But there’s one elusive and hard-to-pin party who haven’t had the lynch mob wield a flaming torch in their faces yet. They are the hardcore listeners who actively pander to the untouchable antics of Kyle and Jackie O by religiously setting the dial in their direction.

For all the outrage this event has generated, there’s absolutely no point tizzing up and screaming “Kyle needs to go!” or, “You’ve gone too far this time Sandilands!” or, “You’ve stooped to a new low!”

It’s not a new low. It’s an old low.

It’s a very old and very boring song still stuck on high rotation that refuses to relinquish its spot at the top of the pops, and I don’t know why we continue to listen to it.

Markets, as everyone knows, respond to demands. If there wasn’t a demand for this stuff, no marketeer would try it on. Okay, supply-siders may say that supply creates its own demand (and that’s an interesting argument in itself), but I think this is a pretty straight example of response to demand. 11.4% of the people in the relevant market listen to Vile and Tacky, and it makes sundry studio execs (not to mention Vile and Tacky) quite a tidy sum. Or it did, until now.

Now LE and I have batted back and forth the various reasons why this sort of entertainment is popular, and have come to the conclusion that — apart from the fact that humans get off on other people’s misfortunes — there are three things involved.

1. Blurring of the public/private distinction.

2. Inability (or unwillingness) to make taste and judgment calls.

3. Failure to appreciate that spectrum is rationed (ie it’s scarce) and should be treated like the scarce resource it is.

Various things have contributed to the first; one that comes to mind is the failure of the criminal justice system to address the domestic violence widespread within the community quickly when it first became clear that — while unilateral no-fault divorce lessened the incidence of domestic violence dramatically — there was still a fair bit going on, and the culprits weren’t being prosecuted. This forced people who wanted to do something about it to involve many other state agencies and bodies in the regulation of family life, to break apart private spaces and expose them to public view. It’s lead to various nasties, including the modern trend for ‘confessional parenting’ (let’s all sit around and share victim stories) rather than recognising that — sometimes — a nice steaming hot cup of STFU is just what the doctor ordered. The ‘talking cure’ ain’t for everyone.

Various things have also contributed to the second; Chris Deal addresses most of them at his place; I’ll add one observation of mine (also posted at LP):

Over at our place I made the (only slightly tongue in cheek) comment that Vile and Tacky managed the daily playbill for the Colosseum in their past lives. I’m glad other people have made the same connection. This kind of ‘entertainment’ is on a slippery slope that has what the Romans got off on at the bottom.

FWIW I think people who enjoy listening to their show (11.4% marketshare in Sydders) need to take a really good long look at themselves. In the last however many years it’s become unfashionable to criticize other people’s tastes. As part of the great rush towards making popular culture ‘acceptable’, we’ve created a world where it’s become very difficult to say, ‘sorry mate, your taste is rubbish’.

Of course, telling someone that their taste is tripe doesn’t mean that they are less of a human being. I do think it’s very dangerous when criticism of what a person likes spills over into an assessment of their worth. The distinction may be fine, but it’s important to bear it in mind.

That said, the ability to make a taste and judgment call is an important one, and to be encouraged. Some things are better than others. Some cultural products are better than others. Dealing with that — and then working out why — has now become a matter of urgency. 

Finally, as I’ve made clear, I’m not a fan of regulation. Most of the time it doesn’t work. But a few clear rules, scrupulously enforced, make a world of difference. Once those rules have been hammered out, the regulator (ACMA, in this case) needs claws and teeth. As I’ve pointed out in the comments to LE’s earlier post, the treatment of the Cambodian aunt and niece is prima facie obtaining services by deception [Theft Act 1968 (UK)]. There will be a similar provision in Australia. I think breaking the law on air is good enough grounds to allow the regulator to act of its own motion.

This process involves recognising two things: 

1. ‘Freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of the press’ are not coterminous. Think of them as the two circles of a Venn diagram that only intersect at certain points. In some respects, the latter needs to be managed so that the former can flourish.

2. Some things are better in private, not in public. Want to spend all your time looking at bondage porn? That’s what the internet’s for, and — even better — it confines you to the private sphere while you do it. Hooray for the internet. There’s a reason we don’t have bondage porn on free-to-air telly (the spaminator is going to hate me for writing that sentence, but what the hey). There’s a reason why we shouldn’t have minors quizzed about their sex lives on free-to-air radio. It can be eloquently reduced to the simple phrase GET A ROOM. 

Three simple suggestions: don’t share (you are the only person interested in your story); learn to appreciate the difference between good and shite, and when people — especially the young people who are Vile and Tacky’s core audience — display bad taste, tell them so, and tell them why; understand that if a resource is scarce and you misuse it, it can be taken from you (by the State; by someone with more money; by the citizenry). Indeed, the latter is what has happened to Austereo over the last week. Hooray for the citizenry.

/rant

Accordingly, I was interested to read the recent defamation case brought by Trad against Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (the proprietor of 2GB Radio) (Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 750). The action arose after Trad gave a speech at a Peace Rally in 2005 response to the Cronulla Riots. His speech included elements which were critical of 2GB Radio and its reporter present at the rally. The next day, 2GB broadcast a segment criticising Trad in turn.

I should state at the outset that I’m not a fan of Radio 2GB or the shock jocks it employs, and as can be seen from a post I wrote about Alan Jones and the Cronulla Riots, I think at times it inflames racial tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims. But on the other hand, Trad hardly does himself any favours.

