Radio show axed after rape furore

[Vympel]

Link

Radio show axed over rape furore

An Australian radio show has been pulled off air after a lie detector stunt saw a 14-year-old girl confess she had been raped.

The Kyle and Jackie O Show on Sydney's 2Day FM was put "into recess" pending a review over the incident last week.

The move follows public outrage over the segment, which saw the girl quizzed about whether she was sexually active.

Host Kyle Sandilands has also been sacked from his role as a judge on Australian Idol over the row.

The radio show saw the girl strapped to a polygraph machine as her mother - who had volunteered to be on air - quizzed her despite apparently knowing she had been assaulted when she was 12 years old.

Sandilands was accused of further insensitivity when after the confession he asked: "Right, and is that the only sexual experience you've had?"

Co-host Jackie O'Neil put an end to any further discussions when she realised the conversation had crossed a line.

Controversy

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd led the criticism against the radio show, saying: "This is a young girl and I am, as I think most Australians are, really distressed at the way in which the young person has been treated in this way."

Child welfare officers and police have now been ordered to investigate the teenager's claims.

The Ten Network, which produces Australian Idol, said Sandilands had been axed as it was concerned about the conflict between his TV and radio persona.

"It has become increasingly clear that as Idol has remained a family focused show, his radio persona has taken on a more controversial position," it said in a statement.

"The recent controversy surrounding Kyle's radio programme has highlighted more than ever the conflicting attitude of the two careers."

The Kyle and Jackie O Show is the highest-rating breakfast radio programme in Sydney.

A statement from 2Day FM said Sandilands was "unable to perform his on-air duties at this time", while the station is also reviewing its audience interaction policy.

This scandal has been growing since it happened last week (no shit, international media's got a hold on it now!) and I've got to say - even though I despise Kyle Sandilands - I just don't get why the hosts are being held responsible for what happened. Yes, "is that the only sexual experiece you've had" is a fucking idiotic question to ask, yes, it was a tasteless segment, but the other host new the thing had gone off the rails and ended it there.

Why the fuck is it their fault? It just seems ridiculous to me - the mother consented to her being on the show even though she knew her daughter had been raped, for fuck's sake. And yet everyone's acting like it was the radio show that put her through this ordeal? How the hell were they supposed to know? What am I missing where this outrage at the hosts is far in excess of what's being directed at this girl's dumbfuck mother?

Post-EDIT: on reflection, they clearly deserve a heap of fucking blame though.

[bobalot]

Why the fuck is it their fault? It just seems ridiculous to me - the mother consented to her being on the show even though she knew her daughter had been raped, for fuck's sake. And yet everyone's acting like it was the radio show that put her through this ordeal? How the hell were they supposed to know?

Are you serious? Let's assume the girl hadn't been raped. They cornered a 14 year old girl with the help of her irresponsible mother, forced her to discuss her sex life while linked up to a lie detector on national radio. How the fuck is this remotely responsible behaviour? How is humiliating a 14 year old girl on national radio is not their fault? It's was their fucking idea. Were they thinking about the welfare of the child when they thought up this shit?

All because her mother is an irresponsible shit, does that mean that all the other adults in this affair forsake all decency and responsibility?

The girl was extremely uncomfortable and even said 'I don't want to do this I'm scared' shortly before the interview started, Kyle being the shit that he is pushed on anyway. What a stupid mother fucker.

[Feral Abacus]

What I found disturbing about it was that they were interrogating a 14 year old about her sex life in the first place. Kyle's response to a little girl sitting in front of him saying on air that she was raped was pretty shocking too. “Right ... is that the only experience you’ve had?” Holy shit... it doesn't get more callous or ignorant than that. As I recall she was protesting that she didn't want to do it before the interview.

If you're going to ask a 14 year old to talk about her sex life on commercial radio (protip: don't) you should at the very least vet her and her bitch of a mother first. Jesus.

[bobalot]

Jackie: Alright, we have her hooked up to the Lie Detector! She’s not happy! I just saw her listening to that [bleep]

Daughter: I’m scared. It’s not fair.

