The Alan Jones Affair – A Sign Of The Times

Posted: 30/09/2012 in General

Not that I strive to be topical, quite the opposite, but the Alan Jones thing has certainly flooded the media today.

What Jones said was inexcusable. I never had any time for the man or his ilk beforehand anyway; they carry no credibility with me whatsoever, being professionally opinionated bigmouths. But that was bad. Bad by simple community standards of decency, leaving aside considerations of specific personalities or political juxtapositions.

That said, his myriad vocal critics then went on to dismantle their own credibility. On Twitter and elsewhere the wild vitriol was palpable, and meshed in perfectly with our burgeoning culture of outrage-as-a-passtime. One silly old bugger making one off-the-cuff comment at a private function shouldn’t be enough to cause national outrage. In any case, Jones manufactured the ammunition, but it was the reporting journalist that loaded and fired the gun, for his own selfish motives.

Increasingly, it seems that the real-time public feedback loop engendered by chiefly Twitter but other lines of communication also has fostered an atmosphere in which people go looking for things to be utterly outraged at as an exercise, where once a disapproving shake of the head would have sufficed. There seems to be evolving an open-source thought-police model whereby anyone who speaks a heresy, whose definition is broadening daily, is subject to public vitriol and alienation at the whim of what is essentially an instant bandwagon culture. This happens largely in the absence of any collective introspection. This is the most dangerous aspect of it.

Alan Jones’ critics did nothing for their own credibility during the firestorm on Twitter that erupted after the news broke, and it only got worse during the live broadcast of the press conference during which Jones apologised. The jeering masses blotted their own copybook by

– carrying on about a rambling press conference which was i) completely unedited, a genuine Tasmanian-Tiger-level rarity, so of course it looked long & ineloquent, and ii) fuelled and egged on by journalists continually angling for a killer quote/further gaffe.
– resolutely refusing to listen to anything that he actually said, and wilfully & serially misquoting him in real time.
So there was idiocy aplenty on both sides.

Social ostracism is nothing new, and snooty fools from all walks of life have been using it since time immemorial to mete out punishment to those who have transgressed society’s precious mores. But the bandwagon-full-of-dynamite-rolling-down-a-hill potential of the net in terms of its speed and sheer reach beg some new consideration along the lines of making sure that the facts are served. It’s probably a plaintive cry amidst the mob, but the fact that the mob is so big and loud, and so very very instantly and iteratively self-reinforcing of its own views, make that cry all the more important.

In short, for critics of any kind to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, and to therefore continue to deserve any kind of audience, cold reason and adherence to the rules of fairness need to prevail at all times. As soon as the usual human mob mentality takes over and emotive garbage starts overwhelming the real conversation that should be taking place, nobody is saying anything useful, and the whole thing descends into a horrible waste of electrons.

So for future reference, all you fun-loving mob revellers out there, put away your pitchforks, listen properly, think carefully, then react rationally. By all means kick the guilty. But make damn sure that when you’re asked about it afterwards you can still defend all of your words with joined-up-reason & confidence. Otherwise you’re just noise.

  1. Brilliant.

    When I saw the extract, I thought this could have been a discussion about people who say things that other dislike – but in fact you have hit the nail on the head.

    In order to be a truly civilised society, we need to propagate the notion of freedom of speech – and what happens in the aftermath of events like this is exactly the opposite. Whatever happened to “OK, I think you’re an ass for saying what you did – but you still have the right to say it.”

    No… we have a Prime Minister that is intentionally deceitful, dishonest, is morally corrupt and nobody can call her on it. She refuses to answer to anyone about it yet she has her own employees looking for events upon which to muck rake over everyone else. Her communist leanings are coming through thick and fast.

    The problem is that her opposition *do* act with decency when they do wrong and *do* take appropriate action (as is the case with Cory Bernadi) – and this puts them at a disadvantage when dealing with people who are generally dishonourable in everything they do.

    Where is the outrage from the ranks about Peter Thompson, Peter Slipper and the PM herself, whose acts both past and present ALL far outweigh those of a journo being an ass?

    (Yes – the Peter Slipper thing does not escape me and something should have been done about him LONG before he became speaker. That was certainly a failing of his former party in not doing something about him before allowing him to be promoted up the ranks).

    Society now is deluged with people who seek to become a member of the Professionally Offended. Even if a comment does not affect them personally, they feign outrage because someone they know *might* – and they take steps to ensure that the only free speech that can exist — is their own.

  2. Shane Kerr says:

    Bravo. Well said. I tweeted a link to this. I hope thats OK.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s