9 Oct 2012

What Alan Jones Doesn't Know About The Media

By Ben Eltham
As Alan Jones has discovered, social media has given people a vastly amplified ability to register their disapproval. Every new outrage is another knock to the old media gatekeepers, writes Ben Eltham
Just why exactly are we all talking about Alan Jones anyway? Why should a few throwaway lines by a right-wing radio host be so important? After all, he made them to a private function, and few of us really care what Alan Jones says — even if it was admittedly in poor taste and about the Prime Minister. So why did his remarks spark off such a media firestorm?

That's the question Jones' managers at 2GB must be asking themselves today, as the furore over Jones' remarks that Julia Gillard's father "died of shame" keeps rolling and rolling. Such is the consumer backlash against advertisers on Jones' show that some estimates have 2GB losing $80,000 a day.

For someone of Jones' prominence and influence, it must be a disconcerting experience. For decades, hosting a high-rating AM radio show in Sydney made the person who hosted it something of a modern feudal overlord. As Chris Masters' wonderful biography of the man relates, Jones has immense influence and no little power in Sydney. He has the ear of the rich, the powerful and the elected. Masters wrote that there was a senior member of the Howard government who was effectively the "Minister for Alan Jones".

In retrospect, perhaps the fall of the Howard government was the first sign that the Jones empire could not last forever. Jones, like his audience, is ageing and increasingly out of touch with the values of younger Australians, particularly on social issues such as gay marriage, feminism and the environment. Unlike a Malcolm Turnbull, whose easy social liberalism seems effortlessly wedded to a belief in the power of free markets, Jones is a social conservative with an increasingly cranky veneer. The ascension of a childless female to the position of Prime Minister — in alliance with the Greens, no less — seems almost perfectly calculated to discombobulate the sensibilities of a conservative older man like Jones.

For a long time, Jones' misogyny went unpunished, if not unnoticed. After all, his views were shared by his listeners, and there were plenty of them, enough to keep Jones comfortably atop the ratings, enough to keep plenty of advertisers calling. For those angered by his remarks — and there were many — there were few ways to strike back at his power base.

But social media has changed that, by giving ordinary people a vastly amplified ability to register their disapproval. Change.org, the organisation responsible for the petition against Jones' advertisers, is an intriguing case study. It is a tiny start-up with just a handful of full-time staff. Essentially, it is just a website that facilitates online petitions. Its philosophy might be loosely described as left libertarian, combining a degree of social liberalism with a belief in the power of online technologies to effect social change.

When I visited the offices of Change.org a month or so ago, the atmosphere was closer to IT start-up than earnest lobby group. Nick Allardice, the youthful executive director, had just returned from a visit to an affiliate in Indonesia. He was genuinely excited about the ability of the site to expose the endemic corruption in Indonesia that the tightly regulated media there was unable to tackle.

Change.org does something very well, something that other forms of media have barely started to understand. It coordinates political speech from the ground up. Old media organisations, in contrast, dictate from the top down. They are broadcasters, not organisers. Jones is almost the pure example of a one-to-many demagogue.

Media guru Clay Shirky was alive to this distinction nearly a decade ago. Way back in 2005 he gave a TED speech in which he pointed to the ability of social networking technologies to substitute collaboration for institutional structures.

In the old days, Shirky pointed out, if you wanted to meet up with your friends at a cafe, you had to contact everyone beforehand, make a plan, set a time and hope that everyone would stick to it. Now that everyone has a mobile phone, planning is far more flexible. "You'll have experienced this in your life whenever you bought your first mobile phone and you stopped making plans," he says in the speech. "You just said, 'I'll call you when I get there, call me when you get off work.' Right? That is a point-to-point replacement of coordination with planning."

Big media organisations struggle with such flexible collaboration, because their entire business model is about building high walls around content and then charging for access at a toll-gate. They are one-to-many gatekeepers. The equation is simple. You want to talk to Alan Jones' audience? You can either make friends with Alan Jones, or you can pay.

