catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

The Alan Jones brouhaha II

with 82 comments

I thought Chris Masters was a class act and it was really David Marr’s editing that was behind the explicit campaign against Jones using Masters’ biography. But then we find this smoking gun:

    Masters said he accepted the broad argument that a person’s private life should stay private unless it impinged on their public role.
    But Jones’s “masquerade that he is not homosexual is damaging to himself. It is a defining feature of his persona” …
    ” The lie that Alan Jones maintains is, I am sure, more for the sake of preserving a dishonest power base than it is about protecting personal privacy.”

What on earth is this about? In the world of the identity politics Left, ‘masquerade’ = ‘don’t want to talk in public about what you get up to in your bed’. To crudely put it, Masters sounds like he is saying gays who don’t prattle on endlessly about their sexuality are ‘damaging themselves’.

It also sounds in the last sentence quoted that Masters is saying ‘Jones is trying to hide his sexuality because he keeps his fans that way. If his fans found out, he would be finished. Therefore …’ I think this assumption is flawed too. As someone said in the comments in the previous Alan Jones thread, this severely underestimates Jones’ fan base. The fact is most conservatives or populists or whatever you want to call his fan base don’t give two hoots about a person’s sexuality as long as they’re not having it shoved in their faces in leather and chains.

This is Exhibit A, I think, for the identity politics Left – professional gays who prattle on endlessly about their sexuality, like professional ethnics who prattle on about their ethnicity are A-Ok (and of course they should keep reminding everyone that they owe their rights to the left), but the others are beyond the pale.

Let it not be said that I am a fan of Jones. His toxic brew of anti-globalisation and xenophobia are the polar opposite of libertarianism. But this obviously politically motivated witchhunt with taxpayers’ money is not a class act.

Update: A superb take on this issue in today’s Australian by John Heard.

Advertisements

Written by Admin

October 23, 2006 at 10:14 am

Posted in Uncategorized

82 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. you are engaging in too much thinking Jase.

    Master’s is merely brettising a person.

    In this instance Jones still living a lie by his inability to say he is homosexual.
    It could well be a defining part of his persona. I do not know as I do not know the guy nor want to know.

    It may harm his base although given the amount of buckshot that has not penetrated it I would doubt it indeed being a homosexual these days is quite trendy.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 10:53 am

  2. Homer says:
    “In this instance Jones still living a lie by his inability to say he is homosexual. It could well be a defining part of his persona. I do not know as I do not know the guy nor want to know.”

    Homer, you’re losing it, man. Applying the same logic have you ever played around outside of your marriage? You seem to think it is important. I like most other people am curious when it comes to gossip. However who a person sleeps with is not pertinent in doing a populist radio job. Anyway his economics sound more traditional leftist to me so you ought to be supporting him.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 11:22 am

  3. FTR JC I think your comments on Quiggin are unfair. Quiggin is a serious intellectual. But I know I won’t convince you of that.

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 11:22 am

  4. I agree with young Jase re Quiggers. He has a formidable intellect.

    Jase it is no different if he didn’t come clean on being an alcoholic.

    Coming out doesn’t hurt anyone Jase Michael Kirby being a case in point.

    Taking women as a partner to social dos when quite clearly you aren’t that way inclined is absurd and in some way must affect him.

    By the way all the problems with Jones are stated openly.
    I am wondering why one John Anderson has never come clean on the rough time he got at Jone’s hand at Kings.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 11:30 am

  5. ‘I am wondering why one John Anderson has never come clean on the rough time he got at Jone’s hand at Kings.’

    Sheesh, Homer you’re a real gossip monger aren’t you? You really want everyone to hang out their dirty laundry? What is it with you? Maybe you should convert to Catholicism and attend confession.

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 11:36 am

  6. “Coming out doesn’t hurt anyone Jase Michael Kirby being a case in point.”

    Ho, ho. Michael Kirby came out when he was 60, after 3 years on the High Court Bench.

