Alan Jones is a nauseating goblin. Why is everyone focusing on Kyle?

David Gaines

In this guest post, David Gaines, outgoing boss of media agency Maxus, suggests the media business has double standards by focusing on Kyle Sandilands and having less to say about Alan Jones.  

The scandal and furore that followed any of Kyle Sandilands hate gaffes this year was evident for all on Mumbrella to see.

Advertisers apparently left in droves (although I suspect not). There was debate and pressure amongst the broader population to remove him from a prime breakfast slot. Some was genuine outrage. Some just public faces knowing that it is necessary to at least appear to find him offensive but wishing they had the same pull.

So with all the huffing and puffing over what a degenerate Sandilands is, what’s with the recent double standards for Alan Jones? Where’s the same coverage of his latest drivel?

In early September he added to his long list of WTF quotes by stating that “Women are destroying the joint…” It was a reference to various females in power. This followed his statement that Julia Gillard, the initial trigger for this tirade, should be dropped off at sea in a sack.

destroy the jointA lady called Jane Caro then sparked an interesting social media backlash stating she was going to come up with new ways of ‘destroying the joint’ and this has manifested itself in an entertaining Facebook page and t-shirt printing exercise. So the broader public have taken his attack and by mocking his own words, turned it into something humorous and probably a more visible reaction.

But where have all the righteous in the media business gone in the face of this chubby little misogynist’s ranting? Spots are still being bought and Alan Jones blatantly uses moan-back radio to further his political views. He may well be just preaching to the converted but also has influence. So doesn’t this make his potential more harmful? His slating of the fairer sex at least aligns in offensiveness with Sandilands ‘fat slag’ comment.

Should either be taken off air? Absolutely not. Should they have better ego editors in place? Quite possibly yes.

alan jonesPersonally I loathe Alan Jones. The way he sounds nauseates me and lately he looks like a constipated wino who looks close to exploding as he moves to the climax of his chosen rant. I worry that I find more coverage of his often bigoted perspectives in media outside of Australian shores. He is the shittiest of ambassadors for this country. And so I choose not to listen to him.

Does that paragraph alone make me as bad as AJ? Maybe but it’s all just content and there’s a good reason to have polarizing varieties of it, be it offensive goblins like Jones or whoever is your palatable voice. It’s the same with music and film. If it all made everyone happy it would be pretty bland and there’d be nothing for the righteous to get righteous about.

So back to us and our unbalanced vitriol. Which is it? Is Sandilands worse? Has Jones been getting away with it for so long people have just given up? Or do we have a lot of Jones sympathizers with shares in 2GB?

Probably some or none of the above. It’s people reacting as consumers rather than as observers of what goes on in media. That’s OK as long as we recognize that when commentating or advising in our roles. The actual themes people got shirty about have genuinely irked them but Sandilands was a topical conduit for reaction and backlash. If he wasn’t, this would have spilled into shock jock content per se.

So maybe what we experienced was fashionable outrage over Sandilands. Fashionable outrage breeds popular criticism. That’s like herd opinions. Everyone agreeing because they think they should without really thinking it through. A bit like an Alan Jones radio audience.


Get the latest media and marketing industry news (and views) direct to your inbox.

Sign up to the free Mumbrella newsletter now.



Sign up to our free daily update to get the latest in media and marketing.