I don’t listen to radio very much. When I do, I avoid commercial stations like the plague. I can’t stand the ads, the cheesy voice overs, the annoying comperes and the gimmicks. Some of the things they talk about are really not suitable for small children, and I almost always have my kids in the car.
I also avoid talkback radio. I find many of the opinions expressed to be without thought or depth, and half the time the interviewer makes his or her own prejudices so blatantly obvious that it makes me sick.
If I had a radio station, when it played music, it would play it without interruption and without cheesy voiceovers. The compere would tell you in full detail what the music was afterwards. There would be no talkback.
There would be interesting interviews with thought-provoking people. I have always liked Desert Island Disc interviews where people are interviewed about the music they like – you find out something about them, and about new music in the process. [In an aside - perhaps SL, DEM and I should do a Desert Island Discs post each - I'd be interested to see what my co-bloggers posted!]
There would be a section on religion where people from different faiths could contribute to discussions. Actually, I always liked “Prayer for the Day” on Radio 4 in the UK. My absolute favourites were Rabbi Lionel Blue and the Guru. There would be a discussion section on law, a section on science and a section on history. There might be some interesting documentary style programs. My radio would not adhere to a particular political viewpoint, but would try to admit a range of views. It would probably have exactly one listener, ME. But surely there are others who would be interested in this station (the readers of this blog, for one?)
I was reminded of why I don’t listen to radio by the recent story involving Kyle Sandilands and Jackie-O. The segment apparently involved questioning people about intimate details of their lives when they were strapped to a lie detector. The latest incident involved a 14 year old girl:
The girl, who had been brought on to undergo a lie detector test about her mother’s concerns about her drug and sex experience, told Kyle Sandilands before the questions started: “I’m scared … it’s not fair.”
The mother told the presenters she was worried about her daughter’s use of drugs and partying, before going on to ask the teenager if she ever skipped school.
The mother then asked her daughter: “Have you ever had sex?”
The 14-year-old replied: “I’ve already told you the story about this … and don’t look at me and smile because it’s not funny.”
After a pause she then raised her voice and said: “Oh okay … I got raped when I was 12 years old.”
Sandilands hesitated before asking “Right … is that the only experience you’ve had?”
The radio station has been heavily criticised for the stunt.
Putting people on lie detectors sounds like a recipe for disaster in the first place – you are likely to uncover all kinds of things which are best left covered. It reminds me of that TV show, Moment of Truth, which had a similar premise.
But what I have to wonder is – what the hell was the mother doing questioning her daughter about her sexual experiences when she apparently knew about her daughter’s allegation that she had been raped at the age of 12? How could a mother do that to her daughter? The poor girl, not only has she apparently been raped, but she has been violated again, by having her privacy invaded in public on air by her own mother.
I was going to say that the girl has been humiliated – but the use of the word “humiliated” might suggest that she should be ashamed of what has apparently happened to her. It is not she who should be ashamed, but the alleged perpetrator, her mother and the radio station.
Update:
Hoydens have a post on the issue with a recording of the segment and a transcript. It’s quite distressing to listen to. I felt physically ill afterwards.
What on earth were they thinking? Surely they had to vet the mother’s questions before they ran this segment? Regardless of whether they knew about the rape or not, as Keri says in the comment thread in Hoydens, “If you ask a 14 year old if she’s had sex, you are asking if she has been raped…” The girl is below the statutory age of consent, so if she has had sex, the person who had sex with her has committed illegal sexual penetration of a minor for starters. It is presumed that someone that young cannot give informed consent. So what did the radio station propose to do if the girl answered yes, even if it was consensual sex? Press her for details and then prosecute the guy? Did no one bloody well think this through? (Clearly not).
Sandilands’ response was inappropriate. To give Jackie-O credit where credit’s due, I think she responded in a more appropriate manner, halting the interview as soon as Sandilands has pressed on with the question. But I think the radio station should be hung drawn and quartered for coming up with such a potentially disasterous and divisive form of “entertainment”.
I still cannot believe that the mother put her child through that ordeal, and that she asked those questions. Nor, apparently, could the daughter believe it. The exchange goes as follows:
Jackie: Well, that’s it apparently. Yep. Ok, what’s your next question, Mum?
Mum: OK. Have you had sex?
Daughter: [quieter] I’ve already told you the story of this. And don’t look at me and smile, because it’s not funny. [louder, announcing with bravado] OH, OK. I got raped when I was twelve years old.
[silence]
Kyle: Right. And is that the, is that the only experience you’ve had?
[huffing sound - is this the daughter fake-laughing in disbelief?]
Mum: I only found out about that, um, a couple of months ago. Yes, I knew about that.
Daughter: And yet you still asked me the question.
Mum: The question was, have you had sex other than that.
I think the mother might be in denial about the nature of rape, because earlier on in the piece she says that she thinks the daughter might have had sex before, but that the daughter hasn’t said anything. Um, rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse, but it’s still sexual intercourse.
I also can’t believe that the poor child was not offered counselling or psychological assistance. Did the mother ever consider that perhaps her daughter’s problems at school could result from her experience? If the mother knew her daughter alleged that she had been raped, and did nothing about it, one wonders whether the daughter should be removed from her custody.
The silver lining on this very dark cloud is that hopefully the daughter will now be helped appropriately.
Update II:
Sandilands and Jackie-O have been suspended indefinitely, Austereo, the owner of 2Day-FM radio station has said. Well, nice to know that there is some notion of an appropriate response after all.
135 Comments
I’d listen to your radio station, LE! Actually, I’d probably have it on all day.
Though I resisted the iPod juganaut for as long as I could, I have to say that one of the best things about iTunes is the ability to access all sorts of interesting podcasts for free.
Incidentally, the radio host has made a half-hearted, completely inadequate attempt to explain himself
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/kyle-sandilands-girls-rape-revelation-stunned-me/ which left me even less impressed, quite frankly, because if someone’s unconscious reaction to that sort of revelation is to push on (and what he actually said just made it worse), then they clearly don’t have the requisite quick-wittedness to run the sort of show where this sort of incident was just waiting for a time to happen.
Well, if I win the lottery, I can set it up and now I know it will have TWO listeners…
People can do odd things under stress, and I suspect Sandilands reaction was one of those mawkish comments that comes out when someone drops an absolute bombshell which you are not expecting. Still – they should never have had the show in the first place if that was how the comperes were going to react.
Talkback is a confessional medium. People can and do confess to very, very, very strange things from time to time. Presenters would normally say something along the lines of, ‘okay, we’ll put you in touch with the relevant authorities, hang on, we’ll just put you through to our producer’. Sandilands’ reaction was, at the very least, highly unprofessional!
This is an a-1 fuckup on both the mother’s and the station’s part. That the mother knew her daughter had been raped and then signed up for this is a profound argument for having the kid taken off her. Wonder who the rapist was — likely one of mum’s useless layabout male friends. Rapists are usually known to the victim, even if only tangentially.
The male radio presenter should be required to give a grovelling apology to the kid and then resign. That this even got past first base is deeply worrying. The law draws clear lines about things like statutory rape for a reason, and while that doesn’t stop kids having it off (I know any number of 14 and 15 year old girls who screwed 20 year old guys and thoroughly enjoyed it) going around and nattering about it on air is just a tower of wrong. GET A ROOM, people. We have lost the public/private distinction on stuff like this and it’s time we got it back.
Dunno how you fix it long term, though. Pull the radio station’s licence? Might be a start.
I’ve commented elsewhere about how this is also a fail on the part of station management (who approved this idea? Who screened applications?). But it occurs to me that maybe the mother didn’t believe the child and that was why she set this up, with a naive belief in the powre of the lie detector. Instead of taking her child seriously (and who knows the history of that) she gave the responsibility over to a ‘scientific’ process.
M-H, I’d agree – it’s also a failure of management. It’s all part of the undignified scramble for ratings by trying to shock listeners. I don’t want to be shocked. I just want to listen to music and intelligent opinion. How could anyone think this lie detector idea was a good idea? Maybe I’m just used to looking at everything in terms of worst case scenarios (law does that to you).
Perhaps you’re right; maybe the mother did want to “test” the daughter – in which case, she shouldn’t have chosen such a public forum. Poor, poor daughter.
“Dunno how you fix it long term, though. Pull the radio station’s licence? Might be a start.”
How can you say that and identify as a libertarian? You are talking about a nanny state style remedy. As an avowed nanny stater I can say such things but I’m not sure a libertarian can!
