An interesting factoid from Matthew Ricketson in The Age on the Chris Masters Jonestown saga:
In 2002, long-time Liberal Party powerbroker and ABC board member Michael Kroger opposed Masters making a program about Alan Jones unless it was “overwhelmingly positive”.
Ricketson writes:
Dempster warned Green about the potential damage the decision represented to the ABC’s reputation.
It is a resonant comment given the pounding taken last week by the Nine Network. Where Nine’s reputation is as a commercial television ratings powerhouse, the ABC’s is as the independent national broadcaster willing and able to produce stories that may not be commercially attractive.
As Margaret Simons argues in Crikey today, this is a defining moment for the ABC:
What kind of a Board does this to an organisation under its care? The new ABC Managing Director, Mark Scott, starts work tomorrow in an environment of misery, division and confusion at the senior levels of the national broadcaster over the Chris Masters Jonestown book controversy.
ABC corporate relations man Peter Walsh returns all calls to members of senior management and finds dozens of different ways to say “no comment”. The ABC is apparently unable or unwilling to explain its position.
How Scott handles the matter may well define how people see his leadership. His reputation is as someone who takes the middle path in a dispute and seeks consensus. It’s hard to see how this will be possible in the current climate. One way or another he will surely have to make a stand or be defined by his failure to do so.
Update: As always, some great media commentary on this issue from David Tiley at Barista.
As an aside, kroger is the guy who seems to have set the liberal party back a couple of decades in Victoria
See this link:
http://www.brookesnews.com/062606kroger.html
I had no idea that the ABC was even involved in commercial publishing. While I cannot wait to read Masters’ book, this issue does make the ABC seem a bit on the nose. It would better regain its once held reputation for non-partisanship if it closed this commercial publishing arm.
The reason it’s involved in commercial publishing is that it’s been encouraged by the Government to raise funds via commercial exploitation of its “brand”. One way of looking at this is that it paves the way for commercialisation of the ABC generally. Another way of looking at it is that there’s little choice to look for revenue streams when public funding is insufficient to meet the ABC’s Charter obligations.
It’s involved in ABC books, but as far as I was aware, that didn’t really come under management’s radar (I could be wrong). I think ABC books publishes Griffith Review, which will probably be next on the board’s hit-list.
Griffith Review is a co-publication with Griffith University and I would imagine, given that the funding helps pay the editor and several other people, that there’d be very tight contractual agreements about it.
Oh OK. I did not realise that. It’s hard to say what is “really” going on. Still, as we learnt from the John Marsden case, these types of legal proceedings can drag out for years, get extremely nasty and cose a fortune. Even if the ABC did eventually win, would the price be worth it?
Best let Chris get it published elsewhere.
Well, the ABC has written off $100000 already spent on the editorial process. And their legal advice was that the threat from Jones’ lawyers was “puerile”.
I’d suggest having a look at the Media Watch report for more detail:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1677828.htm
Also from Crickey was the legal opinion that concluded with respect to Jones’ legal threats:
“If this was the straw that broke the camel’s back you’d seriously have to question the resolve of the ABC and how anything could go to publication.”
As I said elsewhere, this action by the ABC Board is completely over the top.
Phillip Adams claims that the charge was led by RB, JA and KW. If he is wrong, he may face legal action.
Let everyone who poo-pooed opposition to these appointments as paranoia eat their words. Our intellectual and moral wellbeing is at stake here, make no mistake.
A separate point, and a rather trivial one, but anyway: the use of “factoid” in this post isn’t quite right. Many people use it to mean “a minor bit of information” these days, as this post does; the correct meaning, however is: “a spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) ‘fact’ intended to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate public opinion. ”
For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid
News like this brings out my vicious, inhuman tax-eating, commie streak. I say we march to the ABC Boardroom and lynch the bastards.
Jones is a maggot and, as David Marr pointed out, in many other countries he would have been prosecuted for his “cash for comment” corruption.
As I think QueerLeftists is alluding to, there is a quite reasonable case to be made for the ABC Board’s veto: that the Masters book is, inter alia, a prurient trawl through Alan Jones’ sex life. Leaving aside issues of defamation and dollars (for once), I would view publication of such a book as likely to cheapen the brand of whoever published it (assuming, of course, that the “brandâ€? had something to lose in the first place).
I say the above with some misgivings: Alan Jones is a highly public and influential figure, yet largely unaccountable and a bully who plays dirty, to boot. *Anything* true about him should thus be fair game for the media? Perhaps, but I don’t think that it is appropriate for a public body like the ABC to be aggressively pushing the boundaries of personal privacy here.
