Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter


TV & Radio

Jun 15, 2012

Jones failed 'reasonable efforts' test, but chaff bag OK

The broadcasting regulator has found Alan Jones in breach for his notorious "0.001%" comments, but not those about killing the Prime Minister.


Alan Jones did not breach the radio industry’s code of conduct or his broadcaster’s licence conditions when he said five times that Julia Gillard should be “put in a chaff bag” and dumped at sea, the broadcasting regulator has found. But it does say Jones made no effort to check his claims about the human carbon contribution to the atmosphere, and his broadcaster, 2GB, must improve its processes for fact-checking or face a licence condition.

ACMA this morning announced that it had found that Jones’ “chaff bag” comments in June and July 2011, also directed at Sydney lord mayor Clover Moore and then-Greens leader Bob Brown, did not incite violence or hatred based on age, gender, race or other characteristics.

“It was clear that the comments were not genuine invitations to violent behaviour but were figures of speech intended to cursorily dismiss the political policies of the Prime Minister … Whilst disparaging and disrespectful, they were not strong, intense or inflammatory enough to be capable of being construed as urging violence or brutality.”

ACMA also found that the Prime Minister’s gender (or that of other figures attacked by Jones, such as Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young) had not formed the basis for Jones’ abuse, merely their policies. ACMA did, however, find that 2GB had (by its own admission) failed to satisfy complaints-handling requirements with its cursory treatment of complaints about Jones’ comments.

But in a decision with broader ramifications for the industry, ACMA found that Jones had failed to meet the radio industry code of practice requirements that broadcasters undertake “reasonable efforts” to ensure that factual material was “supportable as being accurate” in a current affairs program. In comments that were later savaged by Jonathan Holmes on Media Watch, Jones said on air in March 2011, during one of his many rants about carbon pricing, that “human beings produce 0.001% of the carbon dioxide in the air”. The correct figure is 3%.

Embarrassingly for Jones, a climate denialist who insists climate change is “witchcraft” unsupported by science, ACMA’s investigation states that 2GB admitted that Jones himself had devised the figure and not bothered having it checked:

“The licensee submitted to the ACMA that it discharges the ‘reasonable efforts’ obligation by providing production resources and researchers and writers to its presenters in the preparation of programming content. However, the licensee advised that no research was conducted by staff and that Mr Jones researched the figures himself. The ACMA sought additional clarification and supporting documentation in relation to the type of research conducted by Mr Jones, and the outcome of his research; however, the licensee did not respond to this query.”

As a result, ACMA found that reasonable efforts had not been made as required under the code of practice. 2GB must now report back on how it will improve its compliance with the “reasonable efforts” requirement.

Separately, ACMA found that the code of practice requirement for current affairs programs that “reasonable efforts” are made to present “significant viewpoints” when dealing with controversial issues had not been breached, on the basis that while there was no effort made to provide alternative viewpoints on Jones’ program, opportunities were given or offered for the airing of other views on other 2GB programs, and specifically the Chris Smith afternoons program — i.e. 2GB had met the “significant requirements” viewpoint across the schedule, if not in Jones’ program.

The outcome is likely to see further criticism of ACMA’s complaints-handling process given the length of time taken to resolve the complaints about Jones, although much of the delay was the result of foot-dragging by 2GB, which was still submitting material as late as April, almost a year after some of the broadcasts.

The regulator is also likely to come under fire for failing to impose a licence condition on the broadcaster as a result of the “reasonable efforts” breach, but ACMA’s view is that there is no evidence of a systemic problem at the broadcaster. This partly reflects the fact that the “reasonable efforts” requirement is relatively new, having only been introduced in 2010 when the industry’s code of practice was overhauled.

As for Alan Jones’ prime ministerial chaff bag, ACMA is again likely to wear the opprobrium of people who see its job as policing the airwaves for offensiveness alone, rather than the altogether more serious issue of incitement to violence or hatred.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

76 thoughts on “Jones failed ‘reasonable efforts’ test, but chaff bag OK

  1. Bill

    Right, so it’s okay to incite hatred in broad and general terms, just so long as it’s not based anything specific.
    Well, I’m sure the shock jocks will take the appropriate lessons from this.