    BTW, I don’t think you can fairly say that Jones is in denial about his sexuality. He’s maintained a “none of your business” approach to questions about it ever since David Leser’s interview with him in the late 80’s. I don’t think he views it as a secret.

    GeoffH

    October 23, 2006 at 11:54 am

  7. Come one, come all. Dr Homer Paxton is hanging out his shingle in the psychiatric profession!

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 12:05 pm

  8. “Taking women as a partner to social dos when quite clearly you aren’t that way inclined is absurd and in some way must affect him.”

    Homer. It’s 2006. Who gives a shit. Seriously.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 12:12 pm

  9. If sexuality is off-limits, then what about religion? If Jones was, for example, a closet Muslim would it still be unacceptable to “out” him in the media?

    Amir

    October 23, 2006 at 12:14 pm

  10. If Jones has made anti-Muslim comments in the past and if he was a closet Muslim, yes, it would be acceptable to out him.
    I don’t recall Jones ever making anti-gay comments. Silence does not equate to disapproval.

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 12:17 pm

  11. BTW Amir I think this has moved on beyond the outing issue. The issue is that
    1) Masters thinks that there is something wrong with Jones because he doesn’t wish to parade his homosexuality
    2) Masters has more or less admitted that one of the reasons he wrote this was in the hope that Jones would lose his fan base on their finding out that he is gay.

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 12:19 pm

  12. Geoff,

    Kirby has already come out. Jones hasn’t.
    That is the point

    JC the point is he is engaging in a charade when he doesn’t have to.

    Jason if perhaps you indulge in philosophizing before you do some sociologising you might understnd where Maters is coming from.

    He is saying his almost denying of his homosexuality is the reason for his behaviour through his various personas.

    If one is to write about Jones one can’t really avoid the issue.

    By the way Jase the John Anderson issue was in 4 corners!

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 12:26 pm

  13. do you think you could write a book about Bill Clinton and not mention his serial adultery.

    If you answer no then you are a complete hypocrite in both philosophical or sociological cases!

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 12:36 pm

  14. Still having problems getting the point Homer?

    We’ve been through this already. The issue here in this particular post is why Masters wrote the book and what Masters as amateur Freudian thinks about Jones not getting about with the words I AM GAY tatooed on his forehead.

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 12:42 pm

  15. “Kirby has already come out. Jones hasn’t.
    That is the point”

    No it’s not. The point is that it’s not necessarily as easy to be out as you assert. Kirby didn’t come out until he adjudged it beyond the point of damaging his career to do so. Jones doesn’t deny his sexuality, he just doesn’t discuss it which, given your well known views on the subject, shouldn’t surprise you. Lots of homosexual men of Jones’ generation, in quite senior positions, don’t make an issue of their sexuality. It would probably be better if they did, in my view, but it’s their choice.

    BTW, lots of gay men go out with women to various functions etc. You don’t actually have to be having a sexual relationship with a woman to enjoy her social company.

    GeoffH

    October 23, 2006 at 12:48 pm

  16. “You don’t actually have to be having a sexual relationship with a woman to enjoy her social company. ”

    No, but for a hetro it damn sure helps.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 12:50 pm

  17. Geoff,

    1) Kirby came out because he judged it wouldn’t damage him. It didn’t.
    Nor would it damage Jones.
    2) they may well take women but I doubt they would allude to romantic links with the women.

    Jase,
    with respect you don’t get it.
    As I said it is no different to Clinton denial.
    Can anyone write a book about Jones without saying both he is homosexual and it is a factor in the way he acts?

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 12:56 pm

  18. Homer
    Stop conflating. Clinton’s stuff that came out ( pun intended) on the back of ( no pun) a civil action by Jones. The accusations were amde by jone’s lawyers. he then went on tv and told us he didn’t have sexual relatins with that woman. Jones then got a sample of his dna and the er.. accidenton the teenage prez had on Lewisky’s dress. He lied in depositions for the Jones case.
    His real troubles began when it was obvious that the stain and dna matched and he had lied in depostions.