Even libertarians have to have a line. I’d say this is an appropriate place to draw it…but then I’m much more of a nanny stater myself…
The problem with the radio station is that they’ve undermined important trial evidence, that’s why I’m cranky. Basically, one of the best ways to secure a rape conviction is when the victim makes what’s known as a ‘fresh complaint’; that is, she tells someone shortly after it happened what happened (doesn’t need to be the police, just needs to be someone who can give evidence). It’s clear in this case that the girl told her mother, who then sat on the info and did nothing about it… until she went to the radio station.
That makes it very easy for defence counsel to attack the mother’s character, and to suggest to the jury that she didn’t believe her own daughter, or didn’t think the rape was significant.
That apart, there is a general rule that witnesses who discuss evidence with the media before trial tend to produce poor quality evidence at trial — as most people know, journalists’ questions are quite stereotyped and rehearsed, and are very different from those asked by counsel.
I don’t know what they do to the volume on commercial radio ads, but they are worse than finger nails down a chalk board.
JG – agreed – they really give me the sh*ts. If someone wanted to torture me, they could just play radio ads over and over.
JG, have deleted comment – you can’t make inferences about this girl’s sex life when there may be legal proceedings pending. Particularly when you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO GO ON.
I’m sorry, but evrything I said in that post is totally justified by the evidence. But I understand you not wanting to post it.
No worries – I shouldn’t have deleted the whole lot but I was cross.
I’m going to put the bit you said about the Mum here because I think it was spot on:
[Excerpt from JG's comment]
I would agree – the woman should be put in the stocks. And I personally will hurl rotten tomatoes at her.
Me too.
You guys should try Rush Limbaugh, he almost convinces me of talk radio. And I mean you should try him, not pre-judge him on the basis of lefty elite opinion. He does podcasts
The whoo-ha John is that the girl is FOURTEEN. Well and truly a minor. If you’re an adult, and stupid enough to volunteer for this schtick and the potential public humiliation (and being deliberately embarrassed in public IS humiliation – it doesn’t mean that you’ve done anything wrong just that you’d prefer other people didn’t know about it) then that’s one thing.
Just how voluntary was the child’s participation? She wasn’t happy and told them so. More importantly she was scared. As soon as she said THAT the response of a responsible broadcaster should have been to stop the whole process, not do a sick-making ‘happy dance’ because “THE MACHINE SAYS SHE’S NOT LYING!!!”.
She is a child. She is scared, you admit she is scared, you STOP (you wanker).
I don’t think saying “well Mum asked the questions and gave her permission, we just provided the equipment and the audience” is adequate defense for this level of irresponsibility. Some parents do give themselves permission to maltreat their own children, but responsible people stop them.
A lot of kids don’t report being sexually abused or raped because they don’t expect to be believed (usually because the perp is seldom a stranger). Now those vulnerable kids facing the choice have evidence that not only will your parents think you a liar, they’ll be willing to publicly humiliate you for it.
Thanks to this little debacle, I’d be amazed any child rape victim will report it ever again.
Well done Mum.
On the poor girl and the horrible hosts, the shocking mother, the relevant points have been made.
I’d never heard of this format for a segment. And maybe, for a wider demographic, it could be adapted as follows:
1) Open invitation to any state/federal politician currently in government, or, if in opposition, currently or previously on the front bench.
2) Questions (after knowing the politician involved) would be prepared by selected journos – preferably respected ones, and preferably from both left and right, with the questions “fit for asking on a respected broadcaster or for a respected newspaper” (e.g. nothing that would touch on private lives, national security secrets, etc)
3) Pollies would not know the questions in advance.
I reckon that’d be a legitimate bloodsport that would rate as well as The Chaser.
(and I hereby claim any available intellectual property rights on the format shared with the authors of this blog)
Is stupidity no longer allowed and has to be prosecuted?
Clearly the mother is deranged as she knew the story and would have known this was going to come out.
The radio station has clearly screwed up and that will the end of that segment of the show.
Here’s the thing… we can’t legislate against everything and in this case public indignation and a couple or moronic radio announcers experiencing a hot metal rod up the rear end of public scorn and anger will teach them to be a little more careful next time they try and play silly games like that.
SL
Why would you pull the radio station’s license. How would those morons know the mother was an idiot and that the kid was raped?
In of itself the actual segment doesn’t sound as though it was breaching any regulations.
The male radio announcer sounds like a complete turkey. How the hell did he think of even asking that follow up question with such a jaw dropping answer.
I probably wouldn’t pull the license, JC — I was just bloody annoyed that people could be so careless — but I’d give ACMA enough teeth to make sure that trials and police work aren’t wrecked by irresponsible (and I hate to use this word) ‘journalism’ (it’s not, but you know what I mean). I hope you’re right about it being the end of that segment of the show; that would actually be the best solution for all concerned.
Look you’re the lawyer and I’m not so you would know more about the legal implications than I would. But I can’t see how the kid’s claim that she was raped would cause the case to fail or be jeopardized.
I can’t believe that they didn’t pull the thing when the kid announced she was frightened and sounded reluctant to do the show.
You’d think they would pull it then, would you?
You’re dealing with geniuses here. The male announcer sounds as though he’s a few keys off being mentally impaired.
My comment at 9 outlines the legals, JC. This is going to be a shit to prosecute, and I certainly wouldn’t want to be the crown prosecutor who has that brief land on his desk.
DEM and jc, I’m with you. I can’t believe they proceeded when the girl said she was scared. The results of the Milgram experiment always horrified me – how could people do that? But that whole sequence shows me that there are people out there who will proceed with questions even in the face of fear and distress. And will keep on going even when there is a horrible answer…
My only hope is that this may have a positive aspect – perhaps some kids will discuss this with friends/parents – and feel emboldened to raise their own problems in the face of the widespread outrage about this whole thing.
Dave – I like the idea of asking politicians questions…now wouldn’t that be interesting? There’d have to be some kind of large incentive to make them do it though. Other than being believed…but no one believes them anyway, so they’re probably used to that.
Eeewwwwww!!!
There are so many things wrong with that I don’t know where to begin. Yuck!
the person who had sex with her has committed illegal sexual penetration of a minor for starters.
And if a 14 year old sexual partner is 14? Just askin’.
The male announcer sounds as though he’s a few keys off being mentally impaired.
Not quite Sandy-Land is the World Heavyweight Champion of Creeps.
But I think this girl’s mother deserves the lion’s share of blame. This Dr Phil/Oprah Winfrey American get yer ya-yas out and show the world your dirty laundry schtick is an infection in this country’s culture. Another media inspired trade-off where you exchange dignty for ‘fame’.
If this lass is following the path to self-destruction it’s ’cause she didn’t get taught to b sensible when she shoud’ve. By 14 I recon it’s already too late and all that’s left is to learn the hard way.
LE says:
“My only hope is that this may have a positive aspect – perhaps some kids will discuss this with friends/parents – and feel emboldened to raise their own problems in the face of the widespread outrage about this whole thing.”
Brilliant point, LE. That was what I thought when I heard the segment. Episodes like this really do help lift the shroud that surrounds the issue of the sexual abuse of minors. I think this point outweighs all others and it is why I’m surprised by the way so many people are carrying on like pork chops.
As to the mum, I am cross with her but at the same time accept that she must be pretty damn screwy for reasons that may not be entirely all her fault.
This is just a linear extension of Culture Studies pomo values and attitudes towards the democratisation of media.
To a certain extent. I think it’s part of a broader disruption in the culture where old values and modes of child rearing have been left behind. And new ones, typified by Dr Spock, have arisen and taken too far. Add to the tendency these days of people to think they can have everything they want is leading to lax child rearing. There’s certain apparent behaviour where kids are simply not disciplined by their parents. A regular part of a week-end night is the sound of 19 yer olds making wild animal noises that 2 year olds make. Why? I do suppose that it might have something to do with the superego failing to assert itself when you hit the terrible twos.
As in the ego emerges, often exemplified by the daily banging of pots and pans and the superego is supposed to step in as in you say: Knock it off.
For a lot of kids it’s like they’ve never had anyone say that to them. Hence the spectacle of masses of young what should be adults hooting and hollering like toddlers. Strangely they seem to think that they’re ‘cool’. I guess that’s another word, the meaning of which has been lost to posterity.