Also, there’s not enough perspective on the fact that the ABC Board’s veto is not an act of *net* censorship. Masters’ book is almost certainly going to get published (despite Margaret Simons’ hysterical protestations to the contrary in last Friday’s “Crikeyâ€?), and by a mainstream outfit, hence with proper distribution and publicity. While I can appreciate that Masters has been stuffed around, he must have had a dream run in publishing to date, if this one is going to be his definitive author-rejection “war-storyâ€?.
I doubt that it’s primarily a prurient trawl through his sex life, Paul, and you yourself say “inter alia”. It may be that his sexuality and/or sex life are the parts he doesn’t want exposed and/or that that’s the material that was leaked to his lawyers. I think anyone who knows Masters’ work would expect it to be a careful and comprehensive account.
It’s meant to be a biography, not an expose.
Having said that, there might be ethical grounds on which you might question revealing private facts about a living subject if they had no public relevance. If Jones had been an active campaigner against gay law reform or something (and I don’t know if he is or isn’t – I never listen), then I suppose you could argue its relevance.
There’s something incredibly dispiriting about the fact that Jones’ sexuality might be the subject of a shock, horror, reveal-all “important work” aimed at denigrating him – and denigrating him significantly on that basis.
You know, “he’s a closet poof and he used to teach at boys schools” so……obviously….”
Straight out of the Bill Heffernan school of biographical analysis – which might be mildly ironic.
What’s not known about Jones? That’s he’s a rabidly right-wing shock jock shock? That he hectors and bullies? That he behaves like an above-critique, imperious media celeb? That he engages in cash for comment? That he flaunts his “power?” Masters has been labouring away to reveal all this to us? Maybe it’s the bit about the toilet in London? There must be at least 5 adult Australians who haven’t heard about that…… and of course, there’s the stuff about how he’s never married and he’s always been partial to the company of strapping young sportsmen.
“Our intellectual and moral wellbeing is at stake here,”
Right. I can’t wait.
Well, and why is everyone (including Jones) focussing on that aspect of his life, Geoff? I’d have thought there’d be enormous public interest in revealing exactly how Jones operates and in what way with regard to political and corporate interests given his power.
The fact is we have a situation where commie-witch-hunters are grandstanding on the national broadcaster to lynch people they don’t like for no good reason.
Before the age of democracy the communists were always easy to destroy. Now we cannot destroy these commie witch-hunters and maintain our own freedom under the system we hold dear.
So the upshot is we should take a swipe at the commie witch-hunters whenever we get the chance and more importantly stop the commie witch-hunters from USING STOLEN MONEY TO ABUSE DECENT PEOPLE.
I cannot say I’m surprised Mark. This thread is pretty much par for the course.
You are still welcome you know…….
When you decide to come in from the cold.
We believe in repentance but it has to be GENUINE.
I cannot believe that Masters would be in the business of telling an intelligent audience what they already know. I believe that Masters’ analysis will be anything other than sexual shock/horror.
There are insights to be provided as to the success/influence/power etc of Jones and who better to tell it than Masters! He ranks with David Marr. And obviously homosexuality is neither here nor there, unless it involves media manipulation.
So you admit that you hate democracy. Not a great surprise there.
I just spoke to a publisher friend. Apparently the bidding is escalating exponentially, and is getting quite aggressive. Masters will never have to work again. The ABC board will have made him a very rich man. He deserves it. Onya Windy, Albrechtsen, Kruger et al.
Can’t see Masters retiring. Good on him though. Some good may come of this fiasco at least.
Geoff Honnor:
I’m trying, desperately, to find a point in all that. A famous man isn’t worthy of a biography… because he’s famous already?
That makes no sense at all.
And again:
Well, we don’t know, do we? Chris Masters might, though, as he’s spent the last couple of years researching him.
Wasn’t there the hissy fit by Media Watch about Nine getting precious and spiteful with another media group for an expose(Get Stokes,etc). Then the ABC’s MW comes over all precious about not being able to do the same with a rival in Jones. Sounded like the pot calling the kettle black to me after that backflip.
I’ve met Chris Masters a couple of times and he doesn’t strike me at all as the kind of person who’d spend years on a prurient expose for a quick buck. Rather I’d expect a thoughtful study of how someone like Jonesy gets to wield such power in modern Australia. Some juicy cottaging vignettes would be fun too.
However, as weathergirl points out, he’s now shaping up to do very nicely out of this thanks to all the hoo-haa. When will some people learn. Attempting to ban or halt something just boosts its profile, especially now in an interwebbed world.
And y’know, maybe the ABC should turn the book into a miniseries. It’d probably do far more for their ratings than dull UK tales of middleclass adultery.
“Then the ABC’s MW comes over all precious about not being able to do the same with a rival in Jones.”
