There was only so much the Australian Communications and Media Authority could do to sanction 2DayFM over Kyle Sandilands’s sledge against news.com.au journalist Alison Stephenson.

This man gets paid to know what young women want…

But I’m most interested in what Southern Cross Austereo CEO Rhys Holleran had to say in response to ACMA this morning. Essentially Sandilands’s boss reckons it’s “unworkable” for 2DayFM to comply with ACMA’s ruling it refrain from broadcasting material that “offends generally-accepted standards of decency, demeans or is likely to demean women or girls, places undue emphasis on gender, uses overt sexual references in relation to a woman’s physical characteristics, and/or condones or incites violence against women.”

Holleran said: “Our difficulty with the proposed licence condition is that terms such as ‘decency, ‘demeaning’ and ‘undue emphasis on gender’ are broad and ambiguous and mean different things to different people.”

Amazingly, this is in spite of 2DayFM’s audience being “women, predominantly young women.” Holleran said: “2Day FM has built its significant audience over the past decade by broadcasting programs which appeal to women and their interests in a relevant and entertaining way”.

Yet by his argument, the station cannot continue to appeal to this audience of young women while also promising not to demean them.

Here’s the thing. ACMA has called on 2DayFM to abide by “generally-accepted standards of decency.” It’s not rocket science to work out what is “generally accepted”, especially with the aid of modern social media, where thousands of members of the public are happy to point out the line to you when you cross it.

The producers at 2DayFM do know what they are doing. This past weekend Sandilands’s co-host Jackie O put on the public record that she too knows what she’s doing.

They get paid bucketloads to know where the “generally accepted” line is. The problem here is not incompetence, it’s the idea that being demeaned is what their audience wants, and if anyone knows what their audience wants it’s this lot - the ratings prove it.

So the saddest thing to come out of this saga is the conclusion that 2DayFM knows its audience better than anyone, and that audience would be put at risk by the station having to treat women with respect.

ACMA can try what ever it likes to clean up the airwaves, but as long as there’s a sizable group of young women who enjoy listening to other young women being put down, there’s nothing the broadcast watchdog, or anyone else, can do about it.

That’s just depressing.

Most commented

129 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • The righteous one says:

      10:59am | 27/03/12

      So what happened to Koil? Did he get of scot free again?

    • Not so much says:

      12:02pm | 27/03/12

      Perhaps Abbott can tell listeners that he has a target on his forehead.

    • Canute says:

      12:12pm | 27/03/12

      The ACMA imposed a new licence condition on Austereo that prohibits it from broadcasting “indecent content or content that demeans women or girls”.

      why couldnt they have said “indecent content or content that demeans another person” ?  or are men just fair game?

    • Paul says:

      12:57pm | 27/03/12

      @Canute

      Men don’t care. Bitches be crazy

    • RyaN says:

      01:23pm | 27/03/12

      @Not so much: Its all Abbotts fault waaaahhhhhhhhh!

    • Ben says:

      02:32pm | 27/03/12

      ... as opposed to the “this is the Carbon Tax’s fault!”

    • RyaN says:

      03:28pm | 27/03/12

      @Ben: Let me check, nope no one was blaming this on the carbon tax. Too bad, so sad!

    • Repent and be Saved says:

      05:37pm | 27/03/12

      @Paul: I find your comment indecent, demeaning and places an undue emphasis on gender.

      Repent now!

      ... but really, we’re talking about Kyle Sandilands? Everytime we do, a kitten dies.

    • Colin says:

      10:32am | 29/03/12

      I agree with the author’s closing comment - it’s just depressing. And I’m a guy! I’ve always questioned ‘popularity’ and ratings - just because something is popular and rates well, doesn’t mean it’s actually any good. I think a lot of people jump on the popularity bandwagon, without thinking about what they’re listening to (or watching). Their friends like something, so they inanely follow suit. I guess it’s the sheep principle, only I reckon sheep are probably smarter. Do listeners (generally speaking) actually care about what is broadcast to them, or do they just hear the music and the noise in between the songs (noise = people like Sandilands)? Do they hear demeaning comments and just tune out regardless? Or do they hear it, but lack the confidence to say ‘hey, hang on a minute!’ ? Apathy perhaps? But surely thousands of young women (young people in general) are not just apathetic to all this? There are surely decent young men too (I promise if I find some, I’ll let you know). I cannot believe the pay packets of some of these radio hosts, considering the shite that sprays forth from their lips. I feel sorry for the cleaner who has to wash and disinfect the mic after every show. I’ve only been an ‘adult’ for 20 years now, but even as a youngster, I’m sure radio used to be different. I’m sorry I don’t have an answer as to why these buffoons get away with it. And as for buffoons, I have to put the likes of Jackie O (O short for Henderson?) in that same category for aiding and abetting. Sure, she gets a truckload of cash and public notice for doing it, but I think she should know better.

    • Rrev says:

      11:02am | 27/03/12

      there is a difference between earning respect as both a woman and a citizen and it does not occur when ms effie stands in her spot with generational insolence or righteousness rather than value driven across all generations respect.Gen x threw away the rule book ,find it again ms effie

    • Michael says:

      02:59pm | 27/03/12

      Why is everyone complaining? If someone disrespected your performance be it a job or anything you do, you’ll certainly attack back. Kyle did what any one would do, stood up for himself. Big whoop. I don’t know what the big fuss is. If someone called me a fkn retard in front of my face I’d slap them silly, everyone in this forum who thinks they will just walk away if i went up to them and insulted them are full of themselves.

    • Az says:

      03:36pm | 27/03/12

      @Michael

      If you responded to the mild disdain of a TV critic by demeaning them personally and threatening to hunt them down then your career anywhere other than shovelling shit is sorely limited.

      Obviously you have no idea what the woman said about Sandilands TV appearance otherwise you would understand the backlash against him.

      So my advice to you and your ‘thorough’ understanding of the issues is to get your slapping hand on son

    • SeanK says:

      11:03am | 27/03/12

      Unfortunetly, you seem to have nailed the problem Tory.

      I believe there is a big audience (especially in my fellow Gen Ys) that would happily listen to others get degraded and abused all day.
      I put it down to us being desensitised to such comments, whilst yes the shock is still there when you get called horrible things, I don’t think we are shocked when we call others such terms.

      Kyle Sandilands is a problem, but people like people slagging off others.
      I hope he disappears into obscurity personally, but I get the feeling I’m in the minority.

    • LostinPerth says:

      12:27pm | 27/03/12

      Gotta agree SeanK. Tory has got it right.

      The management will stick with whatever the broadcasting equivalent of “bums on seats” is, and as long as it attracts listeners and sponsors then they will not change. It is sad that the audience finds denegrating others entertaining.

      I too hope that both Sandilands and his obsequious sidekick disappear sooner rather then later .

    • Kika says:

      12:38pm | 27/03/12

      Exactly. It’s the same sick twisted perversion that inclines people to watching shows like Jersey Shores, Big Brother and The Only Way is Essex. We like other people to be made fun of or look like a goose yet when its ourselves we get offended.

    • John Dark says:

      12:48pm | 27/03/12

      The never-ending supply of idiots willing to be demeaned, degraded and generally humiliated in the pursuit of temporary fame on so-called “reality” shows, plus the ratings these visual and auditory atrocities get would suggest that this phenomenon is far more widespread than originally thought. Those of us with more than half a brain (a dwindling percentage of the population thanks to the Govt sponsored mass idiot breeding programs ie “baby bonus”) find this rather depressing.

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:51pm | 27/03/12

      I think it’s more to do with the fact we pay attention to things that get us riled up. We like to feel we have gotten something out of it by having it evoke a reaction in us. We could all listen to 95.9 which plays nothing but 80s music but it would feel empty as it does nothing for us.

      I don’t think girls like being demeaned. They just tune in mostly for the music and listening to that tool so they can get self-righteous and indignant.

    • Martin says:

      12:57pm | 27/03/12

      In my opinion, you can get away with “sailing close to the wind” offense-wise if no malice or hatred is intended. Standup comics do this all the time (ie: Louis C.K, who simultaneously bags-out women and their foibles while bagging-out himself as a lazy, middle-aged, overweight loser).

      Vile Kyle on the other hand is clearly an arrogant, nasty misogynist: end of story.

      And as for his piss-weak, pathetic and desperate side-kick; talk about betraying your gender to hang on to your meal ticket.

    • n_dude says:

      03:43pm | 27/03/12

      If you don’t like it change radio stations. No one is forcing anyone to listen to this guy speak. If enough people do it then he’ll be sacked. Obviously people like listeining to him, that’s why his show tops the ratings.

    • adam says:

      11:12am | 27/03/12

      “and if anyone knows what their audience wants it’s this lot - the ratings prove it.”
      “That’s just depressing.”

      They are a business, one doing quite well as it turns out. I would humbly suggest their audience don’t feel demeaned or they’d switch off.

