Alan Jones and false facts.

fwed,  did you not say "strange how the right rush to defend their hero"?  Somebody must have posted under your name at 9.55 PM last night.  Since when do you have to be qualified to do your own research?  You continue to attack Alan Jones on here even though you have stated previously that you don't listen to him, never have & wouldn't, even if you could.  Where do you get off stating that anybody who is defended on here is the defender's "hero"?  No, you have never said that I or anybody else on this forum has not got the right to express an opinion.  BUT, you have made it clear the AJ has not got the right to research the net, just as everybody I know, does their research to-day.

I agree that every public person is exposed to justerfiable public scrutiny for what they say or do.  But not to manufactured accusations that are factually baseless.  You have obviously forgotten that Murdoch was largely responsible for getting Neville Wran & the Labor Party into power in NSW a few years ago.  How do you know their politics?  What right, or qualification, have you got to state that either of these people are politically conservative?

I defend anybody who is attacked on here  with unjustifiable innuendo & accusations that are totally non factual.  I have defended Rhinehart & let me assure you that she is not my hero nor can I stand a bar of the woman.

You say  "illegal blackmail"  -get real.  Whether you like it or not, the young uni student, labor member & would be, future politition, who started the face book campaign against a number of 2GB clients & threatened to bankrupt them by boycotting their products if they continued to advertise on the programme, is technically alleged to be guilty under the NSW Crimes Act as well as breaches of the Federal Broadcasting Act, & also breaches of The Trade Practices Act regarding third Party Boycotts.  Believe me,  that IS "REAL" although there is no chance that Roxon will follow it up.

Quote innes "No, you have never said that I or anybody else on this forum has not got the right to express an opinion."

Why did you say that I was about to tell every poster that then ?

"BUT, you have made it clear the AJ has not got the right to research the net, just as everybody I know, does their research to-day."

Nope , never said that either

"You say  "illegal blackmail"  -get real.  Whether you like it or not, the young uni student, labor member & would be, future politition, who started the face book campaign against a number of 2GB clients & threatened to bankrupt them by boycotting their products if they continued to advertise on the programme, is technically alleged to be guilty under the NSW Crimes Act as well as breaches of the Federal Broadcasting Act, & also breaches of The Trade Practices Act regarding third Party Boycotts.  Believe me,  that IS "REAL" although there is no chance that Roxon will follow it up."

If someone has committed a crime (illegal is criminal) then the police should charge that person if a complaint is made. Why does it have to be Roxon especially as you say the person is guilty under the NSW crimes act. I know you said federal also but why would it not be up to Greg Smith ?

We can all do our own research and in most cases find the answers we want to find,   But in Alan Jones there was no evidence that he had done any research, Also in jone's case the authority said any ordinary, reasonable, listener would have taken his claims as 'fact'  It is not about whether carbon dioxide emissions is 0%1 or 50% but lies told as fact.       Everyone is quick to condemn Gillard re {no carbon tax} as a liar, I'm sure most reasonable people would have realised that after the election all things changed and the bargaining began on both sides.

fwed, You have cherry picked a very small piece out of what I said & ignored the main meaning.  Do you really think that every crime that is reported to the Police, is prosecuted?  I can't believe that you are naive enough to think that any action will ever be taken against a young member of the Labor Party for a high profile political case.  There is as much chance of that as there was of a Federal Move against Craig Thomson, before September next year, if ever.   You will note that the ACMA, a Federal Body, which employs 586 full time staff, whose jobs depend on their alliegences, has only ever brought actions against the Liberal Media supporters, like Jones, Bolt & others since Labor won Government.  Have you never been a recipiant of one of the thousands of email scams?  I get 2 or 3 every day.  Next time you get one, print it out & take it to the local Police Station & see what happens to your complaint.

BTW, it is interesting to note that the ACMA has accused AJ of giving out lies re Carbon Dioxide production.  According to them, the accepted figure for Humans is 3%.  Nearly every qualified expert in the World has given out a different figure & the United Nations Statistical Division gives another figure again.  The figure is estimatable at best & cannot be accurately defined.

You can go into the very nice Lobby Restaurant in Canberra any time it is not being invaded by aboriginal activists and find Labor and LNP politicians dining together.

Narcissists like Julia and Tony mighn't do that, nor the few who bounce between very narrow rails of ideology and idealism because they are incapable of an independent or original thought, like Nicola Roxon.  But generally speaking most get along fine, even if they have to look like they are avoiding one another from time to time to help their party machines and the media maintain the image of gladitorial contest between vastly different forces. 

