Broadcaster Alan Jones’ reactions to the uproar over his latest Julia jihad-jibes bear reflection.
Once a respected commentator, a man who saw himself as a kingmaker, not just for Wallabies jumpers but for joes of any persuasion with a confessed future in public life or in politics, it is all too apparent he is now just nothing more than bitter and twisted.
Aside from the ugliness of his diatribe against Prime Minister Gillard, invoking a shameless throwaway line that is nothing but a piece of vitriol against her and her late father, there remain other legacies.
Within the explanations Jones has subsequently delivered in the past two days of that night he addressed a roomful of Young Liberals in Sydney are some pertinent points.
Aside from those, dare we suggest this smacks of a man only sorry he’s been caught out and the fallout catastrophic.
Jones doesn’t apologise for actually thinking it, saying it. He does regret repeating it.
Jones reportedly said he’d only repeated what had been said at a function for one of his godchildren.
The dynamics of the reactions from others is pause for thought too.
At first it appears some organising spokesmen suggested it didn’t happen; it wasn’t said. Then, looking something like the trainwreck heading their way,
suggestions that it wasn’t really newsworthy anyway, and why was the media
One senior Liberal yesterday told a radio news reporter that Jones often had been the voice of Australia. True, he’s been a mouthpiece for the Liberal Party, but increasingly lately others have become apologists for him and his words.
Social discourse is one thing.
Democratic speech another. Diatribe, vitriol, bullyboy, ugly remarks from someone looking increasingly like an absurd megalomaniac misogynist are quite another.
Jones’ offensive remarks don’t have a place in our conversation. His wheedling reasoning about remarks being reported from a private party lack credibility too.
So, he wants to be able to say these things to people and not feel some
condemnation from the public at large. Why not? It speaks volumes for the moral character of a man who seeks to influence others.
It smacks of the offensive ugliness of social media gone mad. It condemns those who seek to excuse his responsibility for an open, dignified debate that still has a generosity of spirit that our Australian society still prides itself on having.