Jackie: It wouldn’t be fair on any kid, I tell you. No – they’re sympathising…

Kyle: Is that true, Charles? Is that true?

Charles: That is true.

?Kyle: She is scared, everyone, yeah.

Here is part of the transcript of the show (Source). Both presenters knew full well that she didn't want to be interviewed and was obviously scared, but being fucking shitheads continued on anyway. These two worthless pieces of humanity are blameless in this affair? That is the most stupidest shit I have heard this year.

[Vympel]

Are you serious? Let's assume the girl hadn't been raped. They cornered a 14 year old girl with the help of her irresponsible mother, forced her to discuss her sex life while linked up to a lie detector on national radio. How the fuck is this remotely responsible behaviour?

That is a red herring - the controversy is precisely because she admitted being raped, and not because she was made to discuss her sex life. This wouldn't have even been news if she didn't admit being raped.

How is humiliating a 14 year old girl on national radio is not their fault? It's was their fucking idea. Were they thinking about the welfare of the child when they thought up this shit?

As above, that is not the reason there's a controversy. Your mileage may vary as to what a sad comment this is on the state of society.

All because her mother is an irresponsible shit, does that mean that all the other adults in this affair forsake all decency and responsibility?

The girl was extremely uncomfortable and even said 'I don't want to do this I'm scared' shortly before the interview started, Kyle being the shit that he is pushed on anyway. What a stupid mother fucker.

I don't see how it being a tasteless and irresponsible idea somehow puts the onus of responsibility on them as opposed to the idiot mother, first and foremost, where the girl admits being raped. You make it sound like they made her do it - they're not the police, for fuck's sake. It just annoys the shit out of me that I haven't seen a word raised against this girl's dumb fuck mother. Whose job is it to protect the child, if not hers? Is it a fucking stupid idea? Yes. Should they have done it? No. But her fucking mother - who knew everything - something the hosts had no fucking clue about - let it happen.

[Vympel]

Incidentally:-

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?

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.

Jackie: [name bleeped] I’m really sorry, we didn’t actually know that that was the case, and I think that we might actually abort this segment. I had no idea that you’ve been through that, so I’m really sorry. And we’ll just let you off the hook, I think. I think it’s best not to continue. Are you alright? It’s ok, you just take a breather, it’s fine.

We always have counselling services here. [Name bleeped] Have you had any counselling over this issue?

Mum: No, she’ hasn’t.

Jackie: OK, well we have all the right people in place if you need any help or support in regards to that. Which it sounds like you might. I’m really sorry; I had no idea that this had happened to you. I don’t think we would have gone ahead with that had we known.

OK honey, we’ll just let you go for a while.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that that was…

Kyle: OK, Mum, sorry. Look we needed to, we, that’s something we probably should have known before we started this.

Honestly, do you think if either host had known this before they started, they would've permitted the mother to ask that question? Really? They're the primary, villainous antagonists in this travesty, really? As opposed to two idiotic schmucks who clearly got caught flat-footed with no reasonable warning?

If you're going to ask a 14 year old to talk about her sex life on commercial radio (protip: don't) you should at the very least vet her and her bitch of a mother first. Jesus.

Can't argue with that. But this is clearly one of those times where hindsight is 20/20. What reasonable person is going to assume an admission of rape is going to be a foreseeable risk?

On reflection, the radio station definitely did completely fail to have any safeguards against this sort of thing happening. But the fact is they had been doing this stupid shit for ages, its the highest rating show in the city, and no one has complained about this shit before. Like I said above, it's a sad, sad comment.

[Stofsk]

What is the mother's motivation for putting her daughter through this ordeal?

Seriously, I don't get it. She knew that her daughter had been raped, and yet she asked that question. Whose hair-brained scheme was this anyway? Who came up with the idea "Let's get a 14 year old girl in here and tie her up to a polygraph and ask her humiliating questions; it'll be fun."

I get what you mean dude, the mother comes across as a bitch in this. I don't get why Kyle and Jackie O wanted to do this segment anyway though.