  2. The Pav

    Perhaps the geadline should be ACMA fails again.

    Using the same terms of reference on why did the ABC appologise to Morrison

  3. Peter

    “no evidence of a systemic problem at the broadcaster.”


  4. Sir Ian Chegsworth III

    Mrs Jones won’t be happy until ruddy faced shouting is our new national language, the speaker is renamed the shouter and Hansard is recorded in capital letters.

  5. drmick

    Unbelievable isn’t it? Jones could have written that rubbish from ACMA himself. I am not unconvinced that he did not write the response for them.
    Thanks to a rogue magistrate in Sydney, calling Police effing cees is OK. According to this mob, threatening the PM is OK. A known nut bag and convicted racist complains about one of his racist friends being called racist, and gets an apology.
    Where does it stop?

  6. lindsayb

    CSIRO cape grim data says CO2 increased from 330ppm in 1977 to 389ppm in 2011. That looks like a nearly 20% increase in 3 decades, not 0.0001% or 3%, increasing at approx 0.3% per year.

  7. lindsayb

    No surprise that ACMA has handed down another weak cop-out of a decision though. They have “form”.

  8. Ronson Dalby

    The ACMA is as much a toothless tiger as is the ACCC; two organisations that are there too make it look as though ‘something’s being done’.

  9. Steve777

    3% not 0.001%. Well we’re not going to worry about a factor of 3,000 are we. Looks as though the ‘research’ was to make up a number that fitted the argument. Why would anyone take this clown seriously?

  10. drmick

    The Convoy of Incontinence took him seriously S777. If his mathematical overestimation is consistent, then there would still only be 3001 Depend wrappers under the w*tch Bank? sign.

  11. Coaltopia

    +1 every comment above.

    Perhaps I can stand on a street corner and suggest the same thing for the leader of the opposition – I’m sure they won’t be considered “strong, intense or inflammatory enough”.

  12. davidk

    People should stop criticising ACMA. After all it’s only doing what it was set up to do, NOTHING!


    Seriously, why bother? It’s obvious that Jones’ audience does not listen to him for facts (FFS!), and if inciting violence to the PM is just a ‘point of view’ then all language, as far as the “Regulator” is concerned is somehow interchangeable.

    In which case “Regulator” now means “Useless Waste of Tax Payers’ Money”, or UWOTPM for short.

  14. klewso

    Do we really have to have our own Breivik or Loughner, before someone puts the foot down on these poisonous puff-adders for inciting what they do?
    Cronulla wasn’t enough?

  15. Bill Hilliger

    Some people say many years ago a man called Jones was seen hanging around a London public toilet is that the same Jones?

  16. klewso

    Was he hanging out?

  17. Michael de Angelos

    I cannot see a howling mob of irate blue-rinsed North Shore pensioners forming a lynch mob and traveling in a convoy of Mercs across the bridge to drag Clover from Town Hall urged on by Jonesy.

    The great mystery here is why anyone takes him or Hadley seriously. Surely they are just preaching the converted and a very small minority lot at that.

  18. Merve

    What if someone was to say on radio that they thought Tony Abbott should be shot? What’s the difference between than and drowning at sea.

  19. drmick

    I agree with Klewso. In a society that will only put traffic lights up at an intersection after 3 fatalities have occurred and make apologies for people who tell the truth, to people who don’t know how to tell the truth, then the taxi driver and the vegemite vandal fit perfectly.

  20. robinw

    Jones can make a throw away line about dumping the PM out to sea in a chaff bag while others have to apologise about calling a bloke racist who to all intents and purposes could most certainly be.

    In one case it is the commercial media calling for the drowning of the PM while on the other it is the ABC hosting the bad mouthing(?) guest. It just goes to demonstrate that all comment is OK if you have the cash to protect it, otherwise too bad matey! Money speaking again.

