I cannot really understand how such a talentless and unlikable person as Kyle Sandilands ends up earning m$4 per year. But then, I am not part of the Idol or 2dayfm demographic. I would rather listen to the ABC or watch the SciFi channel.
I am also the kind of person who likes to question the source of public outrage, especially when there is the kind of one-sided moralistic media frenzy that we have seen over the past week.
Just in case you have been on holidays in Antarctica, Kyle and Jackie had a 14 year old on their show, ostensibly to talk about drugs and sex, with her mothers presence and consent. Drugs are illegal and so is sex for a 14 year old. Yet, one assumes that the hosts were hoping and expecting that the girl would admit to, at least knowledge of, such illegal activities for the titillation of their teenage listeners. It is hard for me to see how this is entertaining, but if you look at some girly magazines it apparently is. And, lets face it, some 14 years olds do experiment with drugs and sex.
If I were running the radio station, I would not have approved the segment. It is not only tacky but could lead to some bad consequences for the girl depending on what she admits to. But then, if I were running the radio station their ratings would be somewhere near Malcolm Turnbulls. The MSM is full of tacky trash where the welfare of the participants is not given a thought.
But mostly, stunts of this kind go unnoticed.
As would have been the case, I suspect, had the girl “only” said that she had smoked dope. It probably would not have made the news. How about if she had admitted to oral sex with her 15 year old boyfriend? Full sex with her 15 year old boyfriend? Not front page news I suspect, even though she is admitting to a crime. Though perhaps child welfare may have taken an interest.
Instead she unexpectedly revealed a more serious crime, that she had been raped two years previously. Inexplicably the mother, who went on the show to get a free Pink concert ticket, is supposed to have smirked.
Let’s look at why Kyle got thrown to the wolves. He has now lost his Australian Idol gig. According to Ten programmer David Mott
Australian Idol is very much a family program and its appeal is across the board. Wed like to think that all families can enjoy the program in front of the TV. It has become increasingly clear that as Idol has remained a family focused show … his radio persona has taken on a more controversial position.
Well David, it was very clear that his radio persona was very different to his Idol persona long ago. If you had looked at the 2dayfm website last week, you would have found lots of good clean family fun: Kyle searching for the smallest penis in Sydney, having a race with mates to see who could make the fastest sperm donation.
But 2DayFM have now taken down content on their website showing these past stunts. The remaining stuff is pretty tame, though you can see Kyle’s scantilly clad wife in some sexy poses with other women. It seems that Kyle is one of those blokes that like to watch.
So the conclusion is that Network Tens decision had nothing to do with Kyle having been a tacky, sensationalist jerk over the past few years. The mums and dads who watch Idol probably had no idea what he did on radio – but they do now. His sacking was due to the media driven public outcry of outraged moralists, feminist zealots and people who understandibly just dont like Kyle.
And the networks have to cave. There is nothing more poisonous to a corporate public image than even being mentioned in the same paragraph as child abuse. Recall the hysterical furore over the Chasers very unfunny sketch about kids with cancer and how they were immediately pulled off air for two weeks. We are living in a world where once the public spot a target and the media smell blood, the only response is total capitulation. Network 10 are three degrees of separation from the rapist, but they just can’t risk it. Anything to get the spotlight of attention pointed somewhere else.
The girl admitted she was raped, that she was the victim of a crime. Let’s look at the upside (of the admission, not the rape!) The police will now investigate, so perhaps something good will come out of it, apart from the end of Kyle’s media career. The girl may receive some justice and some counselling if required, though it has been reported that she does not want to press charges. There may be a deeper story here yet.
So, let’s look at the public reaction, which focused more on Kyle than on the mother or Jackie O. The lie-detector she was strapped to was just a silly stunt lie detectors dont work though some commentators seem to imply that the girl was somehow strapped down against her will. Another sub-plot concerns Kyle bizarrely asking the girl if she had had any “other experiences”. This has led to a strident discussion about how rape is not a (sexual) experience. Biologists and dictionaries would disagree. It is a bad sexual experience.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that, stripped of the sordid details and character flaws of Kyle, the underlying gripe is that you have Kyle, a man, putting himself in a position of power over a young girl who has already been raped by another man. But he didn’t know she had been raped, her mother did, and she consented to appearing on the show. I know who I would blame if blame is to be attached.
Another source of angst for some commentators, I suspect, is that the girl was confident enough to say publicly what had happened to her. She received little support from her mother and yet still did not act sufficiently traumatized. This does not fit with the standard narrative at all.
Openly admitting to being raped is nothing to be ashamed of. To say so further punishes the victim. Are women or girls who are raped not to mention it in public, or have their faces and voices digitally disguised? Apparently our prime minister thinks she should feel humiliated. I beg to differ. She should feel angry at the perpetrator. Nor has she been “exposed to ridicule” by the stunt. Who has ridiculed her? Who is making this unattributed claim that she has been exposed to ridicule? What does exposed to ridicule actually mean anyway? These are media generated claims, emotive and unattributed allegations whose only purpose is to excite further outrage.
Rape is rape I hear you cry and mere men can never understand the trauma it causes, even when the victim may appear strong. Yet, this principle is applied selectively..
On January 6 this year, there was a story about a drink driving teenage idiot called Cody Heap. In handing down a suspended sentence, Magistrate Brian Maloney made it clear that a re-offence would mean jail time for young Cody. Just to clarify to Cody what this might entail he further explained:
Have you got any idea what it’s like in there? Any idea at all? You wouldn’t last a night. You will find big, ugly, hairy, strong men who’ve got faces only a mother could love that will pay a lot of attention to you – and your anatomy. Scary, isn’t it? But that’s what will happen.
So here we have a public magistrate, a servant of justice, stating publicly that young males who are sent to Her Majesty’s prisons can expect to be anally raped as part of their punishment. This is common knowledge but it is amazing that a public official would admit to such. But even more disgracfully, he is using the fact of illegal rape in prison as a deterrent for Cody and other would be young criminals.
Public outcry? There was none afaik. My letters to the papers were not published. Apparently, rape of a 15 year old boy isnt rape. You can’t expect consistency from the mindless mob I guess.