This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Shock Jocks: Why Do We Have Them?

Jump to new

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah
Joined
8 September 2006
Posts
7,676
Reactions
4,772
After Alan Jones performance of late and having listen to a number of the said Shock Jocks I just wonder why people continue to listen to them?

Is it entertainment value, information value or is it just the emotional buttons they push to enhance their egos and make ridiculous amounts of money from the punters?

Who are their audience? Bogans, bored housewives, bored house-husbands, red necks or university qualified academics.

What age group listens?

Any ideas?
 
They are a response to the Fabian thought police. No topic is off the table and are a necessary catalyst for open thought and debate.

We may be offended from time to time, but refer to Voltaire's composite quotation.
 
We don't have them in Melbourne.
Perhaps they are an acquired taste.
 
Julia said:
Really? No radio personality that pushes the politically correct boundaries?
Hard to believe in a city the size of Melbourne.
Click to expand...

Seriously.
We have radio commentators that push the politically correct boundaries but we don't have abusive shock jocks.
They tried to set up a station recently full of them but it failed miserably.
 
moXJO said:
Hinch was down there wasnt he?
Click to expand...

He wasn't a shock jock, quite liberal in his views in fact.

He did hate child molestors and went to jail for contempt of court a couple of times but I never once heard him mouth off a politician. He was probably the closest thing to one but he has been sacked due to low ratings.

About 15 years ago we had Stan Zeno whatever his name is from Sydney. he crashed and burned within months.
 
Knobby22 said:
Seriously.
We have radio commentators that push the politically correct boundaries but we don't have abusive shock jocks.
Click to expand...

We may not have any that have permanent radio positions, but we still have our fair share; like "social commentator" like Catherine Deveny
 
gav said:
We may not have any that have permanent radio positions, but we still have our fair share; like "social commentator" like Catherine Deveny
Click to expand...
Ah, but that's different. Ms Deveny is of the Left. They can all say whatever they want and it's fine.
Knobby is clearly referring to shock jocks as only ever being of the Right. Such a pejorative term would never be applied to the other side.

(the above remark should not be interpreted as support for Mr Jones or any of his colleagues at 2GB.)
 
drsmith said:
I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It's a tragedy we have shock jocks that masquerade as a government.
Click to expand...

It's a tragedy that we have a corrupt government that spawns shock jocks and gives them plenty of oxygen.
 

How rude and shock jockish.

She doesn't even have a radio show so I don't see how she qualifies. I dislike her intensely and complained about her to the Age. I think I was one of many as she was dropped from their writers.

We have right radio wing hosts like Tom Elliot on 3AW but he is respectful and has manners. He attacks using logic not name calling.

We don't need shock jocks of any colour. They are the scum of the earth in my view.
It is a lack of civility that spawns them. maybe they don't work in Melbourne because we turn them off while up north they think it is acceptable behaviour.
 
Knobby22 said:
Seriously.
We have radio commentators that push the politically correct boundaries but we don't have abusive shock jocks.
They tried to set up a station recently full of them but it failed miserably.
Click to expand...

I think part of the reason that station failed was that they had a terrible signal. I knew many people who would have liked to give them a go but couldn't stand the interefence, especially when driving around parts of Melbourne that had trams. I would also argue that they weren't a station full of shock jocks.

I think it was Stan Zemanek you were referring to in another post but I can't comment on him as I never heard his show.

What is the definition of shock jocks though? If it's people that whip up the public into a frenzy over issues I would argue the ABC falls into this category.
 
Miss Hale said:
What is the definition of shock jocks though? If it's people that whip up the public into a frenzy over issues I would argue the ABC falls into this category.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can put Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Jason Morrison, Chris Smith et al into the same league as the ABC. I think they are all just a bunch of duplicitous idiots with a microphone. I actually listened to them for a while, because they are semi-entertaining in a sort of "will they go there" way but they get very boring because they really have a lot of hot air but not much depth to anything they say. A first year law student could run rings around all of them.

I remember last year Chris Smith on 2GB had a "competition" that asked viewers to ring in and if they could remember the correct number of boat people who had died in that Christmas Island boat tragedy they won an espresso machine. That's pretty disgusting.
 
Miss Hale said:
What is the definition of shock jocks though? If it's people that whip up the public into a frenzy over issues I would argue the ABC falls into this category.
Click to expand...

McLovin said:
I don't think you can put Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Jason Morrison, Chris Smith et al into the same league as the ABC.
Click to expand...
Agree. The ABC whips up the frenzy (as Miss Hale describes) in a much more cultured way.
McLovin, if you'd been listening to ABC Radio, both the Local Radio network and Radio National, over the last couple of days, you'd understand what some of us are so objecting to. It has been quite beyond belief, especially the airtime given to Roxon et al blaming Tony Abbott for 'spawning the environment that makes it OK for Jones to say what he does'.

Yes it is. I occasionally listen in the morning and it's all really lowest common denominator stuff.
 
I think the shock jock syndrome is the celebration of the loudest, the most obnoxious and the most stupid. It has been extremely effective at dumbing down the population and undermining logic or evidence based discussion in favour of emotional rants.

It works particularly well for commercial media. Commercial advertisers use loud repeated inane slogans to persuade people to buy their products. When people have been well prepped by shock jocks they will more quickly accept the next loud inane message.

This is why Alan Jones was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by various advertisers to spruik and support their stories in the cash for comment scandal.

When the shock-jocks jump onto social or political issues the opportunity to make the wildest comments with no need for evidence or logic lets every shyster in for a shot - particularly if they have the money to pay for the program. In that context you'll find the shock jocks leading the charge against any attempts to challenge social situations if it will impact on a company that is making a lot of money in that field.

Examples? Challenging the poker machine industry. Disputing the introduction of more restrictions on smoking. essentially pushing the argument that our freedoms to do anything we want (or someone wants to sell us.. ) are essential, and that actions to curtail this are socialist nightmares. Does any of this ring true.

And what is the big one ?
 

I've been in your mother country, Julia. Queenstown is absolutely beautiful this time of year and even better I didn't have to listen to either side going at eachother.

Labor had the moral high ground and would have done far better by saying "we don't want to make this political", instead they have tried to flip it back on the Libs. It makes Gillard look bad in that she has allowed that to occur. The Americanis(z)ation of our politics continues...
 
McLovin said:
I've been in your mother country, Julia. Queenstown is absolutely beautiful this time of year
Click to expand...
Isn't it though. Perhaps even more gorgeous in autumn with the changing colours especially amongst the stands of poplar trees.

Labor have imo thoroughly overblown their moral advantage.
The Libs, on the other hand, have failed to adequately stand up to the ridiculous assertions, except for one Mitch Fifield (whom I'd never heard of before) who did make some appropriate rejoinders.

I suppose Tony Abbott et al have decided they won't dignify the nonsense with significant response, but I'd have preferred to see something along the lines of "It's simply illogical to suggest Mr Abbott bears any responsibility for what Mr Jones chooses to say."

What do others think? Has it been better to largely ignore the attacks?
 

What an astonishing irony. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...