For pretty much all of last week the media obsessed over the publication of Jonestown. Some commentators jumped to the defense of Alan Jones and condemned author Chris Masters, while others were only too happy to join Masters in bashing Jones. Debate raged over whether it was appropriate to "out" Alan Jones and whether the book has any journalistic merit.
All Australian papers have published several good opinion pieces on Jonestown, but I think that the two that best sum up the debate were written by Chris Masters and David Flint.
Describing Jonestown as "an unprecedented intrusion into a public figure's private life", David Flint offers a scathing attack in today's The Australian:
Through a bizarre new genre, the psychosexual biography, Masters claims to have found the silver bullet that allows him to delve, with impunity, into Jones's private life.
He says Jones's constant flaying of the rich and powerful is no public service. Instead, this results from his repression of his sexuality, aggravated by a definable personality disorder, a kind of schizophrenia. This repression leads to pain, which Jones alleviates through the "on-air" button, which acts as a self-medicating device. He came to this role as "a virus in search of a host". (I am not making this up.)
...
This psychoanalysis is as useless - and as dangerous - as an appendectomy performed by a lawyer. Employing this to circumvent core journalistic ethics is worse than the most blatant form of tax evasion. If Jonestown lowers media standards, even the momentarily newsworthy may now find that a psychosexual investigative journalist will publish not only fact but also rumour, hearsay and yes, falsehood, about their private life from their earliest years.
It is ironical that Masters claims Jones does not have the journalist's grounding in identifying fact and essaying balance: Masters himself struggles in both areas. There are far too many unattributed assertions, too much gossip and too many gratuitous comments.
Balance seems to be present where a defamation lawyer might counsel it, but not always where responsible journalism requires it. For example, he relies on an unfavourable valedictory at Sydney's King's School that first saw the light of day on Four Corners; I understand the headmaster cannot recall it. But he ignores the favourable one in the school journal. He says that lawyer Tim Barton worked for Jones before being involved on the Kalajzich case. Why did he not mention Barton's express denial made directly to him?
His "proof" of Jones's sexuality stoops at times to the level you would expect from a carload of hooligans roaring down Oxford Street. We are told of occasions when Jones wore a pink shirt, once with a powder-blue jacket; when he wore flared pants and an orange cravat; and how infuriated he was when given pink tissues. You can almost feel Masters nudging you.
...
Masters is entitled to investigate and challenge Jones's influence and role, but he is not entitled to intrude into his private life based on purloined correspondence, amateur psychoanalysis and irresponsible journalism. No wonder the ABC board wrote off the public money poured into this vengeful project by the nomenklatura.
The result is no credit to its author, its publishers and the two newspapers that featured the most salacious bits.
Read more here.
In Saturday's The Weekend Australian, Masters defended his book:
IN the past week I have been called homophobic, a champion of the Left and very brave. I am none of these things. It is more that a history in investigative journalism encourages me to pursue difficult and important subjects.
The subject here is power and abuse of power. It is what I have been taught to confront. Why should it be different because Alan Jones works in my industry?
The counter proposition, that the focus of the book is about outing a gay man is false. On radio and in print, well before this publication there has been open discussion of Jones's sexuality. Further, I cannot see how you can "out" someone who, to many people, is already out.
...
The story is mostly of emotional manipulation. It may not be the expected story. It is the story I found.
...
The book is not just about Jones. It is about the way politics and media collude, sometimes against public interest. It is about growing up in the bush, life in a boarding school and on the road with the Wallabies. It is about the behind-the-scenes business of commercial radio; it is about white-faced executives hatching new ways to pay off Jones or get him off their backs.
Jones will soon be back on air to a likely warm welcome from a devoted following. I do wish they would challenge him more. If democracy is to work properly it needs active participants. However, I don't blame them for listening and will not complain or be surprised if they turn out in greater numbers. What I ask for is that politicians do better, stop crawling to him and doing sneaky deals behind our backs.
Read more here.
I will withhold any comment until I have finished reading Jonestown (I am about two-thirds of the way through).