You really think the ABC and Jonesy are rivals for the same demographic obby? You’re weird, dude.
“I’m trying, desperately, to find a point in all that. ”
I very much doubt it.
“There’s something incredibly dispiriting about the fact that Jones’ sexuality might be the subject of a shock, horror, reveal-all “important workâ€? aimed at denigrating him – and denigrating him significantly on that basis.”
Who knows, but I doubt it. Masters is one of the country’s finest journalists and I’d find it hard to believe that questions of sexuality would be placed outside their proper context.
As Masters himself has said Jones is an influential (bent?) broadcaster, succesful national union coach, and powerbroker. I think any half decent biography of the guy is likely concentrate on these elements, particularly in the context of the Emerald City’s power elite, rather than relatively trivila questions of sexuality.
“You really think the ABC and Jonesy are rivals for the same demographic obby?”
Not at all but I would have thought Media Watch would have had more sense than to juxtapose their obvious opposite moral positions on the one segment. You had to chuckle that their own media prejudices got the better of them for all to see.
“than to juxtapose their obvious opposite moral positions on the one segment.”
And what exactly were the two or more moral positions being juxtaposed?
I’ll buy Jonestown when it finally gets published and when I have finished reading it I will donate it to my local public library, which is something I do from time to time with books I want the opunters to read.
I recommend that Lefties donate their old faves to the local public library once they need to clear some shelf space.
Nabs,
MW had a bitch piece about Nine getting precious and miffed at Seven for being critical about Nine’s(Eddie) management to the point of wanting to do a slag piece on Stokes. All a bit disgusting and beneath ‘real’ media if you got the MW drift. Then in the next breath MW is getting in a huff that one of its own is not being allowed to get up close and personal with Jonesy. Pot,kettle,black.
Perhaps the ABC Board understands what MW and the ABC staff including Masters don’t. Play the issues and not the man dearies, especially when it’s likely to cost a wad of scarce taxpayer resources. Let’s face it, do we want partisan politicking with taxpayer’s dough? eg the criticism of a Bracks ‘dirt’ unit recently and the latest outburst from the NSW Public Prosecutor with his ‘Bush and cronies’ critique(State public servant using taxpayer funded podiums for partisan politics at a Federal level) This is way outside his brief by any stretch of the imagination. No I’m not saying this is restricted to one side, but perhaps the current ABC Board is asking its staff to step back a bit and behave with the decorum MW could so obviously see was lacking between 2 private media groups.
Hendo put it fairly well on Lateline. How would the ABC staff respond to the other media doing a big personal expose on one of theirs like Red Kerry? In business you compete openly for market share and don’t slag off your competitors(well not in public)
obs – it’s a biography, dude. Not a “personal expose”.
I’m sure Kerry O’Brien would be flattered if someone wrote one about him. I don’t know it would sell that well, though.
Everyone:
When is it going to sink in that nobody can say anything bad about any of the protected nomenklatura in Mr Howard’s Soviet Australia.
In Australian ex-military organizations, there were some of the finest people you could ever meet, whose service to the community was an example to all. . . But, in marked contrast, there were also some scoundrels, utter ratbags and crooks in key positions and they were protected far better than any koalas. Instead of these shonks being exposed and called to account …. they were given awards and the fibs about their “distinguished service” and their “patriotism” continue …. and the truth about them will never come out..
Why do you imagine things would be any different in entertainment and news media and publishing?
Geoff Honnor rejects my claim I treat his arguments seriously:
Translation: I am unable to accept the overwhelming evidence I was wrong, so I will resort to dark mutterings into my warm milk.
The reason given for canning the book is the risk of a commercial loss – the ABC Board apparently thought Jones would win a defamation case despite contrary legal opinion, costing the ABC and the taxpayer upwards of $100,000.
Now that Master’s is taking his book to other publishers, all of whom are apparently bidding into the stratosphere, the commercial gain will go to the private sector, instead of to the ABC, which could have recouped its legal costs and more with sales from the book.
The ABC Board has now guaranteed that the taxpayer is the loser, by $100,000 legal costs, plus four years of administrative costs while Masters was researching and writing. Brilliant.
But then who on the Board, appointed by John Howard, wants to see the ABC standing on its own feet financially anyway. The ABC is to be taken out the back and drowned in a bathtub, believe it.
.
Several commenters above (Mark, wpd and Nabakov) have all said the same thing, viz that Masters is not the prurient type. With respect – well, derr. Masters has been with the ABC for decades, an institution that (whatever one may think of its politics) irrefutably prides itself on maintaining a better-than-the-tabloids tone.
But homophobia done with a Pru/Trude accent is still homophobia, IMO.