    A little different Homes. Anyway as a social conservative why are you defending Clinton?

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 1:06 pm

  19. In virtually every thread Homer brings up either Clinton or Iron Mark. Then of course there is his undying loyalty to EP.

    Homer, you sure you don’t need to come out of the closet yourself, fella?

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 1:30 pm

  20. You’re right, Jason. Homer always brings up those two idiots while Ep is his hero. He’d bring up those two if were talking about football.

    He tells us he’s a social conservative yet his hero Clinton must be the only teenage prez to have ever had a seris of blowjobs in the white house.

    Get a grip Homes….. of intellectual consistency I mean.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 1:38 pm

  21. Chris Masters stinks on this issue. Defending the right to privacy until Masters decides its politically useful for publicity. However, I don’t think we could expect much better from a journalist, to be honest.

    I’m not sure what point Homer is going on about either. But then, neither does he, so all’s well that ends well.

    Scott

    October 23, 2006 at 2:00 pm

  22. I have now heard Masters on radio and can say confidently as I thought Jase is wrong but I was also.

    Masters is saying his homosexuality was behind his favourites and non-favourites and thus bullying at school and sometimes at work.

    At no stage is he saying it was sexual and I certainly did not read that into when I first read the extract. He is saying he had a strong affection for these people , (platonic love as originally defined or even the wiki definition) .

    JC,
    Clinton was a serial adulterer not a once off. He denied it like Jones does now.

    The EP thing was about principle not EP with whom as I recall rarely agreed.

    IF this was a hatchet job then Masters could have had a field day on wink winking about the London toilet episode. He doesn’t.
    What has happened here Jase is that right and left whether it be philosophy or sociology have both got it dead wrong.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 2:13 pm

  23. “IF this was a hatchet job then Masters could have had a field day on wink winking about the London toilet episode. He doesn’t.”

    He deals with it at length.. The problem Masters has is that no charges were laid.

    GeoffH

    October 23, 2006 at 2:17 pm

  24. I should have said that charges were laid but dropped.

    GeoffH

    October 23, 2006 at 2:24 pm

  25. but geoff where is all the wink winking he could have written about.
    Of course he wrote about it. It was a particularly public event in his life. I never said he didn’t write about it but there was plenty of material there for a person to write about to make inferences about if that was his motive.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 2:24 pm

  26. A bio is not a wink wink thing is it, homer. it’s supposed to be a little more serious than People magazine.

    “Clinton must be the only teenage prez to have ever had a seris of blowjobs in the white house.”

    I should have said oval office.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 2:37 pm

  27. Look, this whole Jones thing hangs on he not publicly stating his sexuality. Is there a problem there?

    Bullies are bullies, just like BBEP is bullying Jones with inuendo and malicious gossip which he picked up whilst leaning over a back fence, the value of which has to be worth $00.00

    Clinton was accused of rape and assault and then perjured himself before the nation, he is a proven liar and a predator and is not worth pissing on.

    rog

    October 23, 2006 at 2:47 pm

  28. JC,
    I am not saying that indeed I am saying the opposite.

    Let us take the London toilet episode.
    Masters shows how well prepared and London police were and whom they were looking for yet he states they had no evidence to prosecute.
    so there we have it a hatchet job shows how well prepared the police were to catch such people in
    London and Jones clearly wasn’t one of those people.
    Some hatchet job

    You are all as bad as the people you are criticising!

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 2:49 pm

  29. I caught some of the John Laws/Geoff Masters interview on 2UE this morning while driving. It was just nauseating, a complete character assassination. By Laws of a commecial rival, by Masters of a political hate figure.

    Towards the end of the interview, after an at length disapproving discussion about Jones’ “interest” in certain boys as a school master they made the point to each other asserting that “this is not to say however” that Jones was a paedophile or had any improper relationship with the boys.

    If so, what then?

