I read with interest about the recent uproar that Alan Jone’s comments (that Julia Gillard’s father “died of shame”) have made with the public. I too think that these comments were disgraceful and deplorable. A heartless, cruel and very grubby thing to say of someone who’s father has just died. Even if it was intended to be an off-the-cuff remark not intended for public airing, it does show Alan to be a rather heartless person. And I think it is well expected that the public raged against Jones for making these comments.

But then something interesting occurred using social media. People fought back. A campaign to remove all of Alan Jones’ sponsors from his breakfast radio show. At this point, I could see a legitimate anger from people who wanted to show Jones in real terms that his comments and  apology were not enough. And restore some dignity to ‘public discourse’.

One particular group I have been following; Sack Alan Jones, lead the charge on Facebook. I’ve been reading through many of the comments made by posters in the group.
As I read through the posts, I began to see my initial perception change. From a well-intentioned activist group to that of a group drunk on power and it’s own feeling of self-worth.
The group began sending emails, wall posts, to any companies that advertised on the show. Many agreed that the comments made by Jones were not acceptable and withdrew from sponsorship. Some decided to stay on…
The group then launched a ‘blitzkreig’ style attack on any company that did not heed their message and continued advertising with Alan Jones. This was by way of mass emails, wall posts, phone calls etc. Creating a massive PR nightmare for many companies, and in effect DOS’ing their walls. In order to escape from it many gave in to the hysteria. Though some may have eventually convinced themselves that this was the right and noble thing to do.

It’s clear that the companies knew about the comments Jones had made, it had been pointed out to their facebook walls previously. By posting ongoing messages to facebook walls of companies, the group is trying to co-erce companies into adhering to the positions taken by the group and I believe that this is where the campaign gets into murky waters.

Companies should be given a right to self determine their position on the matter without being co-erced into it by force or intimidation. If a company wishes to cease advertising (as many have) it should be by their own volition, due to ‘mismatch of corporate values’ or whatever justification they see fit. Not in order to escape a bullet storm (and bad potentially bad PR by supposed ‘guilt by association’).

Any company that didn’t comply was faced with a barrage of messages, questions about their ‘ethics’ and threats of boycotts. This is interesting as none of the companies that I know of has condoned the comments of Alan Jones. Why should they be threatened with boycott? No moral misgivings have been made by any of the companies here other than the fact that they wish to advertise on the show. One justifications I have heard is that part of the profits pay for the advertising which in turn pays Jones. Cutting off funds cuts off the source. This sets a dangerous precedent when people try to black out ‘unpopular opinion’. (Note: I am not referring to his comments as “unpopular opinion”)

In a way I’m glad that Alan got his ass kicked and he should not have gotten away lightly, but I have found the vindictiveness by some members of the public to be as equally as distasteful. Is a campaign to end advertising now and for all of 2013 an appropriate response to what has occurred? I don’t think so… A sincere apology and perhaps a sizeable donation to charity would be a good way to make amends.

And for the record, I do not listen to Jones, nor do I like him. I just found this an interesting exercise in ethics.