Meantime over the top of this indulgence you have this gross lack of consideration. Ass. Backwards. I don’t advocate a return to the days where children should not be heard or where parents basically tried as hard as they could to eliminate all individuality in their off-spring. But without self-control there is no true individuality.
The Cult Stud thing viz Big Brother is part of that confused and self-destructive slice of the Humanities which vindicates every skerrick of Pop Culture, no matter how banal, stupid, vulgar or moronic, as somehow worthy. As Ophelia Benson said: The White Pages? Hamlet the one is just as good as the other. Both just ‘texts’.
And what L’eagle said, John. There’s a good reason for this fuss. Putting this kid thru that… well she’s got good reason to hate her mother’s guts now doesn’t she?
And what Skeptic said viz pulling the station’s licence. It’s not ‘statist’ it’s a hard line drawn across the culture that punishes those who abuse their power. It doesn’t impede liberty provided the hard line is drawn around a wide space and there’s only a few simple rules, sternly and consistently enforced.
Kind of why the commentary culture on this site works so well, I’d say.
Sorry waxed a bit long.
‘I think this point outweighs all others ‘
including the suffering of the poor girl herself?? I’m as glad as the next person when shrouds get lifted etc, but I damn sure wouldn’t want to be this girl and ‘the greater benefit to society’ wouldn’t make me feel all that dandy about it either.
Adrien
There are enough other people going hard on the “commercial radio”. I have nothing further to advance that side. But NOBODY has been going after the Luvvies. The moral terpitude of having Pomo Glen as a guest expert over at LP is beyond farce.
Adrien, I think you’re right to link this with US talk shows where people somehow think it’s fine to show all their dirty underwear in public. I remember watching one of those day time talk shows where a woman was whingeing that her husband didn’t have sex with her enough. The poor fellow was sitting there looking humiliated and red faced, and then the host started questioning him why. He muttered, “Jus’ don’t feel like it”. If I were him, I sure as hell wouldn’t feel like having sex with a woman who humiliated me in public on a talk show that was internationally broadcast. Grounds for divorce, methinks.
Sometimes it’s actually better not to talk about some stuff in public, and only share with really good friends who care about you. I tend to agree with SL that the public/private divide has been all mucked up and needs to be redrawn. This kind of stuff is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE as public fodder.
L.E – no, that wasn’t Sandilands reacting “under stress”, nor his flibbertigibbet sidekick. That is how they operate, period. Go back and read their “apology”.
The following day they went on air and both exclaimed what a “weird” time they’d had the previous day. “Weird”. That’s the best either of them could muster? And it was all about them. Indeed.
I don’t agree that there is a “silver lining” for the girl. She was raped as a child and has now been humiliated and defiled across the whole country because of two vile and nasty shock jocks. They have form, this is not anything new for them.
S.K – yes, the mother is a total piece of work. She knew, long after the fact, that her daughter had been raped, which apparently didn’t concern her. She was very concerned, however, to quiz her daughter over her sexually activities on a radio show, hooked up to a lie detector. This was a mere two months after she had found out that the daughter was raped a couple of years ago. Sick? Twisted? Or is the mother just plain stupid?
The child expressed her fears to the DJs and they brushed them aside, went head long, ignored a child’s small and desperate plea for adult support – such that clearly didn’t ever come from her own mother.
Betrayed, much?
Tim – this wasn’t a confessional in the BB or “normal” MSM wanting attention sense. The mother initiated this, the daughter wasn’t keen to be there and she verbalised her fears – she was ignored. Three adults colluded against a child to create this awful situation.
No point in blaming it on radio station management either. Sandilands has already stated that he still thought it was OK to air the piece. He has, in the past, insisted that things be aired that a more moral person would blanch at.
Both Sandilands and Jackie O are taking what they consider to be the moral high ground, sneering and placing blame on the rest of the media for reporting the story, and, thereby, according to them, “exploiting” the poor girl at the centre of the storm. Unbelievable logic, but that’s indicative of the thinking that rules their radio program.
Good question. In your and my home state of Victoria, s 45 of the Crimes Act 1958 (which deals with sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16) provides a limited defence in subsection (4)(b) where the accused is not more than two years older than the child.
So if this girl had had sex with another 14 year old with consent, that would not be a crime. Even if she had had consensual sex with a 16 year old, that would not be a crime. On the other hand, if it was non-consensual, it would be rape.
I suppose the law wants to recognise that some kids will indulge in sexual experimentation, but wants to draw a bright line about when this is allowable.
Mela:
“As to the mum, I am cross with her but at the same time accept that she must be pretty damn screwy for reasons that may not be entirely all her fault.”
Really?
At what point do we insist that we take responsibility for who we are and what we do?
How handy that there’s always something or someone else to blame for everything.
I think you’re letting the mother off way too lightly.
No one here has any information about the mother, so no one can assume that she is some poor damaged, uneducated, or abused woman who knows no better – what a crock.
Caz – I haven’t really come across Sandilands or Jackie O before (perhaps I live under a rock). I suppose I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt before I knew more about what had happened. My vague recollection is that Sandilands had been an unpleasant judge on some kind of reality television show, but I’m not even aware of which one. However, I’ve now heard that this is not the first time he has aired inappropriate stuff on air.
The “apology” was not worthy of the word. And the argument that other newspapers exploited the girl?! Are they for real? Do they have no sense of irony?
The best way of punishing this station for its conduct is for advertisers to pull all ads from the station, and for listeners to turn off to show that this is an inappropriate way to seek ratings.
As I say, I do hope that the poor kid gets appropriate responses now. I also wish it had not taken an awful incident like this to bring her claims to a head.
Caz/Mel: I can’t really think of any excuse for the mother unless she is seriously mentally ill or perhaps has some other mental deficiency (in which case, the radio station should have picked up on that before letting her question her child).
Personally I can’t stand the idea that Shakespeare is equivalent to the blurb on a cornflake box. Look, I’m all for questioning the Literary Canon – some of the best works I know would never make it in there. But saying that every piece of literature/drama/TV is worthy is nonsense. And also – some of the works in the Literary Canon are there for a reason – because they are bloody good and entertaining, and that’s why they’ve survived through the ages.
LE
You are still focusing on the point, rather than the circle. Why shut up Kyle and Jackie-O? All you ‘Disgusted From Tunbridge Wells’ types are not part of that world. So it is pretty off for all these bourgeois Luvvie Pomo types to leverage this situation to flaunt their presupposed moral superiority.
Hullo? Kyle and Jackie-O get paid millions for this stuff, because this is popular culture. It is as common as they are.
Luvvies who sneer from the ivory tower, while making their undergrad students read translations of French philosophers glorifying the “subversion” should be place in stocks in public.
Adrien
I think now might be an appropriate moment for you to respond to my post about “master’slave”.
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2009/07/theres-something-about-monotheism/#comment-40333
L.E – no reason why you would or should be familiar with the rabble on our radio stations!
I don’t listen to their program, but know of the show intimately purely because it so often gets into “hot water” over poor taste stunts, or “jokes” that “go wrong” and every time it happens there is extensive media coverage.
Sandilands has shifted gear to now presenting himself as being the “victim” of the “evil” media. Poor baby. They’re picking on him.
The station management are publicly sticking by this tacky duo, which is a pity.
Still it’s all about money, and I would desperately love to see – just this once – an American-style pull out of advertising money. Their show pulls in $15M in revenue. Ah, I can dream.
JG, I don’t care if it is popular culture – it is utterly irresponsible and immoral to exploit a young vulnerable girl in that way. She had no one to look after her interests. Her mother, who should have been looking after her, was instead humiliating her on national radio, aided and abetted by those radio schmucks.
I don’t care if people want to listen to muck which is unpleasant but involves consenting adults. That’s their business. I don’t have to listen to it and I don’t intend to do so. I don’t think it should be policed where consenting adults are involved, although I don’t have to like it either. It’s not subversive, it’s bullsh*t. You know I’ve got no time for the Lumby and her ilk.
But the point is that this segment involved a scared child who was incapable of giving informed consent, and was questioned about intimate matters which no child should have to answer in public. That’s why I think something should be done about Sandilands and Jackie-O.
Caz – and I naively wondered why radio stations indulge in nasty stunts like this? It’s all about the money. Obviously there’s a lot of people out there who are titillated by this kind of stuff.
Sandilands and Jackie-O were definitely aware, before the day of the program, that the mother intended to ask the child about her virginity.
Think about that for a nonosecond!
LE
It’s RAUNCH CULTURE, darls. Ask your neighbouring Gender/Cultural Studies Ph.D students. 