      The ACMA could pull their licence if they breach standards of course

    • Matthew says:

      03:34pm | 27/03/12

      What makes you think they would?  They haven’t the last 2 times.  Or any other time Kyle has said something stupid (ie, every show).

    • Sarah says:

      11:12am | 27/03/12

      So the conclusion is that 2DayFM listeners are morons.

      Wait, this is news to you?!

    • Facicious says:

      11:41am | 27/03/12

      Sarah, you have just demeaned a sizable group of women.  If you were running a radio station you could be shut down for that comment.

    • bec says:

      12:20pm | 27/03/12

      @Facicious She’d get plenty of airtime though, women love a good demeaning.

    • Rossco says:

      12:23pm | 27/03/12

      Doesnt matter Facicious, if Sarah were a male and made anti-female comments, then there would be a problem.  But this - perfectly acceptable. Carry on Sarah.

    • Threedog says:

      12:52pm | 27/03/12

      Yeas but she could always use truth as a defence.

    • Mark says:

      01:02pm | 27/03/12

      ah, no @Facicious, Sarah would be ordered to self regulate her comments using a Traffic light system and a 30 second delay, of which she would have to have a giggling accomplice activate in the event she offended anyone, even though you cant be sure you have offended anyone until they complain to ACMA, hence the ridiculousness of this decision.

      it seems ACMA have the same Authority my 4 year old son thinks he has at his Pre School Sand Pit.

    • Your Opinion says:

      01:05pm | 27/03/12

      @facisious

      You just demeaned the word facetious.

    • taz says:

      02:17pm | 27/03/12

      Right with you on that one Sarah, who in their right mind would listen to 2 Day FM in the first place. It is gutter radio and has been for some time.

      There was a time it was not this bad and had Kyle been sacked immediately it may have sent a clear message but this person thinks now it is ok to do what he did as people expect it of him.

    • Peter says:

      09:58am | 28/03/12

      Facetious is the only English word that has each vowel in order and none repeated.

    • Pedantkath says:

      12:41pm | 28/03/12

      @Peter - how about abstemious?  An adjective describing eating and drinking in moderation.  That works as well as facetious.

    • M says:

      11:13am | 27/03/12

      “as long as there’s a sizable group of young women who enjoy listening to other young women being put down .”

      This is the key point here. Women love hearing about other women being put down. It’ll never stop.

      Biology wins.

    • Markus says:

      11:46am | 27/03/12

      It’s not even limited to women. As much as us humans try to think we have evolved beyond such barbaric entertainment as the stocks, Schadenfreude is still alive and well in the 21st Century.

      So long as they aren’t the target (or they are narcissistic enough to enjoy the attention, however negative it may be), people will continue to take pleasure in the misfortune of others.

    • M says:

      12:14pm | 27/03/12

      Yeah, but it’s a trait more closely associated with women than men.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      08:32am | 29/03/12

      It appears to be predominant in women in this case. From speaking with people who work in radio, the medium is geared towards an audience of women. The constant chatter of the ‘hosts’ instead of music, the competitions the style of advertising. That many women still listen to this particular station and it remains successful tends to bear out that this specific issue seems related more to women than any other demographic. After all, a successful company should know its target customers.

    • Jimbo75 says:

      11:16am | 27/03/12

      What a terribly weak and pathetic response from the radio station. “To throw their hands up and say it is all too hard!” “We don’t understand how those concepts relate to our audience.”

      How about accepting the challenge that ACMA has handed to them? Why not say something like “the ruling presents challenges to us and we look forward to meeting further with ACMA to determine how our programming can comply with the responsibilities placed upon us.”

      Instead the radio station might as well say - “when it comes to boosting ratings and presenting an opportunity for advertisers to sell their product we are happy to spend hours determining exactly what balance of Bieber and Rhianna works, but asking us to spend a few minutes deciding whether discussing whether shaving your hoo-hoo into a love heart is a novel idea for Valentine’s day is appropriate for a 6:00pm timeslot - that’s just too much.”

      Media execs – making used car sellers look decent since 1985.

    • Chris L says:

      02:33pm | 27/03/12

      True Jimbo. They could just shoot themselves in the foot and take away the aspect of their show that seems to draw in their audience, just to ensure that same audience isn’t upset at hearing the things they tuned in to hear.

      Seriously, how do you take instructions to not offend anyone seriously? I offend tonnes of people just be being an atheist, and I don’t have to say anything to do it!

