The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am
Chris Masters defends his loathsome attack on broadcaster Alan Jones:
“I am always sorry for the pain that my work can cause but … that is one of the roles of journalism — to air unpalatable truths,” he said.
Masters says Jones, 65, hides his homosexuality in order to retain his much-feared audience power base, which he uses in secrecy to influence ministers, including the Prime Minister.
Now that the rules have changed, and sexual orientation and behaviour have become crucial to our understanding of public figures, perhaps influential Fairfax and ABC journalists will volunteer their own sexual secrets. What are they hiding in order to retain their power base?
UPDATE. David Marr, who selected the extracts from Masters’ book published on the weekend, is quite happy to see Jones outed:
What it is is an explanation for his strange character, his love of secretness.
Homosexuality = “strange character”. More from liberated Dave:
David Flint was absolutely correct the other day. He said, you don’t “out” people unless their sexuality has an impact in public life. And Jones’ does. He is a very important figure in Australia …
Neither Masters nor Marr provide examples of Jones’ sexuality having any impact on public life—aside from him being “strange” and loving “secretness”.
UPDATE II. The SMH’s Dominic Knight:
The debate between David Marr and Andrew Bolt on The Insiders yesterday left me more torn than I would ordinarily expect to be where those two individuals are involved, because it occurred to me that for once, Bolt might have a point.
UPDATE III. Matt Price on formerly respectable Chris Masters:
The (until now) widely respected investigative journalist is deluding himself by arguing salacious revelations about Alan Jones’s sex life are critical in understanding the broadcaster’s power and influence. Which, incidentally, is routinely overstated.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.