  21. Ian

    [ Bill Hilliger
    Posted Friday, 15 June 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Some people say many years ago a man called Jones was seen hanging around a London public toilet is that the same Jones? ]

    Ask Chopper Read.

  22. fredex

    Its a sick joke … on us.

  23. Edward James

    Merve the difference between, what Jones said on air, a figure of speech, which according to ACMA did not incite violence or hatred based on age, gender, race or other characteristics. And “Tony Abbott should be shot” is clear enough to me. When people like MICHAEL DE ANGELOS Posted Friday, 15 June 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink writes about preaching to a very small minority. Let me point out to Crikey readers politicians are a very small minority among the rest of us! Edward James

  24. Edward James

    Posted Friday, 15 June 2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
    Was he hanging out?
    Are you inviting Crikey readers nationally to be biased on the basis of a persons perceived sexuality? I am just asking Crikey readers as I thought that sort of thing was illegal. Edward James

  25. returnedman

    Sorry – what was hanging out, exactly?

  26. Edward James

    Perhaps it was his zipper! You silly gronk. Edward James

  27. Sharkie

    And what exactly will Alan do about this negative finding?

    I’m tipping the following.

    1. Deny he did anything wrong
    2. Abuse ACMA. (and chuck in the ABC and Fairfax, the Greens and GilLIAR for good measure)
    3. Claim it’s all a free speech conspiracy aimed to silence him.
    4. Play the victim
    5. Do it all again.

  28. littlemaths

    That lettuce leaf is getting quite the workout lately.

  29. Edward James

    @ DRMICK Posted Friday, 15 June 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink In a society that will only put traffic lights up at an intersection after 3 fatalities have occurred. We must wonder how we are expected to pick the difference between the vegemite vandal and Kevin’s ID as the Milky Bar Kid. Edward James 0243419140

  30. Edward James

    Posted Friday, 15 June 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
    Huh? Fig leaf perhaps? How is it five people die wrongful deaths at Piles Creek Somersby NSW and all the political active people in our communities, various party members and supporters get struck deaf dumb and blind? What has Alan Jones sexuality got to do with the fact none of us are well represented, Labor, Liberal, National, Greens and Independents? Edward James 0243419140

  31. Clytie

    Edward, you don’t need to repeat your name at the bottom of your comments: it already appears at the top. This is the structure of Internet comments when you login using your real name. Nor is it wise to include your phone number, since it will almost instantly appear on world-wide phreaking lists, but that’s up to you.

    I agree about Breivik and the person who shot the Congresswoman in the U.S. Do we wait until someone is deliberately dumped out at sea in a chaff bag (adding scratchiness to actual murder), then watch ACMA, Jones et al. say, “But that’s not what we meant”?

    I struggle to see how Jones, the neo-Nazi parties in Europe and the Tea Party in the U.S. can specifically urge violent acts, then act surprised when someone does them.

  32. Hamis Hill

    Re AJ’s behaviour it is a bit like”what have child abusing pervert priests got to do with anything”
    If there is nothing shameful about any of this behaviour why be so secretive about it?
    The basic needs for honesty, openess and truthfulness, in elected or unelected politicians in the church or the media. It is not a witch hunt it is a truth hunt with liars causing many problems for everyone else though none of them are without sin. Need anything further be added?

  33. Andybob

    Merve it’s all in the use of anachronism and figure of speech. If you were to say to an assembled crowd that the Leader of Her Maj’s Loyal Opposition should be shot then because guns are readily available and there is a possibility that your audience might be “tooled up” it could all be viewed as an incitement to violence requiring people to be rushed off hurriedly by Federal Police.

    If, on the other hand, you were to suggest that a certain Parrot should be confined to the Stocks in Martin Place and that you would be willing to supply tomatos to the public in that event notwithstanding that they were well past their “best by” date, then that is both an anachronistic figure of speech and a bloody good idea.

    2GB must be quaking in their boots at the thought of licence condition, possibly they might also be taken out to lunch by chaps to tell them that its just not the sort of thing that chaps do. Thats the system at work you know.