    The whole tenor of the articles by Marr and the extracts from Masters’ book in the SMH are thick with innuendo about Jones’ behaviour with boys. The intention throughout is to place Jones under suspicion of sexual malpractice as is the emphasis on the so-called incident in London 18 year ago.

    A simple disclaimer at the end of a radio interview is simply ineffective in deflecting that innuendo.

    whyisitso

    October 23, 2006 at 2:54 pm

  30. whyisitso,

    the problem always was bullying.
    any ‘improper’ relationship would have brought physical violence to Jones by the parent.

    Masters undoubtedly got this from all the people he interviewed.
    I do wonder whether they are now reading back now something that occurred then.
    Some of these boys were much bigger than Jones and could have done something if that is what they thought.

    I would still think it is a platonic love involved.
    I didn’t hear Masters on 2UE.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 2:58 pm

  31. BBEP adds mind reading and time travel to his talents as a psychiatrist!

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 3:00 pm

  32. Jones can be pretty vindictive when he wants to be. In this case I hope he’s got somebody recording everything broadcast and written in this brouhaha and sues the pants off the bastards. I reckon his lawyers can select plenty of libellous stuff and be skilful enough to steer clear of the sexuality issue.

    whyisitso

    October 23, 2006 at 3:05 pm

  33. with due respect you blokes are reading into things and have attitudes just as bad as the lefties are.

    Jase,
    It isn’t hard to envisage something different once you find out a person is a homosexual or a womaniser or an alcoholic and read that back into the experience you had as a teenager.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 3:34 pm

  34. Homer
    What is this unatural obsession you have with Clinton and latham? They’re both ****.

    They are not very nice people. You can’t redeem them and turn inot born again Christians, Homer. They’ll think it always God’s fault.

    {EDITED]

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 3:38 pm

  35. Yikes! I’ve edited that comment JC. I think that could’ve verged on the libellous.

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 3:44 pm

  36. JC, It was young Jase who made that comment not I.
    As far as both are concerned.
    Clinton was a much more conservative President than the present one and far better.
    He cheated on his wife and asked for forgiveness and therefore gets it.

    Latham put forward a very conservative economic program at the last election which I supported more or less.
    History has seen him vindicated both in terms of the strategy he wanted to pursue but was talked out of and his Iraq strategy.
    He clearly will be dying well before he expected to so in that way I do feel sorry for him however I do agree he was unpleasant.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 3:54 pm

  37. You think God will sue?

    Lawsie and Jones fell out years ago, radio turf wars. PJK would go on to Lawsie about Jones and what a dill he was whilst Lawsie was feeling PJKs pockets for the cash to his Brooklyn pad and Jones was beating up Carr over crime rates.

    They have all done very well out of it over the years.

    rog

    October 23, 2006 at 3:59 pm

  38. exactly what would Jones sue about?

    by the way rog,

    PJK bought that well after he was out of politics.
    Your timeline is out but you are confirming Jason’s sociology theories though

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 4:07 pm

  39. Mysteriously divorced Keating loves nice clothes and art galleries.

    😉 😉 >>

    Once upon a time, people were more prudent about these things. Nobody revealed that John Curtin was a philandering drunk.

    C.L.

    October 23, 2006 at 4:17 pm

  40. CL,
    Keating is seperated not divorced and it was Chifley who was the philanderer not Curtin who lied about getting off the drink

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 4:19 pm

  41. Not so, PJK bought it when he was elected PM, Laws had the docs around the next day (so they tell me) – it was Berowra not Brooklyn – Constatinis owned land further up the Hawkesbury.

    PJK called Laws “the broadcaster of the century” around 1993, after PJK won the unwinnable election.

    Laws displays homophobic tendencies on air and this stoush is another episode.

    What gets me is that the tax payer funded ABC are involved in this petty smearing, what happened to the quality of journalism?

    rog

    October 23, 2006 at 4:32 pm

  42. Good lord, throw in Iron Mark’s violence, Hawke’s drunkenness and Gough’s racism and and it becomes hard to keep track of which Laborite scandal to ignore. The point is Homer – my dear old friend – you’re pursuing this stone-throwing exercise because you hate Alan Jones, not because it has any public merit. Clinton was sorry because he was caught, not because he was contrite. Whether or not he has been forgiven is for God and not anyone else to say. Has he also apologised for exposing himself to selected women as Governor of Arkansas?

