You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
I think this is a fair and logical response to my Open Letter. By your own example, thank you, Peter, for showing that personal attack need play no part in a fair response.
My main thrust has always been that people cannot threaten, publicly to 'hunt someone down' simply in retaliation against fair and just criticism! Imagine now, having read your article, if I then took to the public airways and said, in retaliation, that I now intended to "hunt Peter down', find out where you live and hunt you down' ? Imagine now, if as a teacher I now made disparaging sexual innuendo, such as Kyle’s did in his comments re the journalist Alison’s breast size, (as if that could have possible bearing on the merit, or otherwise, of your article)?
This is, and has always been my main concern.
You are right...the 'horse has bolted' in terms of what is acceptable; however, in terms of relating irrelevant sexual commentary and personal vitriol at a writer (Alison who, like Peter), was simply doing her job fairly and logically, a job she was paid to do, there can never be (never should be!) a place where one person can use a position of power to threaten, intimidate and abuse another.
This is the lesson we as a society need to remind our young people about: that personal back-lashing has no place in our society. Simply because someone disagrees with us should not necessitate threats of personal physical and verbal threats and intimidation! I want my students need to learn this . Otherwise, I can have field- day in my classroom with everyone I disagree with. Imagine the backlash by society if everyone in a position where they can influence young, impressionable, vulnerable minds (teachers, doctors, etc) did as Sandilands did and used their professional platform to denigrate, abuse, threaten, intimidate others, use that platform to incite hate against those seen to be different or more defenceless? This truly is reprehensible and a backward step for any modern society that should be moving against such personal abuse of ‘power’. Surely we all know where that can lead!
In my own private life, with good friends I can be as un-pc as anyone! This is really not the point! It is the PUBLIC threats etc that Kyle Sandilands utters that are so awful and to which I take such exception.
There are many things about which people can become agitated. We all pick our own ‘battles’. Of course, others are out there being as un-PC as Sandilands! My own personal bugbear is the public threats and body-comments! I cannot condone my own students threatening to physically intimidate another because of the other’s legitimately-expressed views, nor their bringing irrelevant commentary (usually about body parts, family members, sexual orientation) into a discussion! We are entitled to express our views, (yes, this is what Freedom of Speech is all about) but we need to be taught that there is respectful manner in which to do so. When you have someone like Kyle Sandilands demonstrating the exact opposite to what is possibly one of the most important lessons our young people can learn (legitimate expression, logical and fair response), and doing this so blatantly and with such ugliness on national radio, how can anyone charged with educating our youth not respond?
Thanks for such a well balanced article Peter. I've been following Roz and her Sack Vile Kyle (all five of them) posse in the press for a while and find it ironic that the behavior they claim to be trying to stamp out is the same behavior they are employing... bullying SCA clients, bulling Kyle, even bullying SCA employees. Shame on you Roz, you're been blinded by your obsession with getting Kyle sacked. You're the bully now.
What a horrid comment, Tom! I have NEVER threatened anyone with verbal or physical violence, ("I'm going to Hunt You Down") or commented on their physical attributes ("Your titties are too small to be wearing that blouse") because of their viewpoints, in my public capacity or in a public forum, or in my professional job! I have told them WHY I will not be patronising their business if they choose to do something I disagree with! My right as a consumer! I am sure most businesses want to hear why they may lose a customer's loyalty! This is common-sense, surely? That business can then make some future marketing decisions. We all do it...if a business treats you in a way you don't like, you cease your dealings with them. Polite people tell them why! This is not bullying!
cleaningtheair.blogspot.com.au
What can I say?
I don't agree with all that is being said in the article, but some truths are hit, and missed.
- "My point is that we are taught from an early age, starting with the fantasy of Santa Clause, the difference between entertainment and reality."
On this point: 1stly, Santa 'might' be a fantasy and at some point of a child's life they will learn that Santa ...... (I'm not going to even say it!).
The likes of Santa spread goodwill among children and families. Values that people can accept as being targeted towards spreading respect and appreciation to others.
Although I see relevance behind this comment, there's no direct link that's relative.
Moreso, it misses the target - The fact is that children do not have the capacity to filter content as well as adults. It's clear that Santa's content would be welcome in a family lounge. Kyle's content - perhaps not.
As parents, and regulatory bodies, we have the responsibility to filter for children and not expose them to values, comments or experiences that can do harm to them.
- "Getting rid of Kyle is not a viable solution any more than banning violent movies or closing down the internet or facebook is a viable solution to online bullying. In the end the solution, albeit an imperfect one, is the same as it is for other social ills like alcohol, drugs and porn. It is education – education that starts in the home."
On this point: What starts at home is that we (Australian's) have some structures in place that are working to keep inappropriate content away from children based on the content itself and the age of the viewer.
When taking/sending the kids to the movies we can see the ratings and reviews of movies and decide whether the content is appropriate for the child.
When at home there are time slots where we know there are not going to be shows airing that include scenes of gratuitous violence, or for that matter, misogynistic views, name calling, dehumanizing comments, bullying, inappropriateness, etc...