Oh, you are sooo old-fashioned!!!
Caz
Well, DER!
AND?
SO?
Yeah, horrible. Talk radio is voyeristic . That’s why many listen and why the presenters push to the edge.
I don’t think we can change that but large penalties for those who harm would be a start. The offence is, I suggest, harm to someone (as here) rather than bad taste.
And LE try some of the streamed stations on the internet. You can listen to just about any station in the world – I listened to 3MBS on my iPod touch 30,000 feet above Colorado a while back. Or there are the internet only stations – 1FM has a good selection.
LE says: “Caz/Mel: I can’t really think of any excuse for the mother unless she is seriously mentally ill or perhaps has some other mental deficiency …”
I don’t believe in free will, LE.
“Sandilands and Jackie-O were definitely aware, before the day of the program, that the mother intended to ask the child about her virginity.”
Big deal. Children have sex, sex is normal and 14 year olds can candidly discuss the topic. The Victorian era is over, old Swan; one’s first sexual encounter is no more or less discussable than one’s first game of badminton.
Mel: If she had been happy to discuss rather than terrified, and if the encounters she was discussing were legal, it might have been less problematic – but I still have problems with the idea that a child of that age can really consent to something like this.
The thing is that our law says that children of this age should really not be having sex (unless, as discussed above, they are having it with someone reasonably close to their own age). If they are having sex with someone much older, it turns into something which the law presumes is pretty nasty (exploitation, rape or pedophilia).
Of course there’s kids who are sexually active at a young age. I remember at high school various girls were discussing physical intimacy with ski instructors at the age of 14 or 15. As an adult, I now wonder if this was true or if it was bravado? I also wonder what the proclivities of the ski instructor were? – in each story, the guy had the same name, which the respective girls didn’t seem to realise – now as an older cynical adult, I suspect it was (a) the same person and (b) he might have preyed on young teens.
I also think there’s a gender issue here. A boy who has sex at a young age is more likely to be regarded with awe by his friends, a girl who has sex at a young age is more likely to be branded a “slut” or “easy”. That’s just the way our society works – I really wish it wasn’t the case, but no matter what we do, these presuppositions seem to be here to stay. So it’s potentially worse to make a girl disclose these things publicly to the world at large than it is for a guy.
John / Mela – WTF?
Nothing to do with the “Victorian era”.
It was wrong on every level.
Talking about one’s virginity or sexual activities with one’s peers or at home is not the same as a child being put on public radio to be subjected to a quiz about her sexual activities and hooked up to a lie detector.
It was against her expressed wishes.
The adults over ruled her – three of them.
But, hey, if you two are an example of the prevailing moral compass, that would explain why 12 year old girls get raped and feel that they have no one to tell, and why Sandilands and Jackie O are so darned popular.
JG @ 44 – I confess to being old-fashioned in many regards, at least in my personal habits. Where the habits of other people are involved, I am pretty liberal where consenting adults are concerned. But it’s when people get KIDS involved that I get mad.
Someone I once knew was into BDSM, and confessed this to me. While it doesn’t interest me in the least, I didn’t have a problem with him being interested in it as long as the people he consorted with consented (he told me that there were various tight measures in place to ensure the parameters were sharply outlined). Indeed, I find his tales of BDSM less offensive than this particular incident, which did not involve consent and involved a minor.
LE/Caz, thanks to this radio segment the issue of the girl’s rape will now go to the police and the girl will be provided with counselling at the expense of the radio station. But for this radio segment her mother would have continued to ignore the fact of the rape.
I also call bollocks on this being against the girl’s wishes. She obviously has authority issues and accordingly she wouldn’t have rocked up to the radio station if she truly didn’t want to partake in this segment. Her protests lacked conviction. I think she’s not the passive dummy Caz assumes her to be. Rather she adeptly seized the opportunity to make her rape a matter that can no longer be ignored.
Just generally, I have tried to work out what the attraction of US style talk shows and stunts like this would be. I think it is the feeling in the viewer/listener that they are hearing a titillating confidence. Hearing a confidence is always interesting, particularly if it involves salacious matters.
Mel, seriously, I’d agree that there might have been a sense of relief for the girl, in that she could finally say what had happened to her and be listened to. I think the bravado in her voice when she says she’s been raped reflects that relief in part – she could finally get it out there and ask her mother what the hell she was thinking by asking that question of her. That’s why I do believe there is a silver lining to the cloud. Still, it’s not the way I would recommend airing these kind of things!
John G – But NOBODY has been going after the Luvvies. The moral terpitude of having Pomo Glen as a guest expert over at LP is beyond farce.
.
Is Glen the guy that used to do the Big Brother website? Write to Bolt. He’ll do it. Lives for it.
Viz Luvvies, have you played any Grand Theft Auto particularly Vice City?
LE – So if this girl had had sex with another 14 year old with consent, that would not be a crime. Even if she had had consensual sex with a 16 year old, that would not be a crime. On the other hand, if it was non-consensual, it would be rape.
.
I remember when some compulsory background cheques (vers 32) were introduced. There was an advice column. One letter was from a guy that was put on a sex offenders register when he was 16, for having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend!
Not sure about the State. But that kinda stuff happened when I was in school. I can understand that people want to punish adults who prey on teenagers and fair enough. But the age of consent is a customary line drawn on the basis of averages I would think.
Some people are ready to have sex when they’re 14. Most aren’t but some are. And if they are, they will.
I’m off to have dinner with a friend – spam filter is EXTREMELY TOUCHY and seems to be eating comments at the drop of a hat. So if your comments don’t appear…blame Akismet.
I can’t respond to that comment John, the thread’s closed remember. Who did that.? Um-ah
Shame it was interesting. Standards here are higher here and you can’t say this lot will punish you for you views.
I’ll only say that, if nothing else, you should read The Genealogy of Morals. It’s the shit.
FWIW, I do think JG has a point about the culpability of those who seek to validate popular culture in all its forms, rather than being choosy and making a ‘quality’ call. For all that it is often dressed up in fancy philosophical language (mainly French), much of it has a very human impulse behind it: the desire to have one’s tastes validated.
In days gone by, turning up to a university literature course and admitting that you liked sport (or books about sport, I’m thinking here something like The Greatest Game) was to be told off for being déclassé in the extreme. In earlier years, the circle was drawn even more tightly: admitting to reading science fiction, for example, or books by women, or books by black people. Rightly, no-one wants to go back to a world where you’re told that some things are just per se rubbish, no correspondence entered into.
I’m tempted at this point to say ‘we’ve gone too far, what we need is a bit of all things in moderation‘, but the problem is larger than that. Many critics of the ‘po mo’ variety (to use JG’s term) have got political and artistic legitimacy mixed up. I remember when LP ran various posts on Big Brother last year, and it became clear that the young man writing them thought that to denigrate Big Brother was to denigrate the people who liked Big Brother. It’s not. It’s denigrating Big Brother, full stop — or that’s what it should be.
It is perfectly possible (and, indeed, essential) to take the political speech of unsophisticated people seriously. That’s why I was appalled at the treatment both of Pauline Hanson and her supporters. I knew when the liberal (US sense) media exploded all over her on taste grounds (note, again, the confusion of artistic and political legitimacy) that there would be Hell to pay. The ‘luvvies’ (to use JG’s term) lost the immigration argument so badly it was spectacular to watch their collective minds explode.
Taking political speech seriously does not, however, mean taking artistic or ‘taste’ speech seriously. Some things are just crap, as Laura (who used to comment on Big Brother issues here from time to time) often pointed out. Indeed, taking things like Kyle and JackieO or Big Brother or whatever crap cultural product is out there seriously in the name of ‘respecting the little people’ isn’t respectful at all. It’s patronising, and therein lies the problem with much of the theory taught in university literature courses (and elsewhere).
I suppose we’ll grow out of it eventually.
SL
Thanks for the supporting comment. Having said, I am not being totally out-there redneck-like on this particular issue, nor these PARTICULAR people. It is just, as I said, SOMEBODY has to present this perspective.
I’ve had people say to me, “how would you like it if…….” Surely this is missing the point? All I’m trying to do is make the discussion more complete in one tiny specck of the cosmos.
However, my scorn is uncompromisable for Lumby, the Luvvies she has “educated” and their occasional elevation to “guest guru/expert” on Luvvie blogs
SL says: “FWIW, I do think JG has a point about the culpability of those who seek to validate popular culture in all its forms, rather than being choosy and making a ‘quality’ call.”
