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.
It is not the first time that social media conducted a campaign against Alan Jones' program. The "Destroy The Joint"/"Sack Alan Jones" were social media campaigns conducted against the Alan Jones program in 2012. It was reported then that 2GB lost $80000 in revenue as a result of the social media campaign:
Source: https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/only-rationality-will-destroy-alan-jones--joint#
Source: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/revealed-the-faces-behind-the-alan-jones-pursuit/news-story/31b8cb3c8e55f0335cf1a4337e72fa1e?
After a few weeks of 'ad-free' programming, the advertisers returned to 2GB. The current social media campaign appears to have more bite with half the advertisers withdrawing their custom from 2GB. The advertisers may well resume their sponsorship in a few weeks. Time will tell.
These advertisers are not there for charity. They're out there to attract customers to their business against others in the same category of product or service. If for example Mercedes Benz ('MB') withdraw their advertising, does that mean people will buy an Audi or BMW because of the absence of MB's advertising? MB or any advertiser will want to tout for business by advertising somewhere else. Or it could resume advertising on 2GB.
It is not what you say, rather how you say it. This includes behaviours within the employ, "...put the person in a chaff bag", "....Juliar" outside the employ but identifying with the employer, "....her father died of shame..."
The behaviours are like the school behaviour discussion I made elsewhere on this site. It was where I said that student's behaviour of a (private) may well affect the reputation of the school within and outside school hours. It follows that an employee's behaviour affects the reputation and turnover of a business entity within and outside working hours.
Thus I agree with the author that if a particular politician or policy maker is WRONG, you can still say that the person is wrong without inflammatory remarks. If a commentator disagrees with a leader by saying "....sock...it...down her throat" or by hounding and humiliating a CEO for not publicising a horse race on a public building then the commentator deserves a rap on the knuckles and deserves a loss of advertising revenue.
Instead, the above examples could have been dealt with the commentator saying "....the NZ Prime Minister was wrong in this policy.....and other explanations" and ".....what is the policy of projecting a commercial event such as a horse race on the Opera House....who is responsible for this policy not projecting a horse race....." respectively.
However it is inconsistent of management of wanting to dismiss Alan Jones in for further 'transgressions' of tact in 2019 when it was not dismissing Alan Jones for the same conduct in 2012. It is management policy on the fly. I mentioned that in another posting the inconsistent attitudes towards Arch Tambakis (RIP) for calling the Opposition Leader Mr John Howard a liar and Alan Jones calling the Prime Minister Julia Gillard "..Juliar". The former lost his job, the latter kept his.
On the other hand, should the whim of the crowd of social media be the 'high moral ground' of what goes to air and what does not go to air. The current 2019 social media campaign by the "Sleeping Giants" of 2019 as well as "Destroy The Joint" of 2012 may well be valid.
BUT just because opinions of social media does not accord with the political views of the commentator, should the radio station and/or commentator be boycotted because the commentator does not agree with global warming/climate change/climate emergency or any social or moral issue decided by the social media activists?
The result is that the social media activists could just as well be guilty of bullying as the commentator.
Thank you,
Anthony of exciting Belield
Jones has made an art form of ensuring his listeners understand his point of view by using frustration and passion to get his point across. This triggers an emotive response.
Those who like him call it passion, those who don’t call it offensive.
In the past, those who don’t were the minority, social media made them stronger. Now they are being heard loud and clear.
However, if Jones was to tone down his comments, would those who love him still do so? They are rusted on because they like what they hear.
I fully agree with Jason that Alan Jones "...made an art form of ensuring his listeners understand his point of view by using frustration and passion to get his point across....".
The device Alan Jones uses is called "rhetoric", a communication method that aims to persuade the listener. Alan is not the first person in the world to use that technique. It's a technique that is over 2500 years old and comes from Ancient Greece and is used by "...training orators, lawyers, counsellors, historians, statesmen, and poets..." including radio commentators.
source: https://rhetoric.sdsu.edu/resources/what_is_rhetoric.htm
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
Justin Gleeson, SC, former Solicitor General to the Commonwealth wrote a book about rhetoric. In the blurb for his book, rhetoric the art of "...persuasion is also a professional technique that must be perfected properly ..."
source: https://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781862877054
In the context of broadcasting, applies research with the technique of persuasion. One need not agree with his narrative, but it has been consistent. For example the current issues on his program are climate change and the supply of base-load power. It is a very reality that coal-fired power stations are closing down, but are not replaced with the like-equivalent power capacity of a reliable source of energy. I don't want to debate climate change and coal-fired power stations, suffice to say that Alan Jones rightly speaks in the language of urgency. What Alan says is very valid.
While Alan Jones does not have to completely reduce his tone of 'urgency' and how wrong a politician or decision maker is he does need to reduce rather insulting language such as "...put a sock down her/his throat...." Since insults are a very small proportion of the 'rhetoric', they can be deleted from the discourse.
Thank you,
Anthony from the exciting town of Belfield, home to Australia's first Pizza Hut in 1970 and Belinda Green, Miss World 1972.
Peter your article would have been better in my opinion if you'd just started at "Here's the thing." That's the six pertinent paragraphs at the end.
Your article is factually inaccurate and to be honest, feels a bit like you're sitting on the fence and don't know which side you really want to take. Either that or you're just trying to present a balanced view on a subject you don't truly understand.
I'm unsure if it was deliberate on your part naming Sleeping Giants Oz as the group who spearheaded the campaign instead of the actual group that did, the Mad Fucking Witches.
For a balanced article, I suggest you try to keep things simpler. Example, "an orchestrated campaign by his detractors" instead of 'an orchestrated campaign by consumers using their free speech.'
I have to add that this comment worries me a bit, "All of a sudden, the 100 year old business model: Audience = Advertisers = Revenue, is broken and in need of repair." So many questions. Is that in more need of repair than a country losing at least one woman to domestic violence at least each week?
Do you even understand that Alan suggesting that our Prime Minister backhand a powerful leader of another country who also happens to be a woman, affects how men think about women and domestic violence?
It's not broken really, isn't it in fact working perfectly fine, or are consumers not allowed to use their free speech like a radio announcer is?
"Imagine, if you will, the prospect of a breakfast show that has the largest audience in Sydney but is boycotted by advertisers and is thus starved of revenue."
At the time of writing, no less than 68 of an alleged 108 advertisers have agreed to remove their advertising from Alan Jones' program. A lot of them were in fact unaware they were being advertised on his show. All of them agree to something along the lines of 'Our company doe not support the views expressed by Mr Jones and will no longer support his show.' Yes I can safely say I can imagine Alan's show being starved of revenue and it doesn't worry me. Not in the slightest. Starved LOL Great word, but it's Alan starving himself.
You flop back after this, "Jones did what he's done in the past, backhand apology and suddenly you appear to be on the side of the 'detractors'.
You and Alan himself can't seem to grasp that Alan Jones did this to Alan Jones. It is fair, democratic. There are groups opposing the campaign also, they can use their free speech too.
People need to stop thinking free speech means you're free from any consequences, this is not what 'free speech' entitles you to. If you speak and there's a consequence, free speech laws do not protect anyone from this. Not even in the USA where they actually have entrenched free speech into their constitution.
Alan clearly has issues when it comes to women, mostly powerful women who don't have the same opinions as he does and he's not above making comments supporting physical violence against them. Quite simply Alan is a toxic person and is trying to blame others for the situation he has found him in when it's his own dumb fault. It's a joke that anyone thinks HIS rights are being impinged on. Not laughing though!
Most of your article didn't match the last six paragraphs. Yup, should have just kept them in my opinion.
#enoughisenough
#SackAlanJones