As anyone who's had to argue with a bouncer will know, getting to be the gatekeeper can give you an enhanced view of your own abilities. Big media has long suffered from such gatekeeper arrogance. It even seems to infect younger journalists at daily newspapers, who definitely should know better. Just yesterday, we got to see the Daily Telegraph's Joe Hildebrand telling a hapless freelancer that "getting published in the Telegraph at all is a pretty massive deal for an aspiring journalist mate and you just blew it. Take your piece elsewhere." What he did instead was take Joe's email to media site Mumbrella.

This genetic difference in business models is the key reason that newspapers, television networks and talkback radio stations have struggled to come to terms with online campaign sites like Change.org and GetUp! Collectively, they simply don't understand the bottom-up, peer-to-peer nature of these websites. They're too wedded to the old systems of command-and-control.

The same might be said for many of the companies who advertise there. They too have long enjoyed a hierarchical relationship with their customers. Many have struggled to adapt now that customers find it so much easier to talk back. This is why they have long found it easier to ridicule GetUp!, rather than genuinely engage with it.

Former GetUp! Director Simon Sheikh had a good article in Fairfax yesterday in which he pointed out that 2GB's reaction is typical for big corporations when faced with an unexpected consumer backlash.

"I've seen the same two reactions emerge as the standard formulaic response," he writes.

"First, they belittle the people contacting the company in question, calling them 'keyboard activists' as though their opinion somehow counts less because they've sent an email rather than filled out a customer survey form."

"Soon, the target of a corporate campaign begins to realise that the message is starting to bite, regardless of the medium. They then move on to their next tactic: attempting to silence the feedback by claiming they're being bullied."

This is indeed the playbook being followed by 2GB. In recent days, it has tried the laughable argument that a backlash by angry citizens against its advertisers is somehow "bullying", or an assault on free speech. It's a nonsensical argument, as Malcolm Turnbull pointed out in a speech last night.

Big media and big business better get used to this sort of consumer activism. The old beliefs, along the lines that Jones has nothing to worry about because his listeners still love him, have rapidly been shown to be false. What we're seeing is the first real evidence that social media platforms can destroy value even in industries they are not competing against directly. Just as Wikileaks changed our understanding of what constitutes journalism, and Anonymous changed our understanding of what constitutes cyber-activism, social media campaigning is rapidly changing the relationship between the powerful in our society and the increasingly networked masses. That's a change that will bring adverse side-effects as well positive benefits. But it is a trend that's here to stay.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 13:50

Great article Ben, says it exactly. Jones will probably continue on for a while but his power has been broken.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. ErikH
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 17:25

Good article, Ben.

My only reservation is your comment about tightly controlled media in Indonesia. I live in Indonesia and I've seen stuff in the Jakarta Post and the Jakarta Globe that simply would not appear in Australian papers because they are so caustic and critical of individuals. SBY is regularly the target because he fails to take leadership when there are problems. The lead article in yesterday's JP was about the police attempt to silence the Anti Corruption Commission (KPK) and how SBY was being incredibly weak in not coming out to support the KPK.

Not long after I got here, there was a beautiful photo in the JP of four newly elected parliamentarians asleep in the legislature. The caption read "Newly inaugurated members of the Regional Representative Council doze off at their first meeting to elect a new speaker, in Jakarta on Friday. The councilors were inaugurated on Thursday and promptly adopted the standards for which their predecessors were renowned" I'd like to see that in the SMH!

Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 18:53

social media is going to make people more accountable - a lot of your speech if it makes it into the public sphere (data retention aside) will be on record and more important can be dredged up in real time during a debate - Q&A recently talked about Jones's contribution to the Cronulla riots - we can all troll through his history and bring up everything - Erik H can give his perspective on Jakarta's media - its pretty cool in'it - next step interactive democracy - check out RealDemocracyAU on twitter and what has been happening with the melbourne council

Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 18:57

Ben, an excellent story as always. You are very perceptive in where the media are moving...people such as myself who are bloggers and independent film makers pay attention to the trends in social media.