I disagree with you about culpability. The lit/culti studies brigade exist inside a tiny bubble that is unseen and unnoticed by Joe and Jane Public. The existence of Big Brother, Jackie /Sandilands etc IMO owes not one jot to these academic types and hence they are in no way “culpable”.
Mela – I haven’t suggested that the girl was a “passive dummy”. She protested, clearly and specifically to the set up. She also spat out the facts about the rape with .. defiance? Which was immediately preceded by a sneering comment to her mother, something like: “you know what happened, stop smiling”.
Defiant and resentful, for sure. It would seem she has good reason to be, particularly when she can’t trust the adults around her.
Fourteen year olds aren’t very good or calculating at playing adult games. It would be wrong to project onto a child any motive or prior deliberations. She was high-jacked, that was pretty clear from how it all played out. Who knows what she was told about the set up beforehand to get her there, not that it matters at this point.
I have come around to agreeing that perhaps there is an upside to this for the girl, having read the various comments here. Indeed, ultimately the girl may well be provided with professional support not only to deal with the sexual assault, but also a dysfunctional and / or unhappy family situation. Her daily life would seem to be short on compassion and understanding. If that now changes for her, all to the good.
S.K – if that’s the point John was making, terrific, but it was obtuse without your footnotes!!!
I can’t agree with the analogy of Pauline Hanson though. These types of media stunts that ‘blow up’ are in a different league entirely.
I do believe that people like Pauline Hanson, or Holocaust deniers, or religious extremists, racists, and whatever, should be given full voice. Far better to expose the extent of the ugliest types of thinking, so that people understand what is at stake, and because such exposure frequently changes the thinking of those who are supporters (the moderate types). I just don’t see what that has to do with this one child in Australia and a couple of overpaid moronic DJs. Not in the same ballpark.
I wasn’t just referring to the lit brigade (who, apart from Lumby, are not very visible) but a broader phenomenon that sees things that are fundamentally shite elevated above their station in the name of respecting those who like them.
Pauline Hanson was one long-running media stunt — look at the ‘assassination’ video and her appearance on that dance show (the name of which escapes me). It’s called Strictly Come Dancing in the UK.
I also call bollocks on this being against the girl’s wishes. She obviously has authority issues and accordingly she wouldn’t have rocked up to the radio station if she truly didn’t want to partake in this segment. Her protests lacked conviction. I think she’s not the passive dummy Caz assumes her to be. Rather she adeptly seized the opportunity to make her rape a matter that can no longer be ignored.
So you’re saying she’s a liar who colluded in her own abuse/humiliation? That’s incredibly offensive Mel, it’s called blaming the victim and is totally unacceptable.
I’m also going to go a little Hoyden and point out that it’s incredibly thoughtless too: this blog may well have readers who are themselves victims of sexual and/or parental abuse and find it incredibly triggering.
What part of CHILD (defined automatically as a ‘vulnerable person’ by the courts) are you still missing?
DEM, very well said. As I say, I do think there may have been some relief for the girl in telling what happened – but it doesn’t take away from the fact that she was utterly violated in the segment. I’m sure I heard her sobbing in the background at one point.
I would strongly contest the idea that the questioning was what she would have wished for. I suspect she was scared because she thought the question would be raised, but probably tried to comfort herself with the idea that surely her mother would not be so insensitive as to raise that on air. Even if one is anti-authoritarian, it’s a hard thing to resist that kind of pressure. If she refused her mother’s request to go on the lie detector – would her mother then presume that she didn’t want to be questioned because she was lying about all kinds of things? Or that she had things to hide? She was damned if she did it, damned if she didn’t.
Sandilands now appears to be excusing himself on the basis that he wasn’t in the studio at the time, and was conducting his questions via remote link-up while on his honeymoon. Apparently his role in Australian Idol is under threat as well.
Caz
Sorry if my point was confusing. Why, what did you think I was saying?
She obviously has authority issues
She’s 14 isn’t she?
“So you’re saying she’s a liar who colluded in her own abuse/humiliation? That’s incredibly offensive Mel, it’s called blaming the victim and is totally unacceptable. ”
I’m not saying that and I’m not blaming the girl. I think it’s is very hard to discuss issues such as this in a nuanced way in blog comments. I tried to apply a nuanced interpretation that sees the girl as something more than a passive victim- rather I saw her as making a public call for help because her mother did not act on her rape complaint. In light of her unfortunate circumstances, this may have been a rational and willful act. I admire her for it and my heart goes out to her.
LE/DEM, I think you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said and I take the blame for that because I should have expressed myself more clearly.
Many critics of the ‘po mo’ variety (to use JG’s term) have got political and artistic legitimacy mixed up.
Since the avant garde emerged in mid 19th century France there’s been a certain view that art and politics travel in tandem somehow. It’s not entirely spurious. The artist Gustav Courbet’s work and ethos – Realism – is quite clearly compatible with his political philosophy inspired by his friend P-J Proudhon. This persisted.
These days what’s known as ‘avant garde’ really means ‘obscure fashion trend’ and the ‘politics’ often boiled down to bad art that legitimizes itself with reference to some twaddle viz ‘questions of identity’.
Nevertheless the Humanities, in teaching a correspondence between artisitic modality and socio-political ideology have created the inevitable bunch of fools who take it too far and too seriously hence the ‘everything is political’ schtick.
Fun fact: When Courbet decided to become ‘avant garde’ and to live according to the political principles espoused by his friend Proudhon he avowed to eschew public funding.
This is true. He even set up competitions against publicly funded art. He was strictly a private sector dude.
Funny old world innit.
Rightly, no-one wants to go back to a world where you’re told that some things are just per se rubbish, no correspondence entered into.
It used to be the monarch who made proclomations on ‘good taste’ at least for a short but very profound moment. ‘Good taste’, as we understand it, has its origins in the competition between the courts of Charles II and Louis IV. It seems hard to fathom but the modern male costume is the descendant of Charles II’s court’s move to ‘oriental dress; after the Great Fire, For some reason Chuck thought that doing such would be an atonement. But from there we get 18th century male costume which is the basis of the suit. And then the 1800 generation started wearing their sports clothes in town and we get the Dandy. It was, like the Mod, a middle class invention contrary to the standard attributions of the former to the upper class and the latter to the workers.
And so forth. To sportswear goes upmarket and articulates the form whereby male fashion obtains.
The impulse to style is elite. It is linked to the desire amongst some humans to distance themselves from the herd; to be better. The herd follows behind. Slowly. Witness the spectacle of compulsory tattoos and body piercing – a nich facination 20 years ago has become mainstream. Or at least a recognizable sub culture large enough not to be penalized for ‘weirdness’.
What I’m not sure the Po Mo bunch have got straight in their heads is this relationship. And also the implications of the University no longer claiming an authority on taste so much as simply being a commentator upon it. Despite what they say the Po Mo crew still assume such authority and often in the most noxious way possible.
What we have is a open culture with polycentric taste hierarchies that are all grounded in soil of the ‘normal’ but define themselves against it and depend on it for that reason. In other words the cultural architecture of a technocratic democracy and global marketplace.
What this culture does not yet have is authoritative standards for the judgement of taste. It might never have. All it really does is bring into high relief a simple fact: excellence in taste is the privilege of the few; a product of talent and work. You can’t buy it.
It’s also not in any way a marker of virtue, Gertrude St, Fitzroy is crammed with worthless show ponies. Including me.
L.E – both the radio station and Channel 10 have come out in support of Sandilands, with his job at Australian Idol not under threat.
Perhaps they’ll change their minds, if the brouhaha doesn’t pass over?
Interestingly, neither of his employers, in their public statements supporting him, have expressed any sentiments about the offending segment, they’ve ignored the whole thing. Perhaps they thought that was the best PR move, but it wouldn’t have been hard for their PR people to muster a few carefully crafted adult sentences to acknowledge the situation, particularly given that their cretinous star botched the job so thoroughly. By saying nothing, they come off as being indifferent, perhaps even a bit mindless in their support of Sandilands – who, oddly, is not exactly a favorite with the unwashed masses. Why does his radio show rate so highly when so many people loath him and his sunny sidekick? Go figure.
Maybe it’s the same reason why so many rubber-neckers insist on slowing down to look at a car smash.