At trial, the following defamatory imputations were found to be present in the broadcast by 2GB:

• Trad stirred up hatred against a 2GB reporter which caused the reporter to have fears for his own safety;
• Trad incites people to commit violent acts;
• Trad incites people to have racist attitudes;
• Trad is a dangerous individual;
• Trad is a disgraceful individual;
• Trad is widely perceived as a pest;
• Trad deliberately gives out misinformation about the Islamic community; and
• Trad attacks people who once gave him a privileged position.

Nonetheless, the judge was not in the least satisfied with Trad’s credit as a witness. At paras [22] – [23], he stated:

The plaintiff gave evidence and was cross-examined at some length. His evidence was criticised by the defendant’s counsel. It was submitted that he told a number of lies and that his approach to the giving of evidence was dishonest and disgraceful. Many of the criticisms arise from evidence which he gave about various statements he has made or articles he has written.

I discuss below most of the matters which were discussed with the plaintiff when he gave his evidence. I am satisfied that many of the criticisms made of his evidence are justified. I came to the view that the plaintiff attempted to frame his responses in a manner which he believed would suit his interests in the litigation at times modifying his true belief. Some of his answers were not truthful. The plaintiff was not a reliable witness.

You can see that this does not augur well for Trad.

In our post Defamation for Dummies, we outlined the possible defences to an action in defamation, including fair comment, justification/truth and qualified privilege. This case took place before the uniform defamation laws were enacted, and accordingly the defences relied upon were truth and contextual truth pursuant to ss 15 and 16 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW).

The judge conducted an exhaustive survey of the opinions of Trad expressed over the years, and concluded that the defence of truth was open to the radio station in relation to the imputations that Trad incited people to commit acts of violence and to have racist attitudes and that he was a dangerous and  disgraceful individual. He based this conclusion on the fact that:

• Trad had expressed opinions in which he had condoned the view that female victims of sexual assault and rape were to blame rather than the male perpetrators;
• Trad had defended the views of Sheikh Hillaly that child martyrdom in war was honourable and that suicide bombing was a legitimate tool;
• Trad had included links to Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion in his website, encouraging beliefs that Jewish people intend to take over the world, which have been a driving force for acts of violence against Jewish people;
• Trad had publically called for Hezbollah to be delisted as a terrorist organisation;
• Trad had said that homosexuals were depraved perverts who should be likened to cancer, and that the appropriate punishment for those who undertook homosexual activities was to be stoned to death;
• Trad described Anglo-Irish inhabitants of Australia as “criminal dregs” and Hindus as “cow worshippers”, generally denigrating these groups of people; and
• Trad sought to defend Sheikh Hillaly’s failure to condemn the September 11 attacks, and questioned whether Muslims were responsible for those attacks.

The judge said at paragraphs [110] – [114]:

A person may hold a view which is dangerous without that person being described as a dangerous individual. To express a view on one occasion which may encourage violence or inappropriate conduct towards others does not of itself make that person dangerous. However, when those views are expressed on many occasions by someone who has significant influence within the community and has access to opportunities to influence others through the media and the views expressed are an incitement to violence or disparagement of women, Jews, and homosexuals, it is, in my judgment, appropriate to describe that person as a dangerous individual.

The plaintiff by reason of his position in the Sydney Lebanese community was in a position to influence many people. He sought out and used the press, other publications and his own website to express his views. The repetition of those views, and the manner in which they were expressed, in my judgment, leads to the conclusion that he may be described as a dangerous individual.

…

I am satisfied that the plaintiff holds and expresses views which would not be acceptable to right thinking members of the Australian community. I have previously discussed them. Some of his views and the manner in which they are expressed are entirely repugnant to accepted values within the Australian community.

The question which the pleaded imputation [the plaintiff was a disgraceful individual] raises is not whether any of the views of the plaintiff are disgraceful but rather whether by his words and actions he can be described as a disgraceful individual. The plaintiff’s attitude to women and homosexuality, apparent support of the use of children in the pursuit of terrorist actions against Israel and his failure to condemn the events of September 11 are views which may be shared by some people. However, those views are not acceptable to the general Australian community and I am satisfied that a person who holds them and, more particularly who encourages others to share those views, may be described as a disgraceful individual.

A person who is convicted of a crime of any significance will be described as being disgraced. A person who encourages others to support attitudes repugnant to the Australian community or encourages violence against women, homosexuals or various ethnic groups and supports child suicide bombers and acts of terror or when given the opportunity fails to condemn these views would be similarly described. The plaintiff is such a person.

Because the judge found that four of the imputations were substantially true, he found that the other imputations which were not made out had not harmed Trad’s reputation.

In addition, the judge found that because Trad had specifically attacked Radio 2GB at the Peace Rally, the radio station was entitled to respond to that attack and was entitled to the defence of qualified privilege as a result. Trad was unable to make out malice on the part of the station.

The ABC reports that:

The president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ikebal Patel, …is surprised by the judge’s description of Mr Trad’s comments.

“I thought that what he was saying was quite conciliatory… in the heat of what was happening after the Cronulla riots,” he said.

“Keysar to me seemed to be trying to bring about a middle line.”

It’s not so much what he said at the Peace Rally (in which he did not say anything which would alienate the various left-wing and progressive groups in attendance) but what he has said in various other contexts.

Apparently Trad intends to appeal. Perhaps he should think about that. Just as Trad’s “defences” of Islam seem to harm rather than help the reputation of his faith, his attempt to prove defamation seems to have done more harm than good to his personal reputation. Sometimes, it’s better to just let things lie.

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.