    • dirty, hairy F word says:

      11:28am | 27/03/12

      It’s such a sad thing but true. Young women (or sometimes not-so-young) scared to be seen as a dirty, hairy F word (feminist) so they will agree that jokes about ‘sluts’ or women’s bodies or whatever are “just jokes”. How can we expect society to respect us when we don’t respect ourselves? It’s not about having no sense of humour but it’s about knowing what’s really funny and what’s actually just offensive.

    • amy says:

      11:49am | 27/03/12

      yeah, I didnt know Feminist was a suposedly deorgatory term untill the internet told me so

    • Markus says:

      11:52am | 27/03/12

      So who has the final say on what is funny and what is offensive? You? The government?

      I know this is a radical concept, but what if these young women are actually able to think for themselves, and think that a joke made about sluts really was particularly funny?

    • Kipling says:

      04:12pm | 27/03/12

      @ markus, how about the victim of the vitriol…

      That wouldn’t be a bad starting point as to who can say it was derrogatory.

    • Tim says:

      05:26pm | 27/03/12

      Kipling,
      You’re joking right?
      So if you find something said about you offensive or derogatory you should be able to have someone fired or a show removed from air?

      Yeah that would definitely work.

    • James1 says:

      11:30am | 27/03/12

      Seriously people, we all have iPods now.  We don’t need radio.

    • amy says:

      11:48am | 27/03/12

      but….but…how will I know what music Im suposed to be listening too?!....you can;t honestly expect me to choose what music I like by myself?!
      can you?

    • Kika says:

      12:40pm | 27/03/12

      I’m with you James1. I am not a radio fan. Granted, I am out of touch with new music… but I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing!

    • old fart says:

      01:45pm | 27/03/12

      I dont, I didnt make steve rich before he carked it.  Is that the next step an icoffin or an iurn?  If these things dont work, do apple send an ipatch?

    • Miles says:

      02:35pm | 27/03/12

      Kika, you’re not out of touch with ‘new’ music at all.  It is, for the most part, just recycled and sampled parts of old music these days - with auto tune.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      11:52am | 27/03/12

      Ah the ACMA. Once again showing its peerless ability to flog offenders with a wet lettuce many moons after the event.

    • Elli says:

      01:05pm | 27/03/12

      Also, they had to add a condition to a radio licence that prohibits them from “offending generally accepted standards of decency” or “condoning or inciting violence against women”. That’s not a standard expectation of broadcasters?????? That needs to be added as an extra condition???????

    • hot tub political machine says:

      01:57pm | 27/03/12

      I agrre Elli, you couldn’t make this stuff up

    • David says:

      01:57pm | 27/03/12

      @Elli,

      These requirements are generally included in the Commercial Radio Codes of practice but by making it a Condition of their license the ACMA is putting in place much more serious consequences if the licensee fails to comply. A breach of the codes of practice is unlikely to result in a license being cancelled but a breach of a license condition is a very serious matter.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      03:46pm | 27/03/12

      Yes, if they breach the code - this time they may be flogged with an extra we lettuce leaf, possibly even within 4 months

    • SalC says:

      11:52am | 27/03/12

      Hmm, what about all that R&B Chris Brown crap they play?  If we stuck by those rules they’d have nothing left on their playlist!

    • Tim says:

      11:54am | 27/03/12

      “It’s not rocket science to work out what is “generally accepted”, especially with the aid of modern social media, where thousands of members of the public are happy to point out the line to you when you cross it.”

      Bahahahahahahahahaha. Speak for yourself Tory.

      “Generally accepted” is far too broad a term. It pretty much means that anyone who can organise enough outraged members of society can get people fired and things banned.

      No thanks.

    • ray says:

      03:38pm | 27/03/12

      Look at all the hot air they have expelled over Kyle yet he’s still there and so are the sponsors.
      I think business is getting wise to the fact that “public outrage” really isnt that, just the same old faces with the same old whine but with a shiny new facebook account.

    • Matthew says:

      03:45pm | 27/03/12

      Kyle has crossed that line a large number of times now (at least 3-4 that I can remember).  You’d think they’d know by now.

    • ij says:

      12:01pm | 27/03/12

      Because women are such delicate creatures who cannot be expected to speak up and defend themselves in an adult world.

      The 18th century got in touch, and said hi.

    • JOKER says:

      12:05pm | 27/03/12

      I love a good laugh…  I think people need a thinker skin and get over their do gooder syndrome…  Men get the short end of the stick when it comes to having the micky taken out of them on