Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

The 'shock jocks' are in tune with the silent majority

By David Flint - posted Thursday, 15 December 2005

Among the reactions to last Sunday on Cronulla beach, one was entirely predictable: blame the principal messenger. Lebanese Muslim Association president Ahmad Kamaleddine spoke for many critics when he argued that the riots had "been motivated by people on talkback radio".

Talkback has indeed come of age. It is now conceded to be, albeit grudgingly on the part of mainstream media, a significant source of news and opinion. But to declare it to be an accessory to the commission of serious breaches of the law attributes to it not only gross impropriety and possibly criminal behaviour, but also unbelievable power and influence over an allegedly gullible audience.

Talkback began to emerge as a force at precisely the same time as much of the mainstream "serious" media had found a vocation other than objective news reporting. Journalists were in the process of emerging from being largely unknown and working in a trade under close editorial supervision.


Now enjoying their new-found celebrity status, they began to offer their personal views not only on, but inextricably mixed with, the news. (Note, for instance, how many times news reporters will describe an organisation or person as "right wing" if they are conservative but insert no qualifier if they are of the Left.)

Soon, these journalists would be interpreting the events of the day according to a preconceived and generally left-wing agenda. As the doyen of Fairfax and ABC journalists David Marr argues, if a journalist does not come from a "softie Left culture", they should "get another job". This is not an isolated view. Since dispensing with the services of Gerard Henderson last June, The Age in Melbourne no longer publishes a conservative columnist on its opinion page.

In the past 10 years, the ascent of John Howard has given a new impetus and authority to talkback.

He chose not to have his words mediated and interpreted by a hostile media. Instead, through talkback radio and also breakfast television, he speaks directly to the people more often and more effectively than any other leader. Talkback was now not only reporting and commenting on the news, it was the news.

Meanwhile, the move of much of the mainstream media to left-wing campaign journalism meant that many Australians moved to talkback radio, where opinions, often robust, are largely unfiltered and where the Left's agenda could be openly challenged.

This is what so upsets the David Marrs of the media. The elites believe that once part of their agenda is in place, it should not be reversed, and that criticism is out of bounds for any reasonable person. But while they can filter their letters columns, they just cannot control talkback.


Now among the favoured policies of the elites is the doctrine of multiculturalism. A Humpty Dumpty word, multiculturalism means whatever the user chooses it to mean, neither more nor less. If it is used in the sense requiring tolerance - and treating all Australians of whatever colour, religion or ethnic background in identical ways - then it is superfluous. Australians had already achieved that with the waves of migration after World War II and well before they had ever heard that word, multiculturalism.

If it is used to mean that people should be classified and then advantaged or disadvantaged according to some ethnic tag, or that the essential principles and values of our Australian culture must give way, this is unacceptable to most Australians.

Australians have never agreed to this and they never would. The problem is, they have never been asked. No wonder they recorded their vehement opposition to the doctrine on one of the few places where this was tolerated: talkback radio.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published in The Australian on December 15, 2005.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

107 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Flint is a former chairman of the Australian Press Council and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, is author of The Twilight of the Elites, and Malice in Media Land, published by Freedom Publishing. His latest monograph is Her Majesty at 80: Impeccable Service in an Indispensable Office, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Sydney, 2006

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Flint

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Flint
Article Tools
Comment 107 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Latest from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
 The formidable Fred Nile prevails: premier concedes
 Prorogue then intimidate
 The ‘Utegate’ affair and the constitution
 ETS: emissions trading scheme or energy tax swindle?
 Information and media manipulation par excellence

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy