we didn’t get the reference because we’ve ”lived amongst bitumen for too long”. Not like Alan. ”We lived with chaff bags,” he said in his most Monty Pythonesque moment yet.
He wasn’t motivated by financial considerations in offering his mea not very culpa, Jones insisted.
Asked if he was concerned his indiscretion might impact on the advertising or sponsorship associated with his breakfast program on 2GB, Jones replied: ”No … That’s someone else’s concern.”
Technically, that’s true, as Jones does not appear to be a shareholder in 2GB’s parent company. But there is the small matter of the four million options he holds, assigned to him at no cost in 2008 and redeemable (at no cost) in three tranches, dependent on the ratings and advertising yield of his program. This little sweetener last bore fruit for Jones in 2008-09, to the tune of a cool $4.5 million.
And on the off chance that the apology was still carrying more weight than the caveats it came with, Jones still had one more trick up his sleeve – the old cast-doubt-upon-the-reliability-of-the-witness trick.
The journalist who reported his comment hadn’t declared himself as a journalist, he said. While people at his table were hooting it up, said journalist was shushing them, the better to nefariously record what Jones was saying. And as for the recording, well, who knows what trickery had been worked upon that?
”This thing that’s been recorded,” said Jones dismissively, ”I don’t know whether it’s been edited, I don’t know whether it’s a faithful recording of what I’ve said, I’ve got no idea.”
On that, at least, he was right. No idea at all.
Karl Quinn is senior writer.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.