    For the record, I dislike Jones immensely.

    C.L.

    October 23, 2006 at 4:38 pm

  43. CL
    Liking nice clothes and art galleries isn’t a sign of being gay. At least I think so, if i’m anyone to go by.

    Anyway Keating was a slurper if he liked Zegna. Brioni is the best rack suit in the world. I always thought he was a cheap bastard. But the french clocks business was real strange though. What an awful passion. Gotesque taste, hey.

    I would be more worried with the finacnial goings on in the pig business.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 4:40 pm

  44. “For the record, I dislike Jones immensely”count me in.

    I would also include the horrible Laws. I wish they had a lawsuit and they both lost big time.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 4:45 pm

  45. I have a few left, if anyone’s keen.

    Zoe

    October 23, 2006 at 4:45 pm

  46. Nice gravatar Zoe. It’s you, right?

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 4:47 pm

  47. No. I don’t wear underpants.

    Zoe

    October 23, 2006 at 4:48 pm

  48. well … after all that talk about homosexuality this is a nice change …

    Jason Soon

    October 23, 2006 at 4:49 pm

  49. Hmmmmm. I’m, speechless Zoe.

    So are you going to get a gravatar of you without knickers then.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 4:52 pm

  50. “well … after all that talk about homosexuality this is a nice change … ”

    that’s just Homer, who seems to be getting his economic and political views from People magazine these days.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 4:54 pm

  51. Liking nice clothes and art galleries isn’t a sign of being gay. At least I think so, if i’m anyone to go by.

    Jc, I was being intentionally trite to emphasise the danger and the shallowness of commenting on people’s sexuality.

    I don’t personally believe Keating is gay.

    Similarly, I mention other PMs to emphasise how silly it would have been to view their entire careers and what they did solely through the context of sex.

    C.L.

    October 23, 2006 at 4:57 pm

  52. Cl
    I know, Homer seems obsessed with all this sex talk. It often looks like he wants to turn blogs into one huge porn site, the rany devil.

    jc

    October 23, 2006 at 5:01 pm

  53. Just reading comments on Zoes blog; you have to listen to Jones to understand what you dont like about him, same for Laws. Most people who profess to not like them dont listen to them much, if at all.

    I occasionally listen to Jones, I disagree with almost all that he says more on technical grounds than ideological, he flits from one scandalous hypothesis to another without blinking.

    Laws is very low brow and doesnt pretend to be otherwise, every now and then he has some great US C+W artists on. One time he had Glen Campbell who must have the musical equivalent of a photographic memory with perfect recall, he corrected Laws on every point (thats when he didnt dismiss him outright) Laws just blundered on but thats OK, we are all human too.

    This is their audience, the average joe who only puts them on for entertainment not the meaning of life.

    rog

    October 23, 2006 at 5:02 pm

  54. Rog – if politicians treated them with the contempt they deserve rather than as a legitimate source of information, then I might be prepared to heed what I take to be your call to lighten up about shock jocks. If it’s just ‘for entertainment’ then why do pollies go on to discuss matters of national importance?

    Thankfully I live in Melbourne, where the only talk radio of note is on the ABC, and therefore relatively free of craven pandering to commercial and political interests. For now.

    FDB

    October 23, 2006 at 5:18 pm

  55. rog is technically right PJK was PM but had lost the election.

    CL if I hated Jones I think I might use some colourful pejoratives such as used by you from time to time.

    Jase has said this is a hatchet job on Jones but hasn’t really provided any evidence.
    It would be clearly silly to write about Jones and not mention his homosexuality.
    Moreover he has been hoist on his own petard in his sociologising claptrap!