The roadshow is for the dumb-ass punters and to shore up newspaper sales on limp days.  It is nothing short of amazing that anyone could scoff at Jones, but then buy the same product in different packaging, from a current affairs show on The Box.

Wouldn't it be good though to occasionally soar even a few feet above the murky swamp to examine and moralise over larger issues, such as the possible impact on democracy of the easily organised mob?

Jones has admitted he was wrong re the % of carbon dioxide.

He was incorrect in what he claimed so no need for so many words trying to make him sound like the victim. He brought it on himself ...... again.

I find it strange that so many cannot bear to hear that he made a mistake. Oh well.

In the news cycle it is old hat.  Done to death.  He is still a multi-millionaire.  He still owns a large share of the radio station.  Advertisers have just put their dough into other shows on the same station or with other shock jocks.  They go where the audiences are because they want to sell products.

What is of more concern is the unintended consequences for freedom of speech and democracy of encouraging large corporate advertisers to lean on the editorial policy and staff hiring and firing decisions of media outlets.

Students and unionists who were involved in the anti-censorship demonstrations of the Sixties are agape at the short-sighted stupidity of encougaging what they laboured so hard to challenge and finally get rid of.  The short term gain of a few politicians balanced against the risk of legitimising and reintroducing the scourge of corporate advertisers determining what the public can hear about and discuss?  Crazy stuff. The genie is out of the bottle again.

It also legitimises employers taking private lives into account in their hiring and firing decisions.  Another scourge we all thought we had got rid of or at least brought back into tight check in the Sixties.  Days when if your public service boss saw you as a spectator at a Vietnam demonstration your probation was terminated, or career stymied forever for a 'permanent. 

Police services already quietly set aside the paperwork of applicants whose Facebook and other entries could bring embarrasment to the force.

What blithering idiots never stopped to consider that raining the proverbial down on the head of some celebrity shock jock for what he said at a private function which had nothing to do with his work wouldn't legitimise employer interference in the private lives of workers?  By all means criticise the crass offensiveness of the statement.  But going further than that to make one private affairs and beliefs relevant to hiring and firing at work was ringing the bell for a return to the Fifties.

This federal government will be remembered for the unintended social and economic consequences of its short-sighted political populism and feckless idealism in lieu of considered rational policy.

some statements made by jones on air. He does need a truth checker.

In his introductions and comments during many interviews, Mr Jones asserts that organisations including the CSIRO, the ABC and the Bureau of Meteorology present research and broadcast stories accepting of the science of anthropogenic global warming only because they would otherwise lose government funding.

On June 3 in an interview with UK columnist Christopher Booker he said: ''I suppose if the government tips money into outfits like the CSIRO...or the ABC they will keep articulating what government wants to hear, won't they.''

In another recent interview with David Archibald of the Institute of World Politics Mr Jones quoted approvingly Mr Archibald's "sadness as a scientist ... that our scientific institutions", including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and many universities, "have failed in their duty to serve and protect the Australian people" by claiming that global warming is real only because "they want the money, they keep being funded by the government and they tell the government what they want to hear".

''They (scientists) are going where the money is, he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' he said again in July.

Does Mr Jones have any evidence for these 'cash for comment' and 'cash for science' allegations?

Mr Jones also repeatedly asserts in his editorials and during his introductions to interviews that there is ''not one chapter, one paragraph of evidence connecting carbon dioxide emissions with global warming''. He says global warming is based not on science but on a ''hoax'' and on ''witchcraft'' and on ''claims dreamt up by environmental activists''.

Given the large body of scientific work making exactly that link, how does he justify that claim?

Mr Jones also makes assertions about politicians you might like to check.

In his discussion with Mr Booker about how politicians around the world had been duped by the ''hoax'' of global warming, Mr Jones said of Coalition leader Mr Abbott that he was ''the hope of the side, the hope of the side...he said it was crap.''

Is he disputing Mr Abbott's own statements that he accepts the science of global warming, which is why the Coalition is proposing an alternative $10 billion policy to address it?

Extract from National Times, October 18, 2012

And on June 21 he asserted that Climate Change Minister Greg Combet ''must be on drugs''. Did he mean that literally?

Controversial "shock jocks" such as Jones, Francis in SA etc, seem to attract the masses for some reason that I can't comprehend....standards have gone "down down"........