This strikes me as an extremely insightful statement. I think it applies to all forms of entertainment with cruelty at their base. We want to see a train wreck. Since admitting in public that you like watching train wrecks is not on in this day and age, we go for tawdry substitutes: Big Brother, KyleandJackieO, Australian Idol, Strictly Come Dancing…
LE/DEM, I think you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said and I take the blame for that because I should have expressed myself more clearly.
If so I’m sorry Mel, but which part of:
“Her protests lacked conviction.”
and
“…she adeptly seized the opportunity…”
did I misinterpret?
I think it applies to all forms of entertainment with cruelty at their base.
Most movies have the love of violence at their base. The story usually lets us off the hook by deploying the old good v evil riff.
When the movie does not let us off this moral hook we still enjoy the violence but we’re left deeply disturbed.
I guess the same schadenfreude applies to celeb gossip mags. If you think about it, by buying the stuff, we’re providing a living for a whole slew of creeps whose business it is to stalk people and take intrusive photographs.
We like to blame some dark room full of shadow men for the trouble in this world but when you get down to it…
Who are these men
Of lust, greed and glory
Rip off the mask and let’s see
But that’s not right
Oh Lord what’s the story
Well there’s you and there’s me
I only ever saw Australian Idol (or was it American?) once. There was some kid – pudgy, terminally ordinary looking – whose dream it was to be a pop singer. Egad! He could not sing a single note. And yet the first time this was made clear to him he was on TV in front of billions. Blame the suits at Channel X if you wanna, but in my opinion his loved ones take the lion’s share.
LE
You correctly write at the start that the girl has made an allegation of rape.
What I find interesting is that the press almost routinely referred to it as an “admission” she had been raped.
Generally, as you know (quite apart from the legal sense) people admit something which is to their discredit. Was it the sex simpliciter to which (in the context of the mother’s conversation) we owe the girl’s statement’s characterisation as an admission? Ie: “Yes, I had sex, [admission] but I was raped [allegation: possibly true; operates as a qualification to the admission].”
Sadly, I think not, because it remains the case that to have been raped is itself a stigma.
More generally, of course the conduct of all the adults involved is egregious because with just a tiny bit of thought one surely could have seen the risks of something like this occurring. But it is still easy to see how it can happen, just like the Chaser’s cancer-kids joke happened, because there will always be a step too far by people who are engaged in testing social boundaries by playing stunts.
The Chaser’s c-k joke didn’t offend me at all. It’s the reality-entertainment thing and the involvement of the daughter which makes this incident especially exploitative and objectionable. (It would surely still be both if the daughter were 24 and being questioned by her mother on air as to her sexual conduct for the sake of a couple of concert tickets, if not especially so.)
At the same time, the enormous offence that has been caused has got to be because the incident has tugged at some very complex taboos (and protections) with which I think the allege/admit cluster of meaning has a lot to do.
Marcellous, I note that I have consistently referred to the girl’s statement as an allegation throughout – once a lawyer, ever a lawyer. I think you are spot on when you say:
And you are so right about the way the press have reported this as an “admission”. That is also why I didn’t say that the girl had been humiliated, because it might suggest that somehow her own conduct was shameful. It was not.
People don’t like talking openly about things like this, and that is part of the reason for the outrage. I remember once a friend was talking about an experience of sexual assault, and another friend present said, “I don’t want to hear this, it freaks me out.” I’m not sure which aspect freaked her out specifically, because that was the end of the conversation.
There is sometimes a suggestion in discussions that somehow, the person who has been raped is guilty somehow, and must have been “asking for it” or have done something to deserve it. As I said in the discussion over the girl who went into the toilets with rugby players, sometimes people can be pretty silly with their choices and put themselves in dangerous situations (where they are alone, vulnerable and inebriated) but that certainly doesn’t mean they deserve to be raped or assaulted. The “admission” discussion reflects this – somehow, it’s supposed to be shameful for the girl to admit she was raped, when really, as I said in the post, the shame lies with the radio station, the shock jocks, the mother and the alleged perpetrator.
KYLE AND JACKIE-O HAVE BEEN SACKED
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/08/02/1249152504446.html
Hey JG, thanks for that update. Will update post accordingly.
What’s happening, I’m back in the moderation spam loop again?
LE
That last post of yours I think explains why we often part ways on these issues. You, as a lawyer probably reflexively focus on the characters as real people in situations which pose all sorts of legal issues you know about. OTOH, because I don’t know any of these people from Adam tend to reflexively focus on the macro dynamics.
JG, I think you’re right. I am a very empathetic person – I always focus on the real people. Also I’ve sat through rape and sexual assault cases which gives you a different view on these things…suddenly you can see faces and things like that.
Additionally, I get cross because I think of friends of mine who had bad experiences, and imagine how I’d feel if they were questioned in this way by their mother and radio shock jocks.
Let’s just say that once, when a guy treated someone I loved really, really badly, I told him that I’d rip of his balls and stuff them up his nostrils if I caught him alone in a dark alley. About three weeks later, I saw him in the legal district. I don’t know what the expression on my face was…but he just ran… I am gentle right up to a point, but get me on things like this and I get very angry.
Being a lawyer gives you a very different view on many situations, actually. I keep meaning to write a post on juries – a couple of my non-legally qualified family members have been called up lately. It’s been interesting to see their observations of courts and legal practice, insofar as they are allowed talk about the experience. Actually, I’d love to question them about the whole process and their impressions, but alas, they can’t talk about it in any detail.
KYLE AND JACKIE-O HAVE BEEN SACKED
Really? Aw shucks!
Adrien, your link above didn’t work — and there was no address so I’ve just turned it into italics. I’d be curious as which film you were referring to (that is violent but doesn’t let us off the moral hook).
LE, I’d like to read your post on juries, as an outsider to but interested observer on the legal system.
Link.
DEM says:
“If so I’m sorry Mel, but which part of:
“Her protests lacked conviction.”
and
“…she adeptly seized the opportunity…”
did I misinterpret?”
DEM, you said I called the girl (X) a liar and “blamed the victim”. That wasn’t my intent. Obviously you are satisfied that X has no agency. I thought she may have acted willfully and bravely given her circumstances.
If you think interpretations that don’t conform to a simple victim/perpetrator scenario are taboo well then so be it. If only real life were that simple.
They have not been sacked, and the linked article doesn’t claim they have been!
The radio show has been “suspended” while the station “reviews” their protocols for interacting with listeners.
It also sounds as if this state of play only came about because Sandilands spat the dummy, telling the station that he couldn’t go on air while this little storm raged around him. (A bit precious, given the shit Sandilands and O’Neill have thrown about the place over the years. But they also have form on not being able to take it when thrown back at them.)
No word from Channel 10 yet, on the outcome of their weekend review on whether to drop Sandilands mid-way through Australian Idol.
They won’t be sacked. They’re assets. The suits’ll assume the public will forget three days from now and next year Sandy-Land and Jackio will be back with some new serving of mental pollution.
It’s at time like these where I begin to see the advantage of an Absolute Monarchy with the power to put the noxious to a slow and unpleasant death.
Yeah, sadly and cynically, I think you’re right Adrien – they won’t be sacked. This kind of case also brings out the absolutist in me. If I had my druthers, I’d never have them back on air. What a pity I’m not a Master of the Universe ™.
Kyle has been sacked from “Idol”, it’s official.
Rumor is it that the radio station didn’t really “suspend” the program, rather, Sandy-Land (‘tm’ – Adrien) refused to adhere to new requirements for on air performance.
So far, a beautiful outcome.
There is some kind of karma in the world after all.
After seeing Media Watch tonight I have to agree that Sandilands and Jackie O are filth. But what does that make the people who listen to their apparently top rating show?
Refer to the comments above about people rubber-necking at RTAs and train-wrecks, Mel. Entertainment as cruelty, cruelty as entertainment. The human animal can be a mighty nasty beast.
Also if you’ve got/know of a media-watch transcript anywhere (I don’t know if they make the show available overseas; I think it’s like the BBC’s ‘iplayer’, geographically limited) I’d be interested to read it.
DEM, you said I called the girl (X) a liar and “blamed the victim”. That wasn’t my intent. Obviously you are satisfied that X has no agency. I thought she may have acted willfully and bravely given her circumstances.
I don’t think that X has no agency, but that as a minor it is compromised… which is why we have an age of consent in the first place.
Both the UK and Australia have an age of criminal responsibility set at 10, under which a child is considered incapable of committing a criminal offense (presumably because they are incapable of ‘intent’ – SL/LE?).