2DayFm airs Kyles show in full knowledge of it's markets makeup, yet take no responsibility for the inappropriateness that it spews out on occasion to minors and infants that have very little and limited capacity to filter what is acceptable behavior or not.
Yes, these values do begin at home. They are also backed more heavily by the education department on a national basis to 'avoid' damaging individuals by educating the youth of Australia in terms of how unacceptable it is to bully another. This is an effective campaign that is backed by all parents and teachers around Australia. The current system that's in place regarding radio in Australia is NOT working in parallel to these efforts - at all.
- "If you got rid of Kyle, another one would pop up in his place. If SCA didn’t replace him with a clone then some other clever content director at another station will identify the gap in the market and hire Kyle or a Kyle equivalent at their station."
On this point: As the name of the group suggests, getting rid of Kyle is not the solution. It is also not the actual aim of the group, yet it is the perception of many (perhaps).
And he is right. Begone Kyle, entree someone else.
- "And let’s not forget another thousand or more Kyle-like messages that your kids will be exposed to from hundreds of other sources every day."
On this point: I don't believe that 'thousands or more' is entirely accurate. Point taken, however, that there are other sources of material that is inappropriate. This does not make it right, however.
- "Having said all that, I still find many of Ms Allardice’s arguments compelling. But I have a problem with the fact that Kyle alone is vilified while Fitzy and Wippa, and many others that I personally don’t like, get away with saying similar things with impunity."
On this point: Fitzy and Wippa's comments was, in my opinion, worse that Kyles. Agreed. There is only so much that a group of people, who are not getting paid to do, can do. Time and resource is a limitation to all. I'm completely sure that given the opportunity and resource available, based on the conviction of the group, that Fitzy's segment would have been tended to with vigor. I'm sure as a reasonable person, Peter Saxon can appreciate this.
- "In the end my core problem with the Sack Vile Kyle website comes down to its name. If it were called, Lets Make the World a Better Place for our Kids or How to Teach your Kids Respect for Others in an Unfeeling World, I’d happily join Ms Allardice’s cause and give generously."
On this point: The name - Sack Vile Kyle - while it is targeted, direct, to the point and relevant to a key principle, I do understand and appreciate the point made.
I would challenge Peter Saxon to stand by his words of giving generously toward a group with a slightly different name, and I would hazard to suggest that there'd be others that might wish to follow suit.
- "It is exactly because I would readily support anti-bullying as an issue, that I cannot support what amounts to bullying on the SVK website by targeting one particular individual, no matter how vile, with the sole intent of ruining their livelihood."
On this point: I'm abundant sure that the intent of the site that is spoken of is not directed towards the bullying of an individual, per se. This is a perception that may hold a degree of weight unfortunately. This is not my understanding though based on the knowledge I have of the group and the individual.
The group as a whole, are individuals (a collective) wanting to make a difference towards a better society. The group is effectively a movement that's passionate about influencing relevant standards of appropriateness within the sphere of radio Australia. The target of this endeavour is Kyle Sandilands and the ACMA's limited powers to be effective and prompt in dealing with matters of concern.
Although the group name indicates a will to see Kyle removed from radio by sacking him, the groups intent is to actually to take out the trash from every radio station.
- "And while I can respect the views and good intentions of Ms Allerdice, I can't be sure of her other supporters, given that the internet has become a fertile environment for all manner of troll who consider any perceived gripe reason enough to bring down any public figure for their own amusement."
On this point: Other supporters for this cause, inclusive of myself, are indeed not 'trolls'. I, and others from this group, have no personal connection with Kyle Sandilands. There is nothing personal about my efforts involved in making it clear that the content of his occasional outbursts is completely inappropriate.
There is nothing amusing at all about the amount of effort that's gone into this effort to improve standards for broadcasting on radio within Australia.
- "I’m sorry to say that, in my opinion, the SVK site gives the overwhelming impression that it has been set up as a vendetta against an individual. The obsession to bring him down and humiliate him has overtaken whatever virtuous public cause was the original intent."
On this point: Perhaps it's time for a rehash. It's a shame that this is Peter's perception. One can only hope that this is not the overall perception of the masses. There seems to be a gap between 'Intent' and 'Perception'. The original intent is still there... I can confirm that.
Roz & Peter, I read and respect where you are individually coming from. My simple theory as to 'why' Kyle Sandilands is in the 'firing line' (?) and not Fitzy & Wippa AND Doug Mulray and Ian MacRae in their day, is that very same RESPECT or rather, lack of. With the mega dollars SCA is paying Kyle and because (unlike Doug, Ian, Fitzy & Wippa)his personality comes across on radio as an up himself, bombastic, tool, many people past puberty including many working in the industry are embarassed by his schtick and are totally fed up with his antics. The 'business' hypocricy of SCA and Kyle Sandilands is breathtaking. If it was another personality who 'pulled a Kyle' on a regional station, a provincial city outlet or indeed another capital city radio station, fair chance they would be long gone by now, after just one, let alone two or three 'edgy' incidents of this nature. Is it any wonder 'thinking radio people' are shaking their heads at the tolerance of SCA and the damage done to the brand of 'commercial' radio. How much more is Southern Cross Austereo prepared to bleed in dollars and credibility ?