Comments on: Adios Kyle

By: roger.migently

roger.migently — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 08:41:56 +0000

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.

Well, okay, I think you are wrong. That was certainly not my thinking, anyway. I agree, though, that the people who hate Sandilands do seem to have lunged at this excuse to stick the boot in like a drowning man grasps for a paddlepop stick in a shipwreck. I am one of those who went into a "moralistic frenzy" but I'd rather not have my (ahem) thoughtful analysis conflated with the mindless, simplistic tabloid response. I am inclined to agree with your assessment of that. I am far from comfortable that the incident was not set up in some way by the mother and possibly the girl as well. If it was not set up the mother is the real villain and what she did was abuse. My experience of Sandilands is limited to MediaWatch and that is enough for me to despise him. This episode is just added evidence of his boorishness but would, I think, be insufficient for the outcry except for the real reason he ought to have been cancelled and not just "recessed". Set-up or not, it was his response to the girl's "revelation" that was his sin - his failure, through egotism, immaturity, insensitivity and unprofessionalism, to react appropriately. What he said trivialised rape and sexual abuse as merely grist to the mill of his daily game of humiliation. What he did wrong was failing to see what was clearly in front of him, his failure to handle it with the skill he is presumably paid the $4M/year for. What Austereo and Idol, Optus and the other sponsors have done wrong is that they have made their decisions on a commercial basis and not on social or moral grounds. Or, to put it another way, would rape be okay with them if it didn't affect their bottom line?

By: Tel_

Tel_ — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:28:27 +0000

But are you really saying that interviewing a 14-year-old about her sexual experiences, under circumstances where she would have felt exploited and scorned rather than supported and respected isnt worse than Kyle and Jackies other tacky stunts?

The young woman is more than welcome to use all those other avenues that society offers for discussion of any unfortunate experiences that polite people prefer to pretend never happen.

I just can’t seem to think of any right now.

By: paul walter

paul walter — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:18:33 +0000

I’d largely concur with the article, except in emphasis, because I think the transcript amply demostrates that the mother is at least as deranged and culpable as Sandiland and his vile offsider.
A wonder no one has yet queried a possible role for “chequebook journalism” at the bottom of all of this virtual protitution of a fourteen year old, BTW.
Secondly, the real villains of the peice; Austereo, seem to have avoided adequate reprimand- Sandiland and O are only their (illiterate? suitably pathological?) attack-dogs, doing the job they were instructed and paid to peform.
The one component that really baffles me is the attack involving an unrelated issue involving a magistrate trying to do the job of a (non-existant?) social worker in verbally correcting a spectacular example of of dumb-down corporatist socialisation/individuation.
I mean it: utterly baffled!
The magistrate’s words were apt ,compassionately intended and helped avoid the media attention seeking result of media dumbing down and psychoticisation from a far worse fate. If you see someone in a state of temporary insanity you seek to help, same as you would if you saw someone physically injured in the gutter.
The magistrate deserves kudos, not approbation, for Pete’s sake!
I’d be indeed worried about the role of the magistrate, but for a different reason.
This magistrate is ALL that society can provide in the deprogramming of victims of mass culture, after the processes represented in O and Sandilands have done their work?

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:23:02 +0000

One point of clarification - Australian Idol has always had humiliation as an integral part of its schtick. It's just humiliation on G rated themes - the kind of humiliation you find in the school ground "X is really uncool. S/he's such a dag/nerd. Let's tell him how crappy he is, what a loser he is for having the temerity to come on our show and join the cool people. Let's make fun of him. Publicly. It will be such fun. Ha ha ha."

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:37:43 +0000

In case you did not know James, having mums asks their kids questions on air with a lie detector is long standing Kyle and Jackie stunt, that has apparently been going on for years.

If you mean questions about their sex lives, no I didn’t, and I’m appalled. As for the ‘other experiences’ thing, I agree that we should think twice about condemning someone for not reacting perfectly in a confusing and unexpected situation; however, someone so lacking empathy shouldn’t be allowed to interview people on sensitive topics.

By: Chris Lloyd

Chris Lloyd — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:30:40 +0000

..under circumstances where she would have felt exploited and scorned rather than supported and respected.. If I accept your loaded question as stated, I would say it is worse. But I am not sure those circumstances prevailed. Afaik, the girls full identity was not mentioned. It is easy to throw around words like exploited, scorned, ridiculed. Was that really the purpose of the stunt? I have no evidence of it from the MSM accounts I have read.

In case you did not know James, having mums asks their kids questions on air with a lie detector is long standing Kyle and Jackie stunt, that has apparently been going on for years. It is the rape revelation that is new.

BTW: Kyle said other experiences, the sexual was implied. Given the stunt went ahead at all, I think his main subsequent sin was that he took too long to pull the plug. Jackie beat him to it. But he claims he was frantically signaling cut when he made the experience comment.

Youre in the same camp as Andrew Bolt on this one James I am afraid! Interesting how Bolt has painted himself into a corner. Because Bolt hates elite, lefty intellectuals, he demonized Bill Henson as a pornographer. So now he has to go for Kyle, even though under other circumstance Bolt would instinctively support trashy commercial media. Bolt does have a marvelous way with words though, referring to how the drooling listeners lifted their hairy ears but he actually puts the whole saga down to a deterioration in manners.

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:36:15 +0000

An interesting post, Chris. But are you really saying that interviewing a 14-year-old about her sexual experiences, under circumstances where she would have felt exploited and scorned rather than supported and respected — isn’t worse than Kyle and Jackie’s other tacky stunts? And skipping over the rape to ask about ‘other experiences’ wasn’t just a ‘bizarre’ ‘sub-plot’: it’s part of the central plot. Sandilands shouldn’t be a broadcaster. He’s gone, thanks to the public outrage you’re so sceptical about.

Of course you’re right that the Magistrate should also be condemned, and good on you for trying to draw attention to it.

By: Tel_

Tel_ — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:42:29 +0000

Kyle unwittingly committed the worst of all media crimes. The one crime that can never be forgiven. He allowed the truth to be spoken.

Top marks for pointing out the blatant hypocrisy when Magistrate Brian Maloney also speaks the truth within public hearing. If we can’t trust a magistrate to obey the law of the media then what do we have left to believe in?