[Vympel]

What is the mother's motivation for putting her daughter through this ordeal?

Seriously, I don't get it. She knew that her daughter had been raped, and yet she asked that question. Whose hair-brained scheme was this anyway? Who came up with the idea "Let's get a 14 year old girl in here and tie her up to a polygraph and ask her humiliating questions; it'll be fun."

I get what you mean dude, the mother comes across as a bitch in this. I don't get why Kyle and Jackie O wanted to do this segment anyway though.

Because they're both morons, and yes, they do deserve a serving. But fuck me, what is wrong with our society that a mother can do this shit to her kid when out of the three (poor excuses for) adults in the room, she's the one who has knowledge?

[SAMAS]

What is the mother's motivation for putting her daughter through this ordeal?

Seriously, I don't get it. She knew that her daughter had been raped, and yet she asked that question. Whose hair-brained scheme was this anyway? Who came up with the idea "Let's get a 14 year old girl in here and tie her up to a polygraph and ask her humiliating questions; it'll be fun."

I get what you mean dude, the mother comes across as a bitch in this. I don't get why Kyle and Jackie O wanted to do this segment anyway though.

Going by what little we got off the transcript, it seems that the mother was trying to get the truth about the girl's sexual history:

Mum: The question was, have you had sex other than that.

I guess trying to find out if she's been doing anything on the sly, so to speak.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, if there's one thing good that came out of this, at least the girl's claims will now be investigated.

[bobalot]

That is a red herring - the controversy is precisely because she admitted being raped, and not because she was made to discuss her sex life.

It is one of the points being raised in newspapers, radio, & TV. People are asking why this interview was conducted in the first place. Red Herring my arse.

As above, that is not the reason there's a controversy. Your mileage may vary as to what a sad comment this is on the state of society.

Yes it is. As stated above, as well as the admission of rape, people are asking why this interview was even taking place.

I don't see how it being a tasteless and irresponsible idea somehow puts the onus of responsibility on them as opposed to the idiot mother

Forcibly interrogating and humiliating a child on national radio about her sexual experiences is "tasteless"? Parts of Bruno could be considered "tasteless". Most people would consider this a form of emotional child abuse. Talk about a fucking understatement.

Expecting grown adults to take into account the welfare of a child appearing on their show is hardly shifting the entire onus of responsibility onto radio station. We live in a society where it is considered normal and appropriate behaviour not to maltreat the most vulnerable members of society, especially children. They failed on a monumental scale. Which is why they are copping shit from every section of society.

You make it sound like they made her do it - they're not the police, for fuck's sake.

Did you even read what was posted? They hooked her up to a lie detector, against her will, and interviewed her even though it was quite obvious that she didn't want to and in fact stated she didn't want to. Sure, they didn't hold her down and physically force her to do the interview, but they put her in a situation where she felt that she had no choice other than to answer their puerile questions. This is a young teenager, not a grown man or woman who would know that they didn't have to co-operate.

It just annoys the shit out of me that I haven't seen a word raised against this girl's dumb fuck mother. Who's job is it to protect the child, if not hers?

The girls mother and her behaviour has been brought up everywhere. She is being investigated by the police and the department of community services for fucks sake.

[Stark]

LOL. That transcript is pretty damning; the mother wanted to do it all along. Whether it's tasteless segment altogether or not, the mother who knew her daughter had been raped asked her scared and humiliated daughter on national radio. The 'what other experiences' thing is in this light clearly an attempt to get the fuck away from that topic as soon as possible.

It really is just a domestic situation - a terrible one - aired on national radio by the connivance of the mother. What's sad is that the mother is clearly disturbed by what she's done; I can almost imagine the boganness from here. It's a sad commentary; but of the prevalence of fucked-up families (I've known several girls in this sort of family situation) and fucked-up child abuse. The show is just garden variety trash, and it's just taboo to blame the idiot mother.

MOTHER KNOWS BEST.

