Talk:Alan Jones "died of shame" controversy

Untitled

Small change - the item auctioned was a "jacket made from chaff bags" not simply a "chaff bag" In the article he also admits that he bought it but I'm unsure if this would add anything to the article.--Warandpeace67 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability tag

Really? this passes WP:EVENT. it gets front page coverage every day on every major news outlet in Australia, this is over a week after it became public. not to mention the significant effects on the media, the radio station because of this. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Title

Wouldn't Alan Jones shame controversy be a better title? The present one makes it sound like the controversy was around John Gillard. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

agreed. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This title is an improvement but should have slightly more detail. I think Alan Jones 'Died of Shame' controversy is more accurate. There is no code problem with the quote marks is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The "Died of Shame" phrase is the one commonly referred to in the media, and repeated in Parliament. Oracle7 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ratings?

Is there any reliable source that states whether Jones' ratings have changed significantly (either up or down) as a result of the controversy? I think it would be a relevant piece of information to add to the article if we can source it. (I don't know whether ratings are measured frequently enough for any change to be detected yet, and I haven't seen anything on ABC News (Australia), which is usually my primary news source.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In the last survey before the troubles, Jones had 16.8% audience share. The next survey is released on 30 October. I don't think radio surveys its audience as often as television. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead needs a little more detail

I just extended the lead with the words "because she was a liar" to show what the real problem was. Jones could have been implying that he died of shame for any reason. The reason he gave for her father dying of shame is an essential part of the story. We include this much detail in the first section of the article just below the lead. User:LibStar reverted my addition with the Edit summary "can we remove the characterisation". I'm sure it was done in good faith, but 1) I don't understand the Edit summary, and 2) I still think the additional words are needed in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

in thelead, it makes it look like fact that Gillard is a liar. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, you completely misunderstood my goal, And I misunderstood your edit summary, because I intended no "characterisation" at all. My addition was simply intended to be more of what Jones said. It was not in any way a suggestion from ME that Gillard was a liar. I wonder if others would read what I added the way you did? (It wasn't there long enough to find out.) My point is that saying that "Jones suggested that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's late father "died of shame"" is not enough. It's because HE also said that the reason he died of shame was because his daughter was a liar. Without that it's not the same story, and it's not complete. Sorry for the misunderstanding of your Edit summary, but I can assure you it didn't apply. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversial broadcaster

Surely no one can suggest Jones does not use controversy as a way of promoting his show? There are plenty of articles on Jones which describe him as a controversial broadcaster. For example, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-18/alan-jones-ordered-to-do-journalism-training/4320534, http://www.tntdownunder.com/news/australia/controversial-aussie-shock-jock-alan-jones-ordered-to-do-journalism-training and http://www.armidaleexpress.com.au/story/405595/shock-jock-jones-told-to-get-factual-accuracy-training/. Many refer to him as a shock-jock, surely controversial broadcaster is more neutral than that? Djapa Owen (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

yes journalists love to employ WP:POV. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Fire fighters union comments. Irrelevant?

I've looked at the source, and cannot see any mention of Gillard, her father, or the "Died of shame" controversy. I suggest is gets removed ASAP. The only reason I am posting here first is for clarity. ie, I did suggest that it be shifted here from the AJ article, but that was before I actually read the source (silly me), and I now see it has no relevance to the "shame" article. And it has little relevance to an article that covers the life and career of Alan Jones. --Merbabu (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it relevant in that the main allegation refers to 2GB getting heavy handed about trying to force the FBEU to sponsor the Jones show right when the disinvestment over the died of shame comment was hitting hardest? I think it does and I think most readers would see the relevance. Djapa Owen (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it. I can see the relationship between the two, and agree it is more than temporal coincidence, but we need to make that link or omit it from this article. If there are other advertisers who have had similar complaints about bullying during the controversy, and make the link more clear, we could include it in this article. This type of ads-for-comment relationship definitely belongs in the main article about the radio program. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result was rename per consensus Tiggerjay (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy → Alan Jones "died of shame" controversy – Correct format for an article title. WWGB (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree; accords with MOSCAPS too. Tony (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support move per the MOS--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom and MOS. Flagged page as G6 to make room for move, requires admin intervention. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I requested this very move and got declined. StAnselm (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Appropriate images

The photo of the smiling Jones looks like he is gloating and does not seem very appropriate to me, so I added one of Gillard to balance it. However, that image showed her smiling also and was objected to (probably not unreasonably). I am trying to find a useable image of John Gillard to add, but in the mean time, has anyone got an appropriate one of the Prime Minister? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless the photo of Jones is directly related to the incident, I don't see that it adds any value. (I am the editor who removed the smiling Julia Gillard photo.) A photo of John Gillard would probably be appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alan Jones "died of shame" controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003235247/http://www.smh.com.au:80/opinion/political-news/calls-mount-for-alan-jones-to-be-sacked-20121001-26ufs.html to http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/calls-mount-for-alan-jones-to-be-sacked-20121001-26ufs.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)