  34. Edward James

    Never mind anachronism and figure of speech Andybob. People died in a ditch at Piles Creek while our elected representatives yours and mine ignored formal complaints their local council was ignoring due process! Edward James

  35. Michael de Angelos

    hey people..be fair !. Piccadilly Circus facilities were notorious when I lived in London and to be avoided at all times and for the precise reason-coppers were busting innocent people. I felt sympathy for the man at the time as an innocent tourist.

    Although it’s a mystery why someone staying at the luxurious Ritz, a short walk away would chose to use that sordid place when caught short.

  36. Michael de Angelos

    “If, on the other hand, you were to suggest that a certain Parrot should be confined to the Stocks in Martin Place and that you would be willing to supply tomatos to the public in that event notwithstanding that they were well past their “best by” date, then that is both an anachronistic figure of speech and a bloody good idea. ‘

    Let alone the fact he might find it enjoyable and cathartic !

  37. Edward James

    Again I ask MICHAEL DE ANGELOS and all those others subscribing to Crikey should we discriminate on the basis of sexuality? Edward James

  38. Hamis Hill

    Edward James a reply to you is awaiting moderation where they all seem to have John Bennetts’ comprehension skills.

  39. Steve777

    Alan Jones and his ilk need to be called on their total disregard for balance, logic, facts or truth, together with their intense vilification of anyone of who’s views they don’t approve. Mr Jones’ personal peccadillos are not relevant.

  40. Edward James

    Cheers Hamis going to bed now!

  41. TroppoTom

    ACMA finds Jones told an untruth and what does it do? Belt 2GB with a feather duster. Oh yes, presumably its OK for taxpayers to use all the language Jones did on ACMA board members as there is nothing at all wrong with it is there?

  42. klewso

    Some people need a dose of their own medicine to find out how bitter it is – especially a dose of equal “relevance” to what they like to dispense to hurt others.

  43. Merve

    Posted Friday, 15 June 2012 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
    Jones can make a throw away line about dumping the PM out to sea in a chaff bag while others have to apologise about calling a bloke racist who to all intents and purposes could most certainly be.

    Not almost certainly, certainly. The whole ‘turn back the boats’ issue is based on an appeal to pure racism. Abbott is just using the “dog whistle” politics that Howard invented on the issue.

  44. mick j

    I find it incredible that a radio jock of any persuasion can state on the air that the prime minister should be “put in a chaff bag” and dumped out at sea. We have vilifcation laws which protect anyone saying anything against a minority group and we have laws which supposedly prevent people from threatening other people. We also have a supposed code of conduct for the media. It just says to me that we are seeing an ongoing breakdown of society.

    Jones is clearly not concerned about litigation as he has extreme wealth to fend off litigation and a radio station to protect him and his over-sized mouth. In the end Jones, a supposed intelligent man, is little more than a dork who is doing the dirty work for his Liberal Party connections. I can only believe that he must be the village idiot as nobody in their right mind could believe that interfering with the planet’s eco-system by removing most of the forests, fishing out the oceans and pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere can be benign. This is the domain of morons.

    Get real Alan. Do something about the real elephant in the room (POPULATION GROWTH) and show that you have double digit IQ by working for your grandchildren, not against them.

  45. eric

    mick j
    Posted Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    Get real Alan. Do something about the real elephant in the room (POPULATION GROWTH) and show that you have double digit IQ by working for your grandchildren, not against them.

    Jones being a gay man wouldnt have any grand children you would think LOL!

    He is one nasty piece of work, arch hypoctite and a dyed in the wool ALP hater and has been for years.

  46. Michael de Angelos

    Edward James
    Posted Friday, 15 June 2012 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Again I ask MICHAEL DE ANGELOS and all those others subscribing to Crikey should we discriminate on the basis of sexuality? Edward James.

    No, of course not.

    However I found Chris Master’s biog of Alan to be quite fascinating especially when he put the case that a closet sexuality may have driven so much of the subject’s actions. Although Masters was speculating of course.