[Vympel]

I take it you don't live in New South Wales, Australia, because that is one of the points being raised in newspapers, radio, & TV. People are asking why this interview was conducted in the first place. Red Herring my arse.

There's a reason why every single article about it focuses on the rape admission.They've been doing this segment for ages, and yet all of a sudden it's inappropriate and there's a national outcry? Just a coincidence, I suppose?

You make a compelling argument for the reasons it really should be a controversy, but it's not the reason it is one.

Forcibly interrogating and humiliating a child on national radio about her sexual experiences is "tasteless". Parts of Bruno could be considered "tasteless". Most people would consider this a form of emotional child abuse. Talk about a fucking understatement.

Expecting grown adults to take into account the welfare of a child appearing on their show is hardly shifting the entire onus of responsibility onto radio station. We live in a society where it is considered normal and appropriate behaviour not to maltreat the most vulnerable members of society, especially children. They failed on a monumental scale. Which is why they are copping shit from every section of society.

Conceded. You are absolutely 100% right. See below.

Did you even read what was posted? They hooked her up to a lie detector, against her will, and interviewed her even though it was quite obvious that she didn't want to and in fact stated she didn't want to. Sure, they didn't hold her down and physically force her to do the interview, but they put her in a situation where she felt that she had no choice other than to answer their puerile questions. This is a young teenager, not a grown man or woman who would know that they didn't have to co-operate.

But again, who put her in this situation? Her mother did. Do the idiot radio hosts share blame? Absolutely, I concede that wholeheartedly. But the girl's mother deserves the lion's share.

The girls mother and her behaviour has been brought up everywhere. She is being investigated by the police and the department of community services for fucks sake.

The police aren't investigating her mother, they're investigating the rape claim - and the involvement of public authorities in a rape case is a red herring to the topic, this is about the public outcry and the (IMO) fucked up apportionment of blame. Where exactly has her behavior been brought up? Every single article I have read has focused on the radio show, with not a word said about the mother's idiocy - as Stark said, it's clearly considered taboo, and it's just fucking bullshit.

For fuck's sake, even K-Rudd has gotten in on the act, and did he say a word about the mother? No, he didn't.

[Vympel]

Incidentally, this also brings up the question of public attitudes towards the age of consent. Legally, in NSW, any person who was sex with someone under the age of 16 years is guilty of an offence. Unlike in other jurisdictions (like in ACT), there's no (AFAIK, I'm not a criminal lawyer) "close-in age" defense. However, the fact that it was considered acceptable to ask a 14 year old girl about her sex life (because girls under 16 do have sex lives with older boys) tells me one of two things:-

* No one (or, not many) takes the age of consent seriously;
* There should probably be a "close-in age" defense on the books, since that appears to be a public attitude anyway.

Thoughts?

[Raw Shark]

I guess trying to find out if she's been doing anything on the sly, so to speak.

Alternate Theory: Mom knows the accused, and doesn't believe the daughter. She wanted to get solid proof that her boyfriend or whatever would never do such a thing, cares more about that than Daughter, and then when the machine said it was true started moving the goalposts to try to build evidence of general promiscuity to let him off the hook for raping her, like some defense attorneys do in court.

[Feral Abacus]

The police aren't investigating her mother, they're investigating the rape claim - and the involvement of public authorities in a rape case is a red herring to the topic, this is about the public outcry and the (IMO) fucked up apportionment of blame. Where exactly has her behavior been brought up? Every single article I have read has focused on the radio show, with not a word said about the mother's idiocy - as Stark said, it's clearly considered taboo, and it's just fucking bullshit.

For fuck's sake, even K-Rudd has gotten in on the act, and did he say a word about the mother? No, he didn't.

Er. I picked two articles out at random.
News.com

Ms Wensing also questioned the mother's motives for quizzing her daughter on her sex life, despite knowing about the rape.

"Her trust has totally been breached — even asking that question is very irresponsible," she said.

"There is a risk this [girl] could be severely, adversely affected — on top of the rape — [and] you have to wonder what the mother's motivation was for [asking] that."

Smh.com

The minister said the girl's mother's part in the incident was "unwise''.

She did not believe the mother was criminally liable for not having reported the rape claim despite apparently learning about it months ago.

"But morally there has to be a question asked about whether or not she had that responsibility,'' Ms Burney said. "I just hope that the relationship between mum and daughter pans out okay.''

And both these articles are critical of the mother. It's hardly "not a word on the mother's idiocy."

[Vympel]

And both these articles are critical of the mother. It's hardly "not a word on the mother's idiocy."

Pretty tepid stuff, don't you think?

"Oh, well, mmmmm, you have to .... ummm .... maybe .... ummm ..... ask .... the ... ummm .... question .... whether or not .... ummm ... had .... ummm ... responsibility to ..... erm .... unwise".

That is basically as far out on a limb as they're going.

[Vympel]

I guess trying to find out if she's been doing anything on the sly, so to speak.

Alternate Theory: Mom knows the accused, and doesn't believe the daughter. She wanted to get solid proof that her boyfriend or whatever would never do such a thing, cares more about that than Daughter, and then when the machine said it was true started moving the goalposts to try to build evidence of general promiscuity to let him off the hook for raping her, like some defense attorneys do in court.

You know what's even more fucked? She was smiling as she asked that question, going by the daughter's response.

[Raw Shark]

I guess trying to find out if she's been doing anything on the sly, so to speak.

Alternate Theory: Mom knows the accused, and doesn't believe the daughter. She wanted to get solid proof that her boyfriend or whatever would never do such a thing, cares more about that than Daughter, and then when the machine said it was true started moving the goalposts to try to build evidence of general promiscuity to let him off the hook for raping her, like some defense attorneys do in court.

You know what's even more fucked? She was smiling as she asked that question, going by the daughter's response.

That detail lead me to this theory more than anything. I think she was delighted when she asked about the rape because she thought she was about to prove the daughter was lying about something she desperately wants to believe is untrue.

[Elfdart]

The mother needs to be prosecuted for child abuse. She brought the kid on the show for the express purpose of humiliating her over being raped. What a lowlife piece of shit.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

Emphasis mine. This is the part that gets me. It isnt even that the mother is just an irresponsible thoughtless git. From this transcript, she was amused by her daughter's suffering. She is a fucking sadistic cunt who probably blames her daughter for being raped.

[Crown]

That is a red herring - the controversy is precisely because she admitted being raped, and not because she was made to discuss her sex life.

Never having heard a peep until I read your post my first thought was; what the fuck are they doing talking about sexual activity with a minor for anyway?!

This wasn't Dr Feelgood having an intelligent, informed and educational realistic approach to sexuality. This was 'Sex, Lies and Video Tapes!' in the Price is Right format.

Red Herring? Hardly.

[ArmorPierce]

Pretty disgusting how the mother acts. Unfortunately I know personally mothers that have done the same thing (not the putting on the radio and interrogating the daughter, but not believing that the daughter was raped, that she actually wanted it, and treating her like dirt).

[Pint0 Xtreme]

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.

Emphasis mine. This is the part that gets me. It isnt even that the mother is just an irresponsible thoughtless git. From this transcript, she was amused by her daughter's suffering. She is a fucking sadistic cunt who probably blames her daughter for being raped.

Ditto on that. I don't think the radio hosts fully understood the potential ramifications of what could happen on that particular segment but the mother sounds like some horror-film contrived monster compared to them.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the radio station acted unethically; as Crown says, "what the fuck are they doing talking about sexual activity with a minor for anyway?!"

I think that the mother acted more unethically, in a way that can only be explained by moral stupidity* or great personal evil.

In a case like this, we don't need to choose one party as the villainous bastards of the piece. There's plenty of bastardy to go around.
_____

*Moral stupidity: refusal to think about the morality of one's actions, either before or after the fact, when that refusal becomes so strong that it amounts to an inability to do so. A person who cannot be convinced that they have done wrong may still have a moral code. But their moral stupidity is so great that they might as well not have one at all, because they can't be counted on to use the code when it matters.