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 5:18 pm

  56. I have now heard Masters interviewed twice on the radio.
    First on the World today and just now with Richard Glover and surprise surprise it was nothing like like Wyisitso’s listening on 2UE.

    Perhaps another win to Jase’s sociological treatise again

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 5:49 pm

  57. If Jones has made anti-Muslim comments in the past and if he was a closet Muslim, yes, it would be acceptable to out him.
    I don’t recall Jones ever making anti-gay comments. Silence does not equate to disapproval.

    Agreed. However, would it be acceptable to ‘out’ Jones’ private affairs if he has himself regularly ‘outed’ the private aspects of other people over the years? For example, their sexuality, religious beliefs or political views.

    Amir

    October 23, 2006 at 6:15 pm

  58. What “colourful pejoratives” do I use, Homer?

    C.L.

    October 23, 2006 at 6:20 pm

  59. I think we should all read Masters’ book, to be frank. Maybe he does think outing Jones will wreck Jones’ fanbase. He doesn’t understand a lot of blue-collar Australians if that’s what he thinks, but it’s also possible his book, is, ahem, more nuanced than that.

    skepticlawyer

    October 23, 2006 at 6:25 pm

  60. “It would be clearly silly to write about Jones and not mention his homosexualitity”

    Homer, sometimes you are so obtuse that it makes my head hurt.

    Geoff Honnor

    October 23, 2006 at 6:45 pm

  61. The point is that Masters hasn’t just “mentioned” homosexuality.
    He has used it, via amateur journalistic psychotherapy, to “explain” and hence, discredit Jones.

    I don’t like Alan Jones or what he represents but I’m not convinced that his sexuality (which – I’m sick of pointing out to you, Homer – he doesn’t deny) is what ultimately defines him and I’m sick to death of straight observers assuming that homosexuality is some sort of corrosive life pathology – when it suits them to do so for purely partisan purposes..

    Men of Jones’ generation were compartmentalised, were closeted – Don Dunstan, Neal Blewett, Michael Kirby, etc, etc. Why would Masters and Marr not conclude that they were deeply flawed characters when they – like Jones – were in the full glare of ascendant public life?

    Geoff Honnor

    October 23, 2006 at 7:00 pm

  62. I do also agree with Geoff Honnor about the partisan element, at least in the reporting of Masters’ book. I know David Marr personally, and he is a gifted and erudite man. Like many of his kin on the left, however, he tends to define people by what group they belong to. In that sense, Jason’s point about identity politics is well made.

    skepticlawyer

    October 23, 2006 at 7:09 pm

  63. If it is true that Chris Masters has attempted to smear Jones by bringing up a private aspect of his life in an unfavourable light, then isn’t that the exact same sort of thing that Jones has himself engaged repeatedly on the radio. He may not have bashed homosexuals, but he has certainly used people’s supposed religious or political beliefs in a similar fashion to how Masters is allegedly using his homosexality. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    Amir

    October 23, 2006 at 7:18 pm

  64. ‘I know David Marr personally, and he is a gifted and erudite man. ‘

    He’s effeminate, and while he’s very smart he’s dishonest.

    Is this all a Sydney thing? Would those of us who live in the provences know who Alan Jones is? I don’t think I’ve ever heard him.

    Sinclair Davidson

    October 23, 2006 at 7:19 pm

  65. Here is an interesting paper on who actually listens to Alan Jones by The Australia Institute.

    Amir

    October 23, 2006 at 7:23 pm

  66. “He’s effeminate, and while he’s very smart he’s dishonest”

    Effeminate? I don’t think he’s particularly effeminate and even if he was, so what, Sinclair?

    Geoff Honnor

    October 23, 2006 at 7:24 pm

  67. Amir

    October 23, 2006 at 7:24 pm

  68. The way he acts, and moves his head when talking, he leans over – as if to take one into his confidence etc. His whole demeanor when speaking. I always interpret that as being effeminate. You may have a different interpretation. But, whetever we call it, it always strikes me as an act, something premeditated, and fundamentally dishonest.

