For Media Watch there seems no more fertile pasture from which to harvest a story than 2GB broadcaster Alan Jones. Last week it was about Jones’ address to the Rally of No Confidence outside the Federal Parliament. According to MW presenter Jonathan Holmes, Jones had told an untruth. Shock horror! For those who aren’t aware, in addressing the rally, Jones was trying to console the crowd, which was disappointingly sparse, by attributing blame for their lack of numbers to the authorities (read Labor government) who had reportedly stopped a two kilometre long convoy at the ACT border to prevent them from attending. This was, said Jones, “the most disgraceful thing that’s ever been done to democracy. The people who come here can’t actually get into the precinct to be heard.” The problem, in Holmes eyes at least, was that it was untrue. Untrue in the sense that no one had actually prevented anyone from getting to the Rally. But who cares? Certainly not Alan Jones’ audience. Nor 2GB’s shareholders. Do you?
The truth is that Alan Jones is paid to attract as big an audience as he possibly can. And he does that in spectacular fashion by doing what every other radio presenter tries to do; he tells his audience what they want to hear. If it also happens to be true, that’s okay too. But no one in the history of radio has ever been successful for as long a period as Jones has by telling listeners things they’re not interested in or don’t want to hear whether its the truth or not.
Whether Jonathan Holmes admits it or not, that’s what he’s doing too. One might argue that his ABC audience has a higher standard when it comes to ‘facts’ but since most truths are really opinions anyway, they are just as likely as Jones’ audience to simply believe what they want to believe regardless of how many contradictory facts they are bombarded with.
While Jones’ supporters praise him for his ability to simplify complex subjects, his detractors criticise him for much the same thing; over-simplifying complex issues and stripping them of all nuance. He’s also accused of dividing people into us and them, love or hate with nothing in between.
Yet, Holmes by his relentless pursuit of Jones has made it very clear to his audience who, in his books, the goodies and who the baddies are.
But even without Media Watch, the majority of the ABC audience already believes that the baddies are the conservative shock jocks whose brand of politics is diametrically opposed to their own.
So, each time Jonathan Holmes does a story on Alan Jones he, like Jones, is just telling his audience what they want to hear.
Who do you think tells the truth? Jones? Holmes? Both? Neither?
Alan Jones needs to be made accountable for ALL the lies he tells, not just on this occassion!
Your headline "Jones tells the truth that Media Watch can't handle" is an absolute joke. A disgrace in fact.
Oh, COME OFF IT!
There has been an explosion of this discourse of "Everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it and other people can believe it if they want and there is no truth and blah blah blah".
We have entered a stage of popular-moronism.
There actually IS a truth. You are right about Alan Jones doing his job, but the facts are confused in all of this. He is not speaking facts, he is saying what his audience wants to hear, with little care for truth or lie.
"One might argue that his ABC audience has a higher standard when it comes to ‘facts’ but since most truths are really opinions anyway".
This line is where the author of the article metaphorically divides by zero. Quick, slip some BS in there so to further the argument.
The ABC has more journalistic integrity than Alan Jones. Alan Jones is not a journalist in any sense of the word, and only has to make sure not to break the law (which still he sometimes does). If an ABC journalist were caught doing what Jones is doing, they would probably be fired, or at least severely disciplined.
That's because, Jones has no respect for his audience - He decides what they want to hear and feeds them exactly that. He won't allow the debate to actually enter grounds of truths, because that's a lot less exciting... politics will become boring again, just another discussion of the best model to counter the problems caused by too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... what kind of model could we use? Perhaps a market based mechanism? How would the mechanism work? Who would we charge? Perhaps we could just use some tax money to better fund other industries... etc..
It's a boring, lengthy discussion.
This debate has spilled overboard, containing both political biases and business desires with a short term view in mind.
In the case you made against Mediawatch above... the truth is, Jones lied, was misinformed (which means he should better check his sources) or made vast presumptions (the first step toward paranoia). He did it just for commercial gain, through the endless pursuit of dividing opinions, taking sides and starting fights.
Jones is nothing more than a school yard bully, and Mediawatch pulled him up on his antics..
I believe Media Watch's pursuit of Alan Jones is justified, and that Jonathan Holmes is not telling his audience "what they want to hear."
Media Watch is there to bring errant media to account and Alan Jones provides the program with a rich supply of fodder.