The age of consent is set at 16 and the law says that under that age, a child is considered incapable of giving truly independent consent. Their agency is likely to be compromised, and the child left open to exploitation by those with influence over them.
What power would X have had to refuse her mother? She could have resisted physical force, but what if the price of refusal was the threat (or expectation) being chucked out onto the street?
If no isn’t a option, then exactly how free is your choice?
Transcript here, SL.
Just watched it, su — it works in the UK. Kyle managed the daily playbill at the colosseum in a past life. What a f*tard.
DEM: yes, incapable of forming intent (‘doli incapax’).
Well, after watching those two Media Watch segments, I am now officially “Morally Outraged of Melbourne”. I think these people should be taken off air, never to return. The only problem is – if you take these people off air, they’ll go around whinging about the “wowsers” who took them off air.
When I first came across this incident, I knew nothing about 2Day FM, Sandilands or O. I didn’t realise it was the last in a long pattern of revolting, exploitative and inappropriately sexually explicit programs. I also didn’t realise that Sandilands seems play the “nasty guy” and O plays the “nice guy”, coming in with coy protests from time to time.
Actually, a friend pointed me to this interview with Sandilands on Enough Rope which is quite revealing. Sandilands seems to consistently fail to take any responsibility for any upset. He also seems not to have any thought about the ramifications of what he does.
I’m amazed it’s taken this long for sponsors to pull their support. But then – if this station has such a large audience, think of the exposure (no pun intended!). Sick, sick, sick.
A survey has shown many teenagers have unwanted sex.
“Well, after watching those two Media Watch segments, I am now officially “Morally Outraged of Melbourne””
I almost put my foot thru the TV. What a couple of morally repugnant cretins. I hope they burn slowly.
Err, well, yeah.
This has been a story and outcome long in the making.
My “moral outrage” wasn’t based solely on this incident, albeit one of the more repugnant examples of the handy work and talents of Kyle and Jackie.
I mentioned previously that the pair had form, of which I had knowledge because they were so often in the headlines.
They were also continually seen to be morally vacant and so personally vacuous as to give pause about how they managed to cope with everyday life. And yet, they are paid millions each year to be vile, morally empty, vacuous celebutards.
Oooh wee – I love this. The show is in recess:
until we have completed an across-the-networks review of the principals[sic] and protocols of our interaction with our audience.
Translation: Until people’ve forgotten about it and we get some data telling us whether the bogans who watch the show like it even more now. If we’ve gone too far, no probs, we’ll just cut ‘em loose forever and find two new
vulagr sociopathsradio professionals.And the money quotes:
Kid, Austero has a lot of money, get yerself a lawyer and go get it. And when you get it buy your mother a one way ticket to Mogadishu. Just your way of saying thanks.
Don’t smile!
Of course it’s because the mother had a hard life. She’s a victim. Bleeding Christ!
And then..
if you don’t pick the right door, if Dana’s not the door you pick, Dana flies straight home. No meeting.
It’s this more than anything else that tells you something. People who listen to this stuff should be shot. They have no business being on the same planet as me.
Not that I’m surprised.
The sister-from-the-USA-stunt is extremely revealing and (bar the underaged element) just as bad; it’s fairly straight obtaining services by deception (s 1 of the Theft Act over here).
As I say, Kyle the f*tard managed the daily playbill at the colosseum in a past life: ‘ladies and gentlemen, just letting you know that the previous victim went out back and committed suicide…’
Yes, that scene with Dana and “Sally” was appalling. It was premeditated and utterly, utterly cruel. How could anyone do that? And to make the girls crawl on their hands and knees and beg. Gawd. It really made me sick.
It confirmed for me again that there are some people who would electrocute their victims in the Milgram experiment. Some people just have no feeling for their fellow human beings. I am surprised, because (a) I never listen to stuff like that and never watch stuff like that and (b) I can’t even imagine how people could live with themselves if they did that.
The other thing my Mum and I were discussing is that O seems to have gotten off remarkably free. She’s the one who comes up with the concepts, apparently – so in her own way, she’s as bad as Kyle.
Yes someone at LP pointed out that she was a devious bully. A knife in the back smile in your face type. Much worse.
And she appears to’ve done it again.
Ok, Kyle & Jackie jointly managed the daily playbill at the colosseum in a past life.
This is serious slippery slope territory; we do not want to go there.
It must be nice to live in a universe where there are no shades of grey Adrien. Can you conceive of someone who is not a victim, not a monster, just the extremely f**cked up product of all their prior experiences that they both have free will and yet that free will is inevitably constrained by the content and context of those prior experiences? I never had you pegged as a moral absolutist . If this is smarting some personal wounds of yours then I am sorry but sometimes people are callous and emotionally remote from their children for reasons that can be understood and if you are extremely lucky, remedied, at least partly. That doesn’t lessen the damage that she did to her daughter, it doesn’t mitigate it, and self-knowledge for this woman, if she attains it, won’t be a soft option. A nice stint in prison would seem preferable to that kind of self-knowledge.
Of course, the unanswered question in all of this is whether the mother from this lie detector episode got her free tickets to the Pink concert.
That was the mother’s intended reward for dragging her daughter through the stunt, a couple of concert tickets.
Jackie O is not an innocent bystander, this has been her job for many years.
I suspect that Kyle has copped the heat, one because he has a higher profile via television, and two because no one could care less about Jackie O … they don’t even care enough to blame her for the content of the show.
Su – It must be nice to live in a universe where there are no shades of grey Adrien.
Maybe. I wouldn’t know ask Currency Lad.
Can you conceive of someone who is not a victim, not a monster, just the extremely f**cked up product of all their prior experiences
I almost always conceive of people this way. I’m not saying that this lot are monsters or victims. They may be fucked up. Maybe not. But they did fuck someone else up.
that they both have free will and yet that free will is inevitably constrained by the content and context of those prior experiences?
Yes but what obtains when everyone can claim to be a victim and hence not responsible?
I never had you pegged as a moral absolutist .
I’m not. But I can’t abide its opposite either. The results are the same.
If this is smarting some personal wounds of yours then I am sorry
Well yes that might be the case tho’ I’d never discuss that publicly. I am, for example, someone who hides their feelings as matter of habit. This is partially the product of experience and partially the spoils of being the ‘son and the heir of a shyness that is criminally vulgar’. However I don’t think this is an excuse to treat people with disdain.
What this woman and the 2 Day FM crew and the audience did to this girl was very nasty. As grown-ups they can be held accountable. My anger might be a little over the top Su but I see callousness, discourtesy and schadenfreude every day. And I don’t see any evidence that this is the product of anything other than sadism and selfishness.
A couple years back a kid headbutted me on the nose for money. Nothing about him suggested impoverishment or disadvantage. Yet the next day when I related the story to an associate, someone who John Greenfield’d call a ‘luvvie’ , he made out that a. The kid was disadvantaged and b. I provoked it.
His evidence: Only disadvantaged people are violent and I’m a ‘cool inner-city dude’ (his words). Presumably that means I have it coming.
May I just ask why there’s this widespread assumption that this girl’s mother has been subjected to such iniquity that she’s incapable of realizing that you don’t compel your children to discuss their sex lives on TV. More so that when said child reports a rape you should call the cops?
I’m hearing the same kind of assumptions as made by my acquaintence. Thing is there comes a point for almost all of us when your childhood stops being an excuse. And some people are just creeps.
“More so that when said child reports a rape you should call the cops? ”
That one I think I can give an incomplete answer to. Even for people who have no relationship to a child, the first reaction is freqently not to report an incident but to subject the child to a more or less intensive cross examination. Basically I think that most people unconsciously believe that minors are inherently unreliable, especially if they are having behavioural problems which are first and foremost still construed as just kids being difficult little b***’s, and that they would hate to, to put it in the most common form, ” ruin someone’s life” over a potential untruth. I mention this because children frequently recant if the first reaction they receive is one of implicit disbelief. Despite there being specific policies now that teachers etc should not engage in close questioning of the child, it is almost a reflex on the part of adults to question the veracity of the first disclosure because of the enormous potential repurcussions for other adults (if the assailant was an adult). As a child this implicit doubt is quickly absorbed as a message that they are inconveniencing people, or that they themselves may be in trouble (an idea which may have already been primed by the assailant) and they either recant or just let it slide and clam up. It is really easy for a parent to take this as an excuse to also let the whole thing slip back into a kind of disremembered state. Then there are all of the issues about who the attacker is in relation to the family, is it someone who already holds some authority over them, a landlord, a teacher, just someone’s husband if you are yourself unpartnered. Power and authority, it really comes down to that. I am not saying that any of these things excuse the reaction but there are just a multitude of factors that can make a woman quite cowed in the face of outrages to herself or her child. And yes it is possible that none of these things are the case and there is no obvious reasons, no history of her own, possible but less likely.