    Sinclair Davidson

    October 23, 2006 at 7:30 pm

  69. Like many of his kin on the left, however, he tends to define people by what group they belong to.

    Judging by this comment, it isn’t confined to the left…

    Ken Miles

    October 23, 2006 at 8:08 pm

  70. He wasn’t dishonest with me, Sinc, when a lot (probably the majority) of our literary establishment were at best unhelpful and at worst conniving backstabbers. I can think of a lot worse people I’ve met than David Marr. Yes he’s obviously very gay, but that’s never mattered to me. I’ve known far ‘gayer’ fellas.

    Jones has never been a hypocrite about his sexuality, Amir. Many of the people he’s bucketed about their religious values are plainly hypocritical (Hilali says different things to Arabic language audiences than he does to English language ones). Hypocrisy is a fair target, in my view.

    Now I’ve never met Jones. He may be a complete prick, but using his sexual orientation to attack his views is dodgy and mean-spirited.

    skepticlawyer

    October 23, 2006 at 8:12 pm

  71. Touche Ken (for some reason I can’t do that little French accent thingy). 😉

    skepticlawyer

    October 23, 2006 at 8:16 pm

  72. For the record, I didn’t know he is gay – I still think he is dishonest.

    Sinclair Davidson

    October 23, 2006 at 8:33 pm

  73. Geoff, whether it is obtuse or not, writing a biography of the man without mentioning is hypocritical in the extreme as is trying to justify not mentioning it in a biography.
    I do not think Masters has done a Judith Brett. I think he has written from what has been told to him both on the record and off it.
    I have just seen Masters interviewed well by Kerry O’Brien.
    Of the London episode he said Jones was ashamed but had NO REASON to be.

    Some hatchet job.

    CL ,
    cmon you do get a bit het up sometimes and use strong language.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 8:44 pm

  74. “Is this all a Sydney thing? ”

    Yes and no, the people are Sydney but the issues are broad.

    Having just seen the KOB interview, Masters says that he thinks that Jones has a greater influence than those that he represents and he believes that Jones’ methodology to be less transparent than govt.

    rog

    October 23, 2006 at 8:54 pm

  75. “Geoff, whether it is obtuse or not, writing a biography of the man without mentioning is hypocritical in the extreme as is trying to justify not mentioning it in a biography.”

    Homer, there’s a blindingly obvious difference between “mentioning it” and how Masters has attempted to frame Jones’ sexuality.

    Geoff Honnor

    October 23, 2006 at 10:03 pm

  76. framing his sexuality?

    I have only read the transcripts in the paper and listened to him today on the radio twice and the teeve.

    I see nothing wrong with the way Masters has written about him and his homosexuality.

    Another case for Jase

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 23, 2006 at 10:55 pm

  77. On ABC Insiders David Marr puts his foot in it by saying that relevance of Jones’ sexuality was the “explanation for his strange character”

    Oh dear.

    http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,20628998-2702,00.html

    rog

    October 24, 2006 at 7:37 am

  78. My prediction, Jones will return from the UK and his ratings will be boosted whilst Masters book will be on special 2 for $4 as Xmas stocking fillers and his next posting will be to Tasmania..

    rog

    October 24, 2006 at 7:49 am

  79. As the Governor no doubt, rog.

    whyisitso

    October 24, 2006 at 8:26 am

  80. I think Jase should do a part3 on Jones.

    Why ‘right-wingers’ seem to think this book is a hatchet job but can’t provide any evidence,

    Why one can’t mention his homosexuality sorry the way it is framed.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 24, 2006 at 10:00 am

  81. ‘Another case for Jase ”

    Another case of beer, you mean? Homer, your obtuseness would drive anyone to alcoholism.

    Jason Soon

    October 24, 2006 at 10:17 am

  82. Jase,
    you are as bad as the people you are criticising and just like the people you are criticising you won’t admit it.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 24, 2006 at 10:33 am


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: