Jones’s sexuality is no one’s business but his own, irrespective of what a monsterously evil figure the man undoubtedly is. The fact that he is deeply hypercritical does not give liscence to make an issue of it.

The only justification I can see is that if he had something he could use against an opponent he would certainly do so, without a moment’s thought to ethics. But just becuase he would does not mean we should respond in kind – we should be better than him. Let’s leave the toilet jokes out of this, and hope that Masters didn’t make an issue of it either – surely he would not lack for material to fill 600 pages.

I’m happy to imagine the absolute worst of that squamous fistula in the fundament of public life.

Now I’ll have to be content with a version of the truth.

I bet Jones will turn out to be relatively boring.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/04/the-abc-with-fear-and-favour/#comment-108839

If an academic discovers the ‘cure for cancer’.

Who benefits? Apart from all of us?

I’m sure he owns the copyright to the book – the ABC has indicated he’s free to publish it elsewhere.

Academics own 100% of the copyright to their publications as well – but not to teaching materials or IP that inheres in inventions. But universities get research money from the government when we publish. Mind you, except for textbooks and rare exceptions, no one makes any money from pure academic publishing except publishers. Journals don’t pay at all, and royalties on monographs are low and most have only a limited sales potential.

Academics write books in ‘mixed’ time. What is the legal position? How much of your work does the employer own?

You say that the ABC commissioned the work. If so are they wasting our money?

observa, that is a very important question. It is worth a considered answer.

I suspect that in reality it is a bit of both. The fact that the ABC doesn’t regard it as an ‘asset’ but a ‘liability’ gives Masters a fair degree of freedom.

But I am not a lawyer.

Just a dumb question- Does Masters own the work or did he write it on ABC time? That might have some bearing on whether it will be published before Jones dies.

Is there any evidence that the book was considered by the Board? Iggulden states that the decision and a Board meeting were in proximity but the ABC has rejected any suggestion that the Board discussed the matter.

Jones litigiousness is legendary and ABC publishing wouldn’t have pockets as deep as some of the market leader publishing houses.

It’s probably a prudent financial decision for the ABC in the circumstances and a major PR windfall for Masters.

I’d like to preseve this comment as an example of just how wrong it’s possible to be.

… Meanwhile, the knowledge that Jones is prepared to sue his fellow toilers in the media acts as a constant threat against anyone who would attempt a comprehensive account of his life and work. For a person so keen to mould public opinion and bend politicians to his will, Jones is highly reluctant to endure real journalistic scrutiny.

Chris Masters, the nation’s most respected long-form TV reporter, has discovered how difficult it can be to get anything genuinely new about Jones on the public record. He began work on a biography for ABC Books in late 2002, even though Jones declined to be interviewed. Masters finished his first 220,000-word draft in mid-2004 and completed the final edit by August 2005. That was the easy part. Since then the road to publication has been long, hard and slow.

Masters remains confident his 600-page effort, ‘Jonestown’, will be on sale before the end of the year. He points out that, remarkably, his will be the first book on Jones. “Here’s a very good question: Why isn’t there a book on Jones? Here is the most successful broadcaster in Australian history. No book. Here is the only Grand-Slam-winning rugby coach Australia has ever had. No book. Herre is a man who was at the centre of ‘cash-for-comment’, one of the most intense scandals in broadcasting history. No book. Why not?”

It’s a good question. Stuart Littlemore QC, a specialist in defamation, ventures one rather depressing answer: “The certainty is that he’d sue. It’s almost not worth doing a proper book about Jones because he’ll sue, and even if you win it’ll have cost you so much money.”

Absolutely, for many reasons. Not least the fact that Alan simply lacked the guts, nous, or songwriting chops to turn the joke around and turn personal humilation into damn good entertainment for others.

Not much doubt about who had more balls here.

Further Update: Here’s the link to the Media Watch transcript and I’d thoroughly endorse this sentiment:

The ABC has already spent over $100,000 on Jonestown that will have to be written off as a straight loss, while the profits and the plaudits for the book go to another publisher.

Now that doesn’t seem like good commercial decision making to us.

Direct involvement of the board in such decisions has to create the perception that the ABC is editorially timid, or worse, vulnerable to the influence of powerful men like Alan Jones.