As Ive said before you're very good at tearing apart Defence Department budgets in a scientific and forensic manner as well.

My only concern, as a well behaved ethnic who has obeyed both the Left and Right when it comes to cultural directives, is will some of these new movements who use social media to push their agenda remain consistent?

Let me explain, as a well behaved ethnic I sang God Save the Queen with "gusto" at primary school morning assembles as a kid during the 1970s as mandated by the Right and now "support" diversity as mandated by the Left. In other words as a person who is not part of the ruling cultural clique (Left or Right) It's hard to keep track of what's in and what's out? We don't want to offend anyone.

You only have to look at people such as Iron Mike Rann, who began as a Greenpeace activist sending ships into French pacific territory in the 1970s to protest French nuclear testing but as South Australian ALP Premier did not ban uranuim mining. In other words hypocrisy.

Sasha Uzunov

Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 19:28

Ben, good stuff. One correction (I think). change.org had a petition to get Alan Jones sacked. The social activism directed towards the advertisers was largely coordinated through a Destroy the Joint Facebook page. Destroy the Joint is now moving to a more permanent online presence to continue addressing sexism and misogyny.

Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 21:29

Alan Jones is a waste of oxygen and just a waste of time with his outdated and ridiculous conservative thinking. He has always hated the Greens and now he has been exposed for what he really is. Simply a nasty individual. I have no time for.

Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 08:40

Sasha - interesting and thoughtful post.

We have never quite had a society as the one we currently have, with the unbalanced priority given to economic development and thus the extreme negotiation power of international and local corporations/obscenely wealthy individuals in creating an economic environment in our nations to attract their investment activity...financial organisations who seem to have an exclusive and effectual relationship with the democratic governments of the world, for their own profits and benefits rather than the interests of broad societal wellbeing...outside of and above the relationship we ordinary citizens have with our own governments.

Neoliberalism and economic principles in-tow, have created the necessity for citizens to discover new ways to access our powers of expressing our will (popular demand) and thus our rights of self-determination - especially seeing as our elected "representatives" no longer listen to us, and corporations only listen to their shareholders/lending institutions.

Conditions and actors of the 'free' market have created this situation; it is definitely up to the citizens of the world to evolve our social institutions and structures to continue to serve US rather than politicians and corporation...whose roles and responsibilities as social institutions seems to have chnaged - arguably they are now economic institutions...as are MSM businesses...no longer our "servants" but some perverse, autocratic, dollar-infested social disease.

If we don't do something about this grotesque social situation, we will see an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the very poor, middle classes will end up eroded to lower class, bigger underclasses...and ALL needs of a full HUMAN humanity will NOT be served. It could be part of a new social revolution...grassroots ALWAYS survive...all you have to do is see how plants find ways to grow through concrete and buildings to know you can't stop us...

Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 12:05

Alan Jones is an oxygen thief, every dog has their day and Jones is having his over many days.....just as he deserves it.

Posted Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 15:36

Thanks for your comments fightmumma...

As a well behaved "ethnic" I'm just cautious as I'm not part of the cultural elite (Left or Right)... Im not a basket weaving bohemian from Brunswick or Balmain nor from the leafy affluent suburbs...and did not go to private school...just working class ethnic...

So I'm forced to observe what's in and what's out culturally... that way I dont get accused of being "disloyal" or "unAustralian" by the Right or "misogynist" by the Left. etc etc.

As you know Ive mentioned the Iron Mike Rann example. Another example is ex New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, who was an anti-Vietnam War protestor in the 1960s but as Prime Minister supported her country's involvement in the Afghanistan War.

Then there is German Greens politician, Joschka Fischer, who began as a militant leftist who beat up a West German police officer at protest in the 1970s but later became Germany's Foreign Minister and supported the Aghan War.

In effect people such as myself don't make the ground rules...

We don't have any guarantees, if history and human nature are a guide, that these people pushing for change via social media won't change their political leanings in the future to some other ideology. You can understand why people are cautious and cynical.

Sasha Uzunov