The "ordinary reasonable man " seems to trust Alan Jones more than the judges that have found him not credible and awarded millions against him: This lack of confidence in the judiciary cannot be ignored;implications for business, investment, and public order
by Ganesh Sahathevan
In the latest finding of defamation against the broadcaster Alan Jones the court found that Jones was “wilfully blind to the truth”. According to The Guardian:
In a blistering judgment, which contains repeated criticisms of Jones’s practices and actions, Justice Peter Flanagan found Jones engaged in “unjustifiable conduct” and “was motivated by a desire to injure” the reputations of the Wagner brothers.
Jones defamation matters are so great that they have impacted his employer's bottom line.As reported by The New Daily:
Alan Jones is proving to be a very expensive shock jock for Macquarie Media with another multimillion-dollar provision in the company’s accounts for unspecified legal costs.
Wikipedia has listed (with references) a not short list of defamation matters brought against Jones over the past 30 years:
Defending against actions in defamation often means trying to prove that what was published was true,and that is how courts assess and declare, as in the Wagner case, that Jones was “wilfully blind to the truth”.
However despite this long history of being found to have defamed others, Jones continues to dominate the ratings. His listeners are what lawyers and judges would (if not should) regard as the "ordinary reasonable man" whose standards the courts rely on to determine if publications are defamatory.
The "ordinary reasonable man " seems to trust Alan Jones more than the judges that have ruled against Jones credibility and awarded millions against him.This lack of confidence in the judiciary cannot be ignored. There are implications for business, investment, and for public order and the community needs to determine why it is that judges are not being regarded as creddible arbiters of the truth.
END
In the latest finding of defamation against the broadcaster Alan Jones the court found that Jones was “wilfully blind to the truth”. According to The Guardian:
The broadcaster Alan Jones was repeatedly “wilfully blind to the truth” when he made “vicious and spiteful” comments about the Toowoomba-based Wagner family, a court has ruled.
Jones and two radio stations have been ordered by the Brisbane supreme court to pay more than $3.4m in damages for defaming John, Denis, Neill and Joe Wagner, plus interest, estimated to be about $300,000.
In a blistering judgment, which contains repeated criticisms of Jones’s practices and actions, Justice Peter Flanagan found Jones engaged in “unjustifiable conduct” and “was motivated by a desire to injure” the reputations of the Wagner brothers.
Jones defamation matters are so great that they have impacted his employer's bottom line.As reported by The New Daily:
Alan Jones is proving to be a very expensive shock jock for Macquarie Media with another multimillion-dollar provision in the company’s accounts for unspecified legal costs.
High legal costs were again an important part of the broadcaster’s problems.
The accounts for the past financial year include $4.816 million in “legal claims”, the largest of the company’s significant items.
That comes after the creation of a $3 million provision for unspecified legal costs in the previous financial year – a provision that seems to have been insufficient.
In September, Macquarie and Jones copped a $3.75 million defamation verdict over his repeated and very serious attacks on Toowoomba’s Wagner brothers.
Wikipedia has listed (with references) a not short list of defamation matters brought against Jones over the past 30 years:
Court actions and tribunal findings
Throughout his time as a radio personality Jones has been the subject of a number of court and tribunal investigations.
Defamation cases
Jones has been involved in numerous defamation cases arising from his outspoken comments on radio. These have included:
- 1990: Jones in his role with 2UE was ordered by a court to pay over $55,000 damages for defaming David Parker, a former councillor of the NRMA, the NSW Motorists' organisation; 2UE was also ordered to pay $80,000. Parker was defamed during the NRMA election campaign in October 1986.[10]
- 1994: Jones and 2UE were sued in November by Don Mackay, president of the NRMA, alleging that Jones made a false imputations against him.[10]
- 1998: Jones claimed on-air that rugby league referee Bill Harrigan was biased. Harrigan sued Jones for defamation and, in 2001, was awarded damages of $90,000.[73]
- 2002: Jones and 2UE settled out of court a defamation claim by Detective Chief Inspector Deborah Wallace, a NSW police officer. Jones defamed Wallace during five broadcasts in 2001.[74]
- 2008: Jones was found to have defamed Australian Olympic Committee chief John Coates in comments Jones made regarding Coates' handling of an incident involving rower Sally Robbins' performance at the 2004 Olympics.[75]
- 2011: Jones was sued in December by health bureaucrat Terry Clout over comments made by Jones in March 2009.[76]
- 2015: Jones was sued in January by former Queensland Premier Campbell Newman and deputy Jeff Seeney over comments made by Jones alleging Mr Newman of lying to him and the public about expanding the Acland coal mine in southern Queensland.[77]
- 2018: Jones was successfully sued by members of the Wagner family after he accused them of being responsible for the deaths of 12 people during the 2010–11 Queensland floods following the collapse of a wall in a quarry they owned.[78] Jones and the radio stations that broadcast him were ordered to pay $3.7 million in damages to the Wagner family.[79]
- 2018: Jones was sued by Jeff Parnell, a NSW government acoustic scientist, who was accused by Jones of altering an independent noise-monitoring report for a wind farm.[80]
Defending against actions in defamation often means trying to prove that what was published was true,and that is how courts assess and declare, as in the Wagner case, that Jones was “wilfully blind to the truth”.
However despite this long history of being found to have defamed others, Jones continues to dominate the ratings. His listeners are what lawyers and judges would (if not should) regard as the "ordinary reasonable man" whose standards the courts rely on to determine if publications are defamatory.
The "ordinary reasonable man " seems to trust Alan Jones more than the judges that have ruled against Jones credibility and awarded millions against him.This lack of confidence in the judiciary cannot be ignored. There are implications for business, investment, and for public order and the community needs to determine why it is that judges are not being regarded as creddible arbiters of the truth.
END
August 28, 2019
Alan Jones thanks listeners for 221st ratings win
By his own admission, Alan Jones doesn’t spend much time looking at or thinking about radio ratings.
However, the controversial host has taken the opportunity to celebrate his 221st win on the Sydney Breakfast radio ratings.
2GB finished Survey #5 with a 13.4% share among People 10+ (-0.6), with Alan himself holding a share of 17.1% (-0.3).
“There are plenty of people who report on radio ratings that don’t know a thing about it,” said Jones.
“I suppose given some of the headlines over the last few weeks, this may be worth mentioning,” he continued, presumably referring to the departure of several advertisers from his 2GB Breakfast show after he suggested that Scott Morrison give NZ PM Jacinda Ardern a few “backhanders” and that he should “shove a sock down [her] throat.”
“This Breakfast program has won over 221 [surveys] over 30 years…. and i’m told that’s a record.
“There’s only one Sydney ratings result, we’re all in the same bag. This program is #1 221 times. My thanks to listeners who’ve been with me a long time.”
He finished with another dig at how the ratings are reported by Australian media.
“A lot of headlines yesterday that were inaccurate… and this is all often overlooked.”
Listen below:
Comments
Post a Comment