Margaret Simons writes in today’s Crikey …..

Chris Masters's book on Alan Jones will be published, and probably very
soon. Today the ABC's leading investigative journalist will be sitting down to
consider the several firm offers and many expressions of interest he has had
from Australia's publishers.

One of the several publishers who have seen the manuscript describes it as
"a not hostile, but very damaging portrait" of Jones and a "very
important book about the intersection of media, business and government, with a
tragic human story in the middle." The feeling from publishers is that one
ends the 170,000 word manuscript feeling almost sorry for Alan Jones. They are
unanimous in their praise for the book.

So Masters's book will be published, and sell well, and Alan Jones will
have to consider whether he really wants its central allegations aired in open
court with the nation's media reporting.

But just as significant as the book is what recent events say about the
ABC.

Who made the decision not to publish? I can confidently say that it was not the
head of ABC Books, Stuart Neal, who is said by several of his publisher mates
to be despondent and disillusioned by what has happened.

Suspicion obviously circulates around the ABC Board, given its newly
stacked political complexion, and the fact that it called for a report on the
book shortly before the decision was made. My sources suggest suspicion about
the ABC Board is misplaced. Senior ABC management, and particularly the bean
counters, seem to have stuffed this one up all by themselves.

On any measure it has been a stupid decision. Not only is it incredibly
damaging to the ABC's reputation and self image, but it has also wasted the most
difficult and expensive part of bringing a controversial book to print, and
thrown an important property to the commercial world.

Certainly if there was political interference it has been incredibly
cack-handed, since it has only served to publicise and boost the book.

Nevertheless the decision-making process must be checked out, and today
Crikey will lodge a Freedom of information request for the report on the book
that went to the Board, and other documents relating to the decision-making
process. We'll keep you posted.

Meanwhile more details have emerged about the events leading up to the
ABC's decision. Alan Jones first sent a threatening letter last December, in
response to an approach by Masters to him for comment. That wasn't enough,
apparently, to put the kybosh on the project at that stage.

The second letter followed a series of events which cries out for
further explanation. The external QC employed by the ABC to review the
manuscript had asked Masters to obtain a number of witness statements from his
key sources. Somehow Alan Jones got a copy of one of those witness statements.
This prompted the second threatening letter from Jones that immediately
preceded the decision not to publish.

Masters says the threatening letter was nothing unusual, and nothing to
worry about. The witness concerned has not recanted.

Masters says: "I am not a bit scared of Alan Jones because through
writing this book I have actually come to know him quite well, and he's just a
bully. You can quote me on that."

One publisher described ABC Enterprises' claim that the book was not
commercial as "risible", but others made the point that probably only
the ABC could have done the work necessary to get the book to this point. The
way the national broadcaster structures its legal budgeting is different to
that of commercial publishers, who have to set legal costs against the bottom
line title by title rather than spreading them over the organisation as a
whole. Now commercial publishers will benefit from all that legal work done at
taxpayers' expense.

Meanwhile Masters says: "I have to thank God for publishers. My
problem is I can only publish with one publisher. I am going to have to
disappoint a few very good people."  

meanwhile, Media Watch is the
only credible voice to be heard from our aunty …..

Front Page -
The ABC Board And Jonestown

From the ABC

ABC board deceived public over Jones book: Opposition
By Edmond Roy for The World Today

Labor's communications spokesman Senator Stephen Conroy has accused the ABC board of indulging in a deceitful cover-up.

The ABC board is under pressure over allegations it intervened to stop the publication of a biography on controversial radio broadcaster Alan Jones.

The unauthorised biography by award-winning ABC journalist Chris Masters was to be published by the corporation's commercial arm, ABC Enterprises.

Last week, ABC Enterprises director Robyn Watts put out a media release saying the corporation had decided not to publish the book for commercial reasons.

But ABC TV's Media Watch said last night understood that the decision to scrap the book was made by the ABC board.

"Media Watch understands the decision to can the Jones book was made not by the publishers and editors of ABC Enterprises but by the ABC board," presenter Monica Attard said.

"ABC Enterprises had gone to the board earlier that day with a commercial and editorial case for publication.

"Direct involvement of the board in such decisions has to create the perception that the ABC is editorially timid, or worse, vulnerable to the influence of powerful men like Alan Jones."

Senator Conroy says the matter is a disgrace and a cover-up.

read more at the ABC

The performance by Gerard Henderson (Lateline, last night) on the flip-flop of the ABC board was as convincing as that of a six year old nerdy kid trying to explain why he flunked plasticine at pre-school.

""""""GERARD HENDERSON: None of us have read the book. None of us know whether the allegations of defamation are true or not. That would only be tested in a court in any event. You've got a very senior legal firm in Sydney saying they are plausible allegations. I don't know. I haven't read the book. You haven't read the book. Tom Molomby hasn't read the book. So we don't know. """""""

Read more of the transcript of this interview with Henderson at the ABC lateline site... if you must.

Well from what Gus garners on the grapevine and from the bush telegraph in Sydneytown, the legal team at the ABC may be appalled at the decision taken by "the board" because the ABC lawyers would have had to know that all the content of that book is accurate and defensible in any court. The manuscript had been read and passed by the ABC lawyers with flying colours. And Gus knows they do not do thing lightly in that department. Not only that but the publisher had presented a very sound economic plan for the publication of that book to the board, so one can assume the board (or at least some directors or external "influences") was protecting "mates" not the ABC, although these connections are buried under a "sound", albeit week-kneed explanation. That the publication was not made due to commercial reasons is a cop-out, no matter on which side of the fence one sits.