Nabakov’s (presumably) flippant remark that “Some juicy cottaging vignettes would be fun too� proves my point. If you’re so interested in such, Nabakov, why don’t you go down to any CBD railway station men’s toilets armed with a video camera, get down on your knees, and film under the door? It would only be matter of time before you caught a public figure in flagrante. And as long as you put the resultant footage of him having sex up on somewhere “nice� (like this site, say), accompanied by ample surrounding foreplay (sorry, *context*), no one could possibly say that you were a prurient creep, could they?
So now Masters is a homophobe? Good lord. Desperate football.
Jones seems to be worried about the sexuality stuff, but that’s his hang-up, not Masters’.
“In business you compete openly for market share and don’t slag off your competitors” – observa
More’s the pity. We might get some more accurate product information in our ads then.
Sorry for the OT post.
“Translation: I am unable to accept the overwhelming evidence I was wrong, so I will resort to dark mutterings into my warm milk.”
Nuh. It’s more like, ” Translation: Bill Posters would have been unlikely to have spent more than 2 seconds on analysing anything.” How long does it take to formulate your bog standard snide quip?
Bill Posters, if by “desperate football” you mean I’m not afraid to put substance ahead of a person’s reputation/cultural-influence/living-NE-of-Newtown, then you’re spot on. Gutlessness and playing soft-Left follow-the-leader aren’t high on my moral compass.
See also:
http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2006/07/homophobia-and-tabloids-twice-in-four.html
Geoff, why don’t you just admit you were completely, 100 per cent wrong about this? This excursion down ad hominem lane is entertaining, but it is a dead-end street.
I think this thread comes to some odd conclusions. Yes, I’m sure Jones’ sexual preferences will be mentioned in this book. But I don’t think that’s what Jones is scared of when he threatens legal action. As I wrote on another thread, I think he’s scared of two things, among others:
1) the elaboration on the ‘Jonestown’ episode of Four Corners, which documented that Jones, while teaching at a grammar school, allegedly took boys home with him. Allegedly taking young boys home and allegedly having sex in toilets with consenting adults are two entirely different issues. I’m speculating on this point because of the content of the lame legal letter to the ABC.
2) the increasingly well-known political tactics in his radio studio. These were documented in Not For Publication (athough names were changed), as well as occasionally on Media Watch. These include not just cash-for-comment tactics, but other ruses like getting producers to track down politicians and spinning it as if they called his show for a chat. Jones allegedly likes to give the impression that he’s a peerless powerbroker, when, as that article in the Monthly deduced, his capacity to change voting behaviour is virtually nil. His listeners, who amount to fewer than those watching the ABC’s Gardening Australia, are already a set, intransigent demographic.
What exactly was Geoff wrong about Bill? I don’t see how anyone can say decisively that anyone was wrong about any speculation here as of yet because *nobody knows what’s in the Masters book*.
*if* there is nothing new in this book other than Jones’ sex life, then Geoff has a point. There is no great loss to our national consciousness from ABC deciding not to publish this – there is already a well developed market for smut and someone else will pick up on it. And frankly anyone who thinks that the loss of an opportunity to read about Jones’ sex life is worth anguishing about should consider joining the Madri Gras float next year. I have better things to fantasise about than who Alan Jones does the rumpy pumpy with.
I don’t think Jones’ sex life should be made an issue anyway unless he has been hypocritical about it. Has he been supportive of anti-gay laws? If so, then yes, make an issue of it. If not, it’s inconsequential.
This leaves the non-sexual revelations. If Masters has any new ones, then the ABC’s decision not to go with this scoop is lamentable. I think Geoff made a fairly well reasoned case why it was unlikely to be this but of course he may be wrong. But Bill has no grounds for saying so, anymore than anyone else. Geoff is one of the most balanced commentators here, perhaps the only genuine centrist, while Bill of course has his record of snide inanities. Easy to see who should be taken more seriously.
This whole thing sticks and not because of the reasons most shriek on this blog. Call me old fashioned but I do NOT want my national public broadcaster, which is dominated overwhelming by political partisans, exploiting that broadcaster for their own financial gain.
Using Media Watch as a vehicle for pre-book-launch publicity for ABC-luvvies is disgraceful as is the subsequent publicity campaign…oops, I mean Media Watch program.
I’m sorry but this is no more than a tax-payers cash for Chris Master’s comment
Not Happy Aunty.
Jason Soon:
Pretty much everything. Here’s his post from the other thread:
Only the second paragraph bears any resemblance to what we now know, just two days later, to be true.
By any measurement, a spectacular misreading of the situation.
Oh, and I agree with Weathergirl’s post re what Jones is probably scared of.
I will pass over the ad homimens, although I do think it was cruel of you to call Geoff a “genuine centrist” like that.
If you were commenting on what I’d posted on another thread, Bill, it would probably have been less confusing to pop your comment there.
But that’s highly unlikely, Jason.
Contrary to Paul Watson, the assessment of the fact that it’s much more likely to be an assessment of Jones’ influence and connections and the use of his media power than some sort of prurient “outing”, is not based on some sort of snobbery about the ABC but on Masters’ record as a serious journalist over many years.
“*if* there is nothing new in this book other than Jones’ sex life, then Geoff has a point”
The point is it is a biography about a well known radio broadcaster, former rugby league coach etc etc etc and no-one has written a book about him. I would expect some mention of his sexuality (how could you write his biography and leave out the toilet incident?) but I don’t think that will be what Masters is most interested in.
Using tyour logic very few biographies would ever be written.
Exactly. There seems to be some confusion about a profile story in a paper or a magazine and a biography.
No, no, no,
pollytickedoff, you and Bill Posters are completely confusing the issue. neither Geoff nor I said that it *shouldn’t* be written. Didn’t I just say that if it was just smut, someone else would pick it up anyway? Did I or Geoff say anything about how the book should be suppressed?
The point is if it did contain no new revelations other than sex, then it would hardly be ‘our intellectual and moral wellbeing at stake here’, in the words of FDB, if ABC didn’t publish it.
Yes, but Jason, as I’ve been saying – what’s the likelihood of that? Masters is an established investigative journalist of decades’ standing. And one of the best. He’d be trashing his own reputation as well if he wrote a salacious book with no substance.
I’m all for publishing, though I question whether the ABC was ever the right vehicle for this particular product. I just think that the people banging on about censorship should get off the deeply suss moral highground and recognise the fact that their thirst for publication is principally about satisfactorily vengeful dealing to an ideological enemy, not about the pursuit of some esoteric notion of hitherto unrevealed information that we, the public, have a right to know. The incense of sanctimony round here is thick enough to give John Heard a hard-on.
My expectation is that Masters will do the sort of fit-up around Jones’ – um- assumed sexuality that Paul Sheehan recently rendered in respect of John Marsden. weathergirl framed it beautifully: Jones is allegedly concerned about Masters supposedly revealing allegations that Jones took boys home while he was a grammar school teacher. Why would he not be concerned if that was Masters’ tack? What conclusion would the reader be expected to draw other than poof = paedophile in this context?
On 2UE yesterday, Mike Carlton was bursting with more cottaging revelation anticipation than Nabs would have dreamed possible – all in the interest of the greater public good, of course.
The highly sophisticated innerurbanati who frequent LP wouldn’t be savouring that sort of revelation for an instant. Nor, of course, would they think any less of Jones (if that’s possible
) because of his alleged sexuality. The Jones listener demographic of course might think differently and while they might need a stubby forefinger to follow each brilliantly-crafted Masters word, the Tabloids will be able to help them out with appropriately plebeian soundbites.
I well remember my 6th grade male teacher taking three boys – including me – on a fishing trip in the Snowy Mountains back in a more innocent age. No sex occurred though I remember being moderately aroused when my teacher stripped down to his undies and dived into the Snowy to free a trapped lure. Lucky for him that he didn’t subsequently get into polemic broadcasting…..
Jones is a deeply unappealing figure on many levels but whether or not he has sex with men is utterly irrelevant. And if you think that Masters won’t work that aspect for all it’s worth, you’re dreaming.
No that’s wrong Mark. You commie witch-hunters would raise him to Godlike status with round the clock praise if he managed to destroy some decent bloke who wasn’t a leftist.
I really must protest at this stupidity of Scribe:
I sez:
“The fact is we have a situation where commie-witch-hunters are grandstanding on the national broadcaster to lynch people they don’t like for no good reason.
Before the age of democracy the communists were always easy to destroy. Now we cannot destroy these commie witch-hunters and maintain our own freedom under the system we hold dear.
So the upshot is we should take a swipe at the commie witch-hunters whenever we get the chance and more importantly stop the commie witch-hunters from USING STOLEN MONEY TO ABUSE DECENT PEOPLE.”
Now Scribe. Not being a logician sez:
So you admit that you hate democracy. Not a great surprise there.
WHAT AN IDIOTIC INFERENCE TO MAKE. Where did you pull that out of idiot??????
Look this is what I said!!!!
“The fact is we have a situation where commie-witch-hunters are grandstanding on the national broadcaster to lynch people they don’t like for no good reason.
Before the age of democracy the communists were always easy to destroy. Now we cannot destroy these commie witch-hunters and maintain our own freedom under the system we hold dear.