    I actually finished the book and felt great sympathy for Alan Jones.

  47. Edward James

    For the time being I dislike the Labor party much more than Alan Jones. How dose the saying go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Edward James

  48. Edward James

    @ CLYTIE Posted Friday, 15 June 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink The five wrongful deaths I am angry about are the Bragg and Holt family members who died in a flooded creek when the so called old Pacific Highway collapsed into Piles Creek at Somersby. My local council was responsible for maintaining that and other culverts. My councilors are responsible for seeing the council conducts its activities within the various laws and acts in place to guide it. what happened was more like malfeasance than human error. Some say while we may think globally we should act locally. I sat through the coronal inquiry and never seen one Gosford City Councilor turn up in fact the only people from Gosford Council I seen at the inquiry were witnesses. Edward James

  49. Liamj

    Alan Jones is vile and ACMA is a sick joke, so whats new.

    Dumping bodies in bags from helicopters into the sea was a well known practice of fascist junta’s installed by USA in the 70s & 80s. Thanks AJ for the preview of where this country is going.

  50. klewso

    Edward – How could you dislike the Labor Party more than Jones does? Is there a contest?
    He seems to have tried her and found her guilty of having committed parricide – going by the punishment he thinks suits her “crime”?

    [Which is pretty funny – but also understandable – from a parrot?]

  51. klewso

    “Her” being Gillard, it’s leader.

  52. Edward James

    There is a clue in my reply to Clytie Friday, 15 June 2012 at 4:16 pm above. Edward James

  53. Bill

    Edward, no-one was saying anything about Jones’s sexuality specifically.
    To mention a well-worn allegation about an arrest in London is not an attack on his sexuality, it’s an attack on his character. To suggest that people are discriminating against him because of his sexuality is a diversionary tactic.

    If the last 100 years have taught us anything (and it probably hasn’t), it’s that they enemy of your enemy may also be your enemy.

  54. Edward James

    Bill. I make very public attacks on our political allsorts personal values all the time. I also have a history of paying to publish full page ads exposing the garbage our elected reps pass off as good governance. And I have published links to my political work product here on Crikey so interested activist may check out what has been published. I recall when news limited made fun of the fact I had read the Prince in an attempt to understand how politics worked. I have matured after a decade in what some may say was a political wilderness I have my own experience and I act accordingly. Too many constituents have gone cap in hand to Labor with political problems relating to misgovernance at Local council levels for years. Many of those people some of whom have come to me for assistance have realised grass roots members of Labor go deaf dumb and blind when anyone points out their elected reps are no dam good! I do what I can to assist my local community which includes informing Crikey readers about the “wrongful deaths” at Piles Creek. While at the same time reaching out to others who know from their personal experience we are not well represented by the two parties not much preferred and their supporters. I don’t do diversionary tactics Bill, perhaps you could give me a call 0243419140 Edward James

  55. Bill Hilliger

    @Bill finally someone has woken up to intent of my original ‘tongue-in-cheek’ post of Friday, 15 June 2012 at 2:18 pm merely to set the hares running. It worked; it is amazing how since that post, a gradual build-up of innuendo in regard to AJ has developed. Every-one kicked the can further down the road with their own labelling and outlook on London matter. Not to put too fine a point on it; this is precisely how the media including AJ and the likes of A Blot seem to operate on anything they wish to portray e.g. Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan; and on the other side of the spectrum Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper. QED

  56. Bill Hilliger

    @ Edward James see my previous post acknowledging Bill’s perception.

  57. Bill

    Thank you Edward, for answering many questions I didn’t ask. Perhaps if you could point to a comment on this piece that maligns Jones for his sexuality, you would have had a point but your eagerness to portray Jones as the victim of discrimination looks to me like a textbook attempt to sidestep the very serious misconduct he is accused of. And I’m not saying anything about any ancient alleged recreational activities.