It is almost impossible to discuss any of this without making it all seem much simpler than it really is, or without expressing apparent certainty overy things that are in reality ambiguous. And finding potential reasons for things doesn’t mean that someone should not feel the impact of the law if that is deemed appropriate. I like some aspects of restorative justice but not others.
I also like to find reason within the chaos because without that I would be a complete misanthrope and since I have such a high opinion of myself I feel I should extend the benefit of the doubt to others, however grudgingly.
I’m just revelling in the little detail that Our Kyle started out at Townsville’s 4TO, aka ‘cow pat radio’ (as people in NQ call it). Maybe he should go back there — if they’ll have him.
Su,
Why stop at X’s mum? Maybe Kyle and Jackie O are also victims.
It is very revealing that you foist victimhood on the mother based on no information whatsoever but decline to do the same for Kyle and Jackie O. How do you explain that?
I tried to indicate that I was speculating more generally about parents who stuff up in these circumstances. Tut tutting over appalling parenting just doesn’t provide any solutions and it is frequently the case that there is an intergenerational history.
How is it revealing? I think people’s motivations are worth examing, whether they are poor parents or offenders. Criminologists do this all the time, without being accused of sympathizing with teh devil.
Support services routinely provide counselling to parents because they know that people may inadvertantly make the matter worse by querying whether the child has somehow misinterpreted a benign act, dreamt it happened etc etc. Even parents less clueless than this one may not instinctively do the right thing, particularly if the accused is someone known and trusted and loved by the family.
As to Kyle and Jackie – it’s all been said already. Rewarding sociopathic behaviour (deeply rooted or recently acquired) with multimillion dollar contracts results in escalating sociopathy. Who would have thought.
There’s a new Vile and Tacky post at the top of the blog that teases out some of the issues people have raised in this thread. It also has the added benefit of loading a little more quickly!
Su,
Maybe Kyle and Jackie O also need support services and understanding rather than tut tutting. Maybe they have an even worse “intergenerational history” than X’s mother.
My point here is that you pooh pooh anyone who tut tuts X’s mother yet you do exactly the same thing to Kyle and Jackie O- you even label them sociopaths. There is a profound contradiction in your thinking that you are apparently unable to see let alone explain.
spambulated.
you’ve been released Mel. Haven’t been assiduous about spam this morning – as I am marinating coriander and ginger chicken for dinner. It’s try a new recipe week for me.
Sorry OT,
“Haven’t been assiduous about spam this morning – as I am marinating coriander and ginger chicken for dinner. ”
My advice- use plenty of ginger, the more the better, and marinate the chicken and ginger in fish sauce for a few hours before cooking. That’s how my partner taught me to do it.
“There is a profound contradiction in your thinking that you are apparently unable to see let alone explain.”
Oh I give up. The mother was emotionally abusive and the appropriate reaction to that happened immediately – Docs, Police etc. It is happening in private because that is where it is best addressed. I am sorry to inform you that that will involve some counselling Mel, because salvaging the relationship between mother and daughter, if feasible, is in the girl’s best interest .
Public cruelty for profit is somewhat different and requires a public response. Would it be good for the hosts to examine why they revel in the distress of others? Yes. I am not advocating the thumbscrews for them, just the removal of the reward.
Mel – thanks – will go add some more ginger – I felt the recipe was a little stingy on the ginger (I’m a fan).
Update Have now doubled ginger. I already doubled it from the recipe’s suggestion, so now there’s 4 x as much. And I added chilli and lemon juice. Really I don’t use recipes to follow them, I use them for inspiration, and take it from there.
Hmmm, now Jackie O seems to be facing the heat.
Su,
I agree with your #120.
I’m simply questioning how we decide to allocate our sympathies and brickbats.
Su – It is almost impossible to discuss any of this without making it all seem much simpler than it really is, or without expressing apparent certainty overy things that are in reality ambiguous. And finding potential reasons for things doesn’t mean that someone should not feel the impact of the law if that is deemed appropriate. I like some aspects of restorative justice but not others.
.
Good point. However certain things are simple and clear-cut. We need to make them so or we couldn’t function. People who seek a middle path are often jeered at from the extremes for being wish-washy but it’s actually quite difficult. How do you cut a line between complete ethical abandon and indulgence and ridiculously severe absolutism?
I also like to find reason within the chaos because without that I would be a complete misanthrope and since I have such a high opinion of myself I feel I should extend the benefit of the doubt to others, however grudgingly.
LE just to be a complete pedant (and I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out so far) but she may not have been statutorily raped as a 14 year old. She can still have sex with someone legally who is within 2 years older than her.
Ceecee, Adrien has already flagged this possibility – and I have answered it @ 33 in the terms you indicate.
I note that the child has asked not to proceed with charges.
Still not a peep out of the preposterous Catharine Lumby! WTF does the UNSW pay her for?
Gosh, nothing like a supportive family…the girl’s aunt and cousin have come out in support of Sandilands and O, saying the girl was “drunk” and “did not say no” when she had sexual intercourse at the age of 12. The family had not taken the girl’s claims that she’d been raped seriously.
The thing is that there’s a grey area between consensual sexual intercourse and rape which is very difficult to navigate (this is what makes rape cases so notoriously difficult to prosecute). It may be that the girl’s inhibitions were reduced because of alcohol consumption, and that she agreed to something to which she would not have agreed when sober. It may also be that she regretted her actions after the fact. The fact that the girl did not say “no” does not necessarily mean that she wanted it to happen. Perhaps the incident fell into this no man’s land in between rape and consensual intercourse.
Our culture gives out very confusing messages about sex and teenagers. I think it should be emphasised to young women that (a) alcohol reduces inhibitions, and may lead you to get into situations which you’d otherwise not want to be in, so be careful; and (b) it’s okay to say no. I remember when I was about 15 or so, some of the classes and discussions we had a school gave me a feeling that I was odd because I wasn’t out there having sex. It was almost assumed that you were…and of course, some people were, but then there were plenty of other girls like me too.
I would want to say to my daughter that there’s no hurry, and the whole experience is much more pleasurable if you’re ready, and you are with a partner who is considerate and mature. Some people are ready much earlier than others, and it’s okay to be a “late bloomer” (as I was). It’s also more than okay to say NO.
P.S. JG, I’m more than happy that there’s no peep from the Lumby.
LE
Touche! Perhaps a comment from Antony Loewenstein instead?
AAAARRRRRRRRRRRGH! JG, you know my prejudices too well. That would just be TOO MUCH to bear.
the girl’s aunt and cousin have come out in support of Sandilands and O, saying the girl was “drunk” and “did not say no” when she had sexual intercourse at the age of 12.
.
How do they know? Where they there?
You know I have a funny feeling that sometime during this century there’s gonna be a serious social movement pushing for compulsory neutering of fucked up families. It will be tyranny but I could see it happening.
Adrien, hideously enough, the story of the aunt is that the girl had sex with the guy on the bottom of a bunk bed; meanwhile another girl was lying on the top bunk throughout this and could hear all that transpired. Ugh. Hardly romantic or pleasant.
No wonder the girl’s f*ed in the head if this is the kind of support she gets from her family. And they wonder why she’s feral?!?
End welfare and housing provision for teen mothers and make abortion properly available on demand. At the moment our incentives are all buggered up. There are distressing similarities between this and the Shannon Matthews case.
SL
Abortion on whose demand? Theirs or y/ours?
An interesting piece about teaching children about sexual ethics.
The beginning of the piece reminds me of a story about the four year old me – I marched up to a pregnant woman and said loudly and knowingly, “I know what you have in there!” At least I didn’t add, “and I know how it got there!”
2 Trackbacks
[...] on the one donkey that hasn’t been properly skewered in the whole Vile and Tacky episode that Legal Eagle’s already covered. Over at The Punch (a blog I haven’t encountered before), a young chap (judging by his [...]
[...] Footy Show, as well as radio presenters Kyle Sandilands and Jackie-O (whose antics are described here). The Chaser have dropped some cruel clangers as well. Aristotle is right – it’s easy [...]