So the upshot is we should take a swipe at the commie witch-hunters whenever we get the chance and more importantly stop the commie witch-hunters from USING STOLEN MONEY TO ABUSE DECENT PEOPLE.”
And that’s what I meant. Now where did you get it you dope that this means I’m against democracy. Now I’m not against democracy. I’m FOR democracy. But its been my experience that when dumb-leftists act this idiotically they are often engaging in PROJECTION. So I’m assuming for the moment that it is you that is against democracy.
I would think that I could set traps all round town and not find people as stupid as the people on this site. But there you all are.
Jason,
Where did I even suggest that you were saying it be “suppressed”? Where did I say you were arguing it not be published?
I was pointing the lack of logic in that particular statement.
You don’t seem to get my point, which was the “nothing new” … there is nothing ‘new’ about the lives of many well known people. Many biographies do not reveal anything that was not already known, they do tend to bring it all together though.
Try reading what is written.
BTW one of my maxims in life is always watch out for people getting outraged because you have accused them of something when you have not even mentioned it – it usually means they are doing exactly what they are denying and they have ‘heard’ you accusing them because they know it is true
Geoff Honnor:
Pot, kettle, black.
Let’s see of comrade Bird can make a single post without the term “commie witch-hunt”.
“Let’s see of comrade Bird can make a single post without the term “commie witch-huntâ€?. ”
A few suggestions for Birdy.
- Leninist lynch-mob
- Marxian malevolence
- Proletarian pogrom
- Trotskyite turd-throwing
Variation and alliteration helps maintain reader interest, comrade.
“Pot, kettle, black.”
How exactly? You’ll probably need more than a snide one-liner……………..
-GRAMSCIAN GUTTERSNIPING!
-LUXEMBURGIAN LIBEL!
-SCARGILLIAN SCUTTELBUTT!
Weathergirl.
Commie witch-hunters is good enough. And you need to get used to it. Because I have to rub your nose in it until you realise it was never McCarthy…. It was you. It was you and your crowd. You and the other commie witch-hunters. Not McCarthy. You.
There is a problem here with self-image. You commie witch-hunters think you are OK. You think your motto is ‘I’m Ok you’re OK’.
Whereas in practice your motto seems to be “I’m one of the golden children…. and these conservatives are rotten scum”
Actually I don’t have this ‘I’m Ok you’re OK’ motto. That would be dishonest.
I’m OK and You’re NOT OK and this is not a motto its the actual situation.
I’m OK and you are actually pretty damn rotten and sometimes I use understatement for effect.
Jason, he’s clearly not keeping up. These days it’s latte leftie, chattering class pervert, compassion industry elitist, chardonnay socialist, pomo relativist etc etc etc.
Geoff Honnor:
What I was trying to say was that your post, accusing others of sanctimony, is one of the most sanctimonious things I have ever read.
Furthermore, it consists of holier-than-thou finger-wagging, a jolly good telling-off for the naughty leftists from the central fount of all wisdom, on one hand this, on the other that, taking everything into consideration, polishing the specatacles and puffing up the chest.
Complete with anecdote, no less.
Don’t get me wrong – your continual excuse-making is quite amusing and long may you continue.
But if you’re going to crack funnies, people are going to laugh.
Come back to the point.
ABC Enterprises makes decisions to commission and publish based on a decision that the work would be a commercial success in a certain market. But that decision is a bit wider than just: “can we flog this and make some dosh?”, or they would be pornographers.
They are looking for synergy, which enhances the ABC brand, and maximises the value of existing IP – in this case the research into the 4 Corners program.
We know that at that professional level, the ABC had decided to go forwards. The ferocity of the bidding is clear evidence that ABC enterprises was correct. Presumably the other bidders consider themselves to be legally safe – the thing is lawyer proof, and any case brought by Jones would end with costs awarded against him.
Did the board knock it back because they thought it encouraged homophobia, and smeared Jones with something he has the right to keep private? Geoff is surely right to suggest this could be an adverse outcome, and really deplorable. But I can’t see Windschuttle and Albrechtsen earnestly putting this position at the meeting.
The only reason I can think of is that the members wanted to suppress a portrait of a mate and fellow traveller who has behaved very badly on many fronts. To do that, they are prepared to waste $100,000 of public money they are charged to guard. And force a senior executive to humiliate herself over, by getting her to take the rap, when the move was transparently obvious to boot.
On top of that, the ABC needs to be seen to be above intimidation. We do not want it to be the kind of organisation which would fold and suppress provable information about corrupt thugs just because the defamation case would cost money. That’s like stabbing a baby and throwing it into a shark tank.
Indeed, David, and thanks for your comment, with which I agree wholeheartedly.
I wonder how many ABC Board members would consider themselves friends or at the very least acquaintances of Jones.
