The Alan Jonestown Massacre

[ataxi]

Link (to Philip Adams op-ed piece)

Saw this on Media Watch last night as well. In brief:

• ABC Enterprises sets down $100,000 of funding for Chris Masters (Four Corners reporter) to write an unauthorised biography of Alan Jones.
• After four years of (supposedly "meticulous") work, Masters completes the book.
• Alan Jones' associates get hold of

Comments

[prawnwarp]

Gerard Henderson had an op-ed in the SMH around the time when Windschuttle was appointed, in which he argued that Howard's habit of appointing right-wing culture warriors to the ABC board was counterproductive, from a conservative point of view. This was because - according to GH - it took them out of the never-ending public "debate" about ABC bias (my scare quotes, because it's never been an actual debate, just a received idea).

A typical piece of Hendersonian sophistry (which I often find amusing even as it raises my blood pressure) which then degenerated into Yet Another ABC Bash, kicking the left-bias straw man a few more times.

If the board really did bin the Jones bio, I think this is an own goal for the right, purely from the point of view of tactical politics. Surely a book attacking Jones could be more easily dismissed by the Right if it were published under the ABC imprimatur (we all know they're a bunch of commies).

[ataxi]

Yes, it's odd. Perhaps it was more fear of legal action or pressure from the Jones camp than a desire to suppress publication - obviously not going to happen - on the part of the board. My post probably miscued on that.

The sidestep you mention (I'm unfamiliar with Gerard Henderson, not being a regular SMH reader) has an obvious flaw: in appointing his supporters to the ABC board Howard would actually want sympathetic forces to influence its output. If there is sufficient influence on the ABC board to reject Jonestown it's not that much of a stretch to imagine the independence of its broadcast journalism becoming compromised, particularly as practiced in the long form on programs like Four Corners.

[prawnwarp]

This ABC story backs up Adams' claim that the board trashed Masters' book - which I was prepared to dismiss as a typical bit of Adams' old-lefty paranoia - but also claims that the decision was made on commercial grounds, because they got the collywobbles about legal costs.

This all reminds me of a David Marr broadcast on Radio National when the new defamation laws came in. He said generations of journalists (himself included) had internalised the old NSW "truth is no defence" law, and that it would take a while for the self-censorship to shut down. Maybe that's what's happening here. Or maybe the costs argument is a smokescreen and Adams is right after all.

Henderson is one of the more intelligent conservative commentators in Sydney. He'd actually be a good journalist if he wasn't such an obedient footsoldier in the culture wars, so he's always tying himself into rhetorical knots, trying to ensure that he's on the right side in the Great Game.

[ataxi]

It doesn't precisely claim that the decision was made on commercial grounds - it claims the ABC Board claim that."It had been edited, legalled, even a cover prepared ... the board decision came despite ABC Enterprises actually arguing for publication ..."
Go, out of context quotation.

It's not clear why the board's opinion differed from that of ABC Enterprises, although the board would've had less invested in the project I suppose. I also suppose we'll have to wait to see what's actually in it to judge. Obviously there's the strong rumour that Jones is gay, which I guess might turn off some of his listeners if it became "official".

[prawnwarp]

Well, yes, you're right, it doesn't exactly say commercial grounds. It says that they were afraid of "unrecoverable post-publication legal expenses could amount to several hundred thousand dollars" which affected the viability of the project, although you'd think ABC Enterprises would have a better idea of that than the board.

The more I think about it the more dodgy it seems, and if the book gets picked up by a commercial publisher, that will put paid to any idea that it was too dangerous to turn a profit.

I hate to admit this but there are a number of Jones' followers in my extended family. If they're at all representative of his fan base, they'll treat any claims that he's gay, no matter how official, as malicious gossip spread by his enemies.

[ataxi]

Oh noes, your family all like Alan Jones *grin*

Sorry. Anyway, my folks like The Bill, so we're square.

Back to the point: yes, I agree. If the book is put out by a commercial publishing house and becomes a success without attracting heavy legal action then the ABC board will have more to answer to. It would then appear that either the rejection was not on commercial grounds, or they had poor judgement to the financial detriment of the ABC.

[ataxi]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/books/jones-biography-gets-green-light/2006/07/07/1152235093312.html