You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
Both Alan Jones and Coles are right. Alan Jones is correct to say that Coles was exploiting farmers by compelling the milk processors who lowered the farmer's gate price. At the same time, Coles did not want to be associated with an entity whose presenter said an offensive remark to the NZ PM to "....put a sock down her throat...." on the issue of climate change. I've written elsewhere on this site as well as Mr Peter Saxon that any disagreements be "toned down".
At the same time, when Coles was a sponsor, Coles did not withdraw their sponsorship while Alan Jones was talking about the plight of farmers being exploited by the supermarket chains Coles and Woolworths. In essence an abrasive remark about the NZ PM was the motivation of Coles withdrawing advertising on 2GB.
So Coles' morality, if an artificial construct of law such as a company has a morality, is to value an insult above exploiting farmers which give rise to a processor's and Coles' bottom line.
Conversely, before Coles became a sponsor on 2GB, Alan Jones was talking about the Coles/Woolworths duopoly. That was noticeably absent after Coles became a sponsor.
Then Alan did say on his program which a recording is on this page said that he will challenge Coles by "...entering the ring and play the same game...." The question is will Alan's challenge continue 'the game' should Coles resume sponsorship of the program?
Thank you,
Anthony of exciting Belfield