  58. Edward James

    Bill & Bill Hilliger The idea lying political allsorts should be “sacked” = put in a chaff bag and flung into the sea would be a good start! Here we are with our own bought and paid for “media” and yet pundits seem intent on spending time carping on about how main stream media fairfax and news limited and Alan Jones are biased. I write and pay to publish my own comments in the Peninsula News and Gosford Central Community new, on more that one occasion I have named lying politicians the links have been published on Crikey. Lets get back to tors boys. I hate Labor, don’t expect me to attack Alan Jones who attacks them! How is it so many political active people can turn deaf, dumb and blind while I am pointing out five people died because politicians did not do their jobs? Edward James

  59. Edward James

    short reply to the two bills The idea lying political allsorts should be “sacked” = put in a chaff bag and flung into the sea could be a good start!

  60. Edward James

    Can’t respond through moderation getting like news limited and fairfax

  61. Edward James

    Seriously Crikey moderation often takes so long I forget what I was having a conversation about! Edward James hence the phone number

  62. Edward James

    Thank you bill look back through Crikey archives get the link and answer your own questions

  63. Allison

    So when someone gets assassinated because of the fear and hate merchants like Jones .. will he cop responsibility for that then?

  64. Hamis Hill

    To EJ as a former student of civil engineering I was apalled by the washed out culvert deaths on the Old Pacific Highway because of the direct responsibility of the engineering profesion for this ugly tragedy.
    Australian engineering professionals have, after along time waiting, had their qualifications finally
    recognised overseas as being of an equivalent standard (some years ago now).
    On a similar issue of roads, a threat of embarrassment was made to a local council, via the local newspaper, when it was suggestsed that visiting civil engineers would be very critical of the glaring
    engineering deficiencies they would encounter as tourists travelling on the local council controlled roads.
    I have no doubt that in the case that you are prosecuting in the court of public opinion that the local elected councillors fobbed off their responsibility onto the couuncil “Engineer”.
    Feed back from the “profession” indicates that council engineers can be conscripted into
    malfeasance, or corruption and misconduct bymajor party elected officials in local govrnment.
    I would say that it is notorious.
    If, Edward, the local enforcers of profssional engineering standards are not or have not been interested in your case then I am sure that their international alleged professional “peers” would appreciate reviewing the details for they are very jealous of their reputations and their professional standards.
    The media standards applying to AJ might benefit from similar exposure, internationally.

  65. Hamis Hill

    Reply to Edward James awaiting moderation, yet again. Que!

  66. klewso

    “Satire” Edward.
    Who, from their exclusive, privileged positions, with little competition (where alternate views were edited out), chose to open this “Pandora’s Box of Personal Vilification” but these shock-jocks – to the rapturous applause of their audience?
    Now with media sites that grant access to the other previously “muted” side to air their views, those that had the field to themselves so long before don’t like it. Now (after so long when things were running their way), they want to introduce “rules”?

  67. Edward James

    @ KLEWSO Posted Monday, 18 June 2012 at 5:28 pm Thanks I am not as literate as some who post here. The “shock jocks” are not journalist or politicians thats true, since media sites found themselves competing with Public Trust Journalist like us ( a term I first read here on crikey.com.au) . Some of the main players SMH and the Age among others don’t really want to engage with their paying readers. Lets face it in a time when the 24 hour news cycle and cross media promotions are acknowledged, why do us paying consumers who want to be involved need to wait hours if not days for our comments to be promulgated. Edward James

  68. Bill

    I must thank Mr James for his honesty in saying,
    “I hate Labor, don’t expect me to attack Alan Jones who attacks them!”

    That sums up the problem in a nutshell.
    There are more than enough people willing to excuse, rationalise, or completely ignore indefensible behaviour purely on the grounds that the politics match.

    There are many whose politics I broadly agree with – enemies of my enemies if you like – who I will still not endorse because they’re crazy people. I won’t mention any names here because the specific people are not relevant to this conversation, but if I were prepared to tolerate outrageous ramblings from anyone who happens to broadly agree with my politics, what would it say about my integrity?

    That’s the difference between some of us and the shock jocks. Some of us have standards and are willing to apply them to all sides.