The Henderson's remarks re the commercial aspect of the ABC were quite disingenuous in regard to the fact that the ABC was forced into making extra moneys due to massive budget cuts by various government... And I may say, The ABC was encouraged to "enterprise" so. ABC enterprises seems to be a very successful entity, that the charter of the ABC has allowed it to "advertise" on "between-programs"... That a book like Jonestown be "advertised" on the ABC has thus to be part of the course, unless advertising and advertising of its own product is banned on the ABC. But imagine advertising on the ABC as tooted by some of the Liberals, the ABC could find itself having to advertise "Jonestown" for money rather than for "public interest..." in parts. On this subject, the biggest defence for the ABC not taking advertising on board would be that advertising on the ABC would make an immediate massive 20 per cent cut in the commercial channel revenues... If channel 7, 9 and 10 are not against advertising on the ABC, then their owners have rocks in their heads... But the real ABC audience does not need "toilet breaks" like on the other channels, where considering the amount of programming between tooting toothpaste or ducky things for toilet bowls, most of their viewers must have weak bladders... or a fixation with bathrooms. But really, to maintain the standard of the ABC, as it is, free of fear or favour in its editorial content, advertising must never be allowed on the ABC... "Jonestown" included.

Jonestown...
In fact, Alan Jones is a very fascinating character who, amongst other things, gives enormous amounts of his money to charity and personally takes time to help a lot of people who have made it tough in life... He is generous, bombastic but somewhat very tormented by some important aspect of his own persona. Aren't we all...

Jones is a clever man, but can be two-timing or change his mind on some issues — like on the "Toaster" he strongly opposed its construction and now lives in it...

Cash for comments? Well that is a commercial reality that the ABA is toothless/gutless to do something about. The financing of cash for comments has been buried deeper since these ugly simple contracts were exposed a few years ago... As long as we know that cash for comment exists we do not have to listen to him or any of them for that matter...

Jones can be right with some of what he says, but when he's wrong and that is quite often, he's a shocker.

Gus thinks the public has to know what drives the drivel and the illuminated comments that Jones can make... And I know he can listen to reason, as strange as this can appear to some people... but reason has to be forced into his ear sometimes...

Gus thinks that the "threatening" letter from Jones to the ABC was not to due to fear of exposing "dark" secrets... but due to the fact that exposing the inner workings of a myth, dispels the myth... A bit like the kid who breaks his lovely sounding round bell to discover that an ordinary little pea was making the lovely sound... but, by then, no more lovely sound, just a pea and a broken shell... This, Jones would not want us to see.

from today’s Crikey ….. 

1. Why Alan Jones
is an embarrassment to Australia

By Stephen Mayne

Sometimes you really have to wonder what sort of hick joint Australia
is. Can you imagine another developed democracy tolerating someone like Alan
Jones, let alone having him wield power in such an offensive way?

The Howard Government is known for its love of weak regulation, but
today's opinion
piece in The Australian by David Flint sets a new low when the
former Australian Broadcasting Authority chairman wrote: "My admiration is
based on the fact that Jones is a principled and superbly effective
communicator and a successful radio identity."

Principled? Remember the cash for comment scandal whereby Jones pocketed
millions of dollars from immoral corporates who participated in his racket by
making secret payments in return for positive coverage or an end to negative
coverage. This wasn't principled, it was utterly unethical.

Flint's ABA held a public inquiry and it concluded that 2UE, where
Jones and John Laws worked together at the time, had breached the Commercial
Radio Codes of Practice 95 times. Jones should have been booted off the air and
2UE had its licence suspended, but instead the Parrot just continued as if
nothing happened, the Prime Minister kept giving him interviews and using him
at Liberal Party fundraisers and he remained a highly paid fixer for the
Packers, Australia's most powerful family.

The Australian's editorial
backing the ABC board today is driven by blind ideology. Surely any assessment
of Alan Jones should be governed more by morality – or the lack of it. Remember
the old saying – if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. In my opinion, Alan
Jones is an unethical broadcaster who has amassed a fortune of almost $50
million in part by inappropriately exerting power for money through the publicly
licenced airwaves. 

This power has now even extended to being able to nobble the board of
our most important cultural institution, the ABC, and its finest investigative
reporter, Chris Masters.

And it's not just John Howard who grovels to Alan Jones. Peter Costello's best
mate, former ABC director Michael Kroger, has long been a promoter of the
Parrot's interests. As an ABC director he tried to nobble this Four Corners
story by Masters on the Parrot in 2002.

However, the Howard and Costello forces have fought over who controls
the ABC board. This extraordinary
piece by an ABC insider on Crikey in 2002 is thought to have been written
by someone sympathetic to the Costello-Kroger camp, although it arrived
anonymously so nobody knows for sure. Read it again for a fascinating insight
into the struggle for control of the ABC.

Last night, the Chaser team showed a funny collection of clips from Alan Jones' behaviour in recorded out-takes... This morning (8/07/06) Mile Carlton of the SMH does some Authorised Biographies by a few luminaries on the ABC board... and David Marr exposes the bias of that same board on this subject... Meanwhile the best publisher in town scores the right to publish "Jonestown" without fear, because... there is nothing to fear.

It seems that our glorious rotten-fruit retailer, the greedgrocer of Canberra, needs voices like that of Mr Jones to maintain the populace at a comfortable level of 70 per cent in his favour no matter the state of decay of his wares. And stacking the ABC board with buddies is a way to help towards that goal. This affair may die in the bum like the Kovco inquiry whitewash that was pre-empted by the "accidental" abandonment of a RCD at an airport and the diligent reporting of it... And while all this is going in in good old brown Aussieland, we are still involved in a stupid war that has no end to it, and where our troops also get the whitewash for shooting the bodyguards of an Iraqi Minister. I hope our non-groveller has said sorry...