Update: As always, some great media commentary on this issue from David Tiley at Barista.
Anyone who thinks that Masters book was canceled by the A.B.C. Board with out influence from the goverment , had better have a reality check.
Jones is the Liberal Party’s poster child for winning elections,now obviously the book will be published by some one,but the government is not going to pay to have itself exposed. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that Masters has found a connection that will be along the lines of his work on Joh “Dont you worry about that”Peterson and Queensland incorperated. Any bets?
Phill.
“But I can’t see Windschuttle and Albrechtsen earnestly putting this position at the meeting.”
I can. You are just being a bigot. Plus I’m not taking this Jones-is-a-homo business just on trust. But its nobodies business but his own anyhow.
Perhaps Geoff has a point in that the biography of a prominent man often ignores his wife. IMO, it shouldn’t, and the relationships we choose are important to telling our stories.
I think Geoff draws a lo-o-ong bow saying that the “thirst for publication is principally about satisfactorily vengeful dealing to an ideological enemy”. Personally, I’d happily pay to read anything Chris Masters writes, as I think he is a fantastic journalist.
And as for Uncle Bird, think of how far we’ve come as a society. It the olden days he would’ve been locked in an attic gibbering to himself. Now he’s got his own computer and an internet connection.
As is often the case, David Tiley cuts through the crap and delivers a succinct and reasoned summation of the situation.
And yes Zoe, LP and other blogs are probably performing a social service in allowing our feathered friend to vent his spleen in such a relatively harmless way. But don’t we also have drugs these days for this sort of disorder?
It seems this Jones is more than just an ex-footy coach. Apparently he is a commercial broadcaster. A rival of the ABC.
Wouldn’t we all love to have unlimited governmnet funding to publish a “tell-all” book about our commercial rivals!
Sure would, steve! It’d save us having to punch their lights out.
Substance, people, substance. And context.
David Tiley’s point that Windschuttle and Albrechtsen are unlikely advocates for Jones’ sexual privacy is disingenuous. Many homophobes of the Right elite are happy to have co-dependant Hitler/Roehm (or Mr Burns/Smithers) relationships with gay men – platonic, but obviously more complex than ordinary friendship/colleague-ship.
In any case, just because Windschuttle joined the board immediately prior to the book being pulled by the board *doesn’t* necessarily mean that he was a ringleader (or even in favour of it). Rather it is plain that, since the Windschuttle board announcement, elements of the Left have been trolling for a cause, any cause, with which they can use as a “We told you so� stick. Frankly it’s pathetic that they were content to blow their pent-up wad on something as trivial as this – Masters has NOT been censored (= silenced); he’s been stuffed-around. Yes, there may be a political element to this, but boo f*ing hoo.
Interestingly, people’s speculative willingness to blame Windschuttle seems to correlate precisely with a blind faith that Masters could not possibly be homophobic/prurient. “Personally, I’d happily pay to read anything Chris Masters writes, as I think he is a fantastic journalist� writes Zoe. Oh yeah? So if he wrote a Holocaust-denial tome, you’d lap it up? My point is that it is reasonably common for opinionators at, or near the end of their careers to go to seed, or worse. (Macquarie Uni’s Andrew Fraser in a case in point). I’m not saying that Chris Masters *is* on a homophobic crusade, just that people need to keep an open mind.
And talking of homophobia, just about all commenters on this thread are full of it. I previously drew attention to Nabakov’s above remark that “Some juicy . . . vignettes [of Jones at gay beats] would be fun too�. I take it by the resultant silence that if I wrote on this site’s Big-Brother-controversy thread that “I hear John is going to put up some great turkey-slap videos (all consensual, of course) on his MySpace site – should be fun!� no one would say a thing, either.
Finally, the main issue here is that the ABC as a whole is broken. It has been for a long time (i.e. about the last 15 years). Windschuttle didn’t break it, Albrechtsen didn’t either, and even Howard didn’t (although it might be said he made it “more� broken). The ABC’s use of profit-driven-subsidiary cross-subsidies always was (like public unis’ use of full-fee cross-subsidies) a car-crash waiting to happen. What the Left needs to do is demand a properly publicly-funded ABC – and if this doesn’t happen, then for the whole sad (and homophobic*) sack of sh*t to be put out of its misery.
* Evidence of the post-1990 ABC’s creeping homophobia: Media Watch has never addressed the putrid slobberings of broadsheet journalist Ron Hicks. http://paulwatson.blogspot.com/2006/06/ron-hicks-obsessive-homophobe-that.html Too busy chasing typos in the Dubbo Daily, I guess.
I always read critically, Paul. If you did the same, you might have noticed I’ve not mentioned Windschuttle or the ABC Board in relation to Masters here or anywhere else. You appear to be conflating all the things you’ve read here into an LP straw/hive/mind type opponent.
As for Chris Masters, I’d even read him banging on endlessly about the evils of the boomers, I reckon he’s that good.
(And despite the general surly tone of my comments here, I’m having a lovely day, thank you everyone, and I hope you are too).
“Furthermore, it consists of holier-than-thou finger-wagging, a jolly good telling-off for the naughty leftists from the central fount of all wisdom, on one hand this, on the other that, taking everything into consideration, polishing the specatacles and puffing up the chest.
Complete with anecdote, no less.
Don’t get me wrong – your continual excuse-making is quite amusing and long may you continue.
But if you’re going to crack funnies, people are going to laugh. ”
You really are an unpleasant piece of pseudonymous work, Bill.
Jeez Paul, I hope someone buys you a sense of humour for Xmas. I’d have thought it was pretty apparent my flippant oneliner you’ve now referenced twice was a self-deprecating putdown playing off the previous sentence, ie: a serious observation deflated by the observer’s fundamental frivolity.
But I agree with you that Masters isn’t being censored only stuffed around. There’s nothing in the ABC’s charter to say it must publish any book offered to it. And it sounds like he’s getting no shortage of other offers so it seems pretty likely it will get into print pretty much in the form Masters intended.
As to whether it should it be published, well there’s no shortage of serious bios about other locals who have had far less impact on the nation’s public life. The fact it’s already become such a political and ideological football is certainly one measure of the prominence of its subject.
There’s something I don’t understand here. What exactly about Jones is interesting enough to merit this book? Does Jones’ show have real clout in influencing elections or political behaviour?
Jones is not (I presume) broadcast where I live, Adelaide. I’ve never heard the guy in action.
Masters could probably have got support from the ABC to research a book on any topic he felt like, so why Jones?
I agree with Mark — the book can’t just be salacious. And speculation about anything illegal can’t be the reason, surely. If Masters had solid evidence of that, he would take it to the police, no? If he doesn’t have solid evidence, he shouldn’t even suggest or imply anything, unless he wants to be paying for Jones’ new pool and tennis court.
This is very mysterious.
Probably not, Paulus, but politicians seem to think he and Laws do. Hence the kowtowing from both sides – Paul Keating also notoriously buddied up to Laws. Given the Sydney centric nature of political discourse we unfortunately have – so much of what was written about Latham was about whether he or Howard could best get the votes of Western Sydney battlers and/or aspirationals – it’s not surprising perhaps that the shock jocks who exist on Sydney radio have an importance inflated beyond their actual influence – see weathergirl’s comment above. But it’s also the case that if there are grave breaches of journalistic ethics and media codes of conduct (in the case of Jones, arguably not investigated properly by the David Flint chaired ABA), and a perception among politicians and journos that these dudes are politically powerful, then there’s the real potential for all sorts of slavish and perhaps corrupt behaviour towards them. It’s very clear that politicians of all stripes in this country are prepared to bow down to those they perceive as media moguls or powerbrokers – whether we’re talking Jones and Laws or Packer and Murdoch. This in itself is a phenomenon worth exploring, and as Stephen Fenely commented in Crikey today, the fact that Jones has built a fortune worth $50 million on the back of his perceived clout is a matter of public interest. So too would be the exposing of their actual lack of real influence over voting patterns. We wouldn’t then have the pathetic phenomenon of shock jocks seemingly determining and shaping the policies and rhetoric of the NSW Labor government – probably particularly under Carr but from all reports there’s enough evidence that Iemma and his ministers are prepared to sail their ship of state according to the prevaling wind of shock jock priorities.
Look, as a lesbian identified bisexual woman (blah blah blah) I can honestly and genuinely see where Paul and Geoff are coming from. But I think it’s pretty clear that it’s Jones’ minions’ spin that says “it’s a horrible homophobic book of salacious outing” – which Mike Carlton – because of his personal animosity towards Jones – has fallen for. I doubt that it is anything of the sort. If, as Mark, weathergirl, Zoe, nabs, and others have said – it’s likely to be a biography of someone who’s both wielded and abused power then there’s a public interest in publishing it. And publishers obviously think there’s an audience. All this crap about the ABC “not getting into commercial publishing” is just that. What other bloody choice do they have? The Howard government’s been pushing them down that direction. But obviously when they espy a commercial opportunity that might not “put a positive spin” on one of their mates, as Kroger instructed 4 Corners to do, suddenly there’s all this hypocritical handwringing about “oh no, don’t commercialise the ABC”. The issues here are very simple indeed, and I’m astonished that people fall for all the crap that’s put out there by the Government’s spinmeisters so easily.
Just sayin…