  69. Edward James

    What are your nutshell politics Bill? I have been standing up in public in my community for well over a decade Bill. I can and do effect change in the political face of politics in my community. Crikey readers who have used the links published on Crikey.com.au know this. Crikey is after all a public forum where politically active peoples like me may engage with others who are interested in moving toward honest open representative government Edward James 0243419140

  70. The Pav


    I think thatyou have hit on the sweet spot there. Right commenators never truly hold their side to account yet the Left are more willing.

    To avoid local comparison just look at Jon Stewart. There is no doubt he is pro Obama yet some of his monologues have exquisitly skewered him in a way I have never seen done by the right.

    It is alos interesting that comedians / satirists alomsot exclusiovely seem to be of “the left”.


  71. klewso

    I like Stewart, I don’t know that he is particularly “pro Obama” (except by nature of “the alternatives”), but he is very much “pro what the Democrats generally stand for” :- looking out for those less able to look after themselves in a sometimes rabidly competitive world (where scapegoats and self-absolution abound).

    But you’re right Pav the Left does seem to have more of a sense of humour – it seems the choice was either that or an “authoritarian, brook no contradiction, born-to-rule metality”?

  72. klewso

    ….. which those that went for the latter can wrap up, present and justify as “patriotism”?

  73. The Pav


    I do exclude the current Lord Mayor of London from being a humourless category & there is a writer in the USA whose name escapes but wrote “Eat the Rich”.

    The writer bloke ( why can’t I remeber his name) was more a true Republican than a conservative hence his opositioon to Bush jnr

    Conservatism has always struck me as being the radical philosophy I mean after all what is more certain than change?

    Another thing that puzzles me is all the shock jocks seem to be right wing ot=rt ultra right wing.

    I think conservatives tend to be so virulent because they are afraid of change and this fear makes them angry. It’s hard to be funny when you’re angry

  74. Bill

    There will always be a certain section of the community who like things kept simple. They just want to know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys – who to cheer and who to hate. They tend not to get nuance, like the fact that government policy is what can pass parliament and since no party has a majority, there will have to be compromise.

    The right wing knows how to exploit this demographic far better than the left.

    That kind of explains satire as well. It’s not that there aren’t any right wing comedians. Take Dennis Miller for example. (Please) It’s just that they’re not very funny. Fox News tried to do their own version of The Daily Show a few years ago. It was painful and it lasted about three weeks.

    I may be going out on a limb here, but I’d expect the kind of humour that would appeal to the average 2GB listener would be more along the lines of your Rodney Rudes or Kevin Bloody Wilsons – not overtly political, but rather simple.

    For better or worse, the left tend to try to appeal to reason while the right is happy to appeal to useful idiots.

  75. Edward James

    Things are simple for people at the grass roots of politics Bill! If my elected representative wants to turn deaf dumb and blind when I confront him or her with evidence of political sins against the people. I will publish my concerns about my elected representatives lack of political interest in effective representation, in my local news paper for all voters to see. I do not think it is any sort of joke I / we pay taxes and rates to people who go on junkets and swan around the world while their constituents are struggling to stay above the poverty line. I have named and shamed politicians. ( the links are on Crikey) My local council is responsible for five deaths! What bothers me is there are plenty of people with opinions here on Crikey but not many of them are interested in overtly pursuing the sort of good honest open government we all pay for. Edward James

  76. mick j

    The 5 deaths you speak about Edward is only the starting point for the council you are talking about. Add to this an apparent business relationship with the real estate industry. Council was made aware that it was illegal to rent residential homes out as venues. So when asked by the Planning Minister to “effect controls’ what did it do? Answer: it changed the Planning Instrument so that after due diligence its friends in the real estate industry could once again resume its dirty activity, this time totally legal. Bugger the community. The community is there for little more than to provide rates to pay the bills. They’re all aware of this rort. What did councillors do? Nothing. What has the state government done? Nothing. As you stated Edward the silence was deafening.

Leave a comment


https://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/15/jones-failed-reasonable-efforts-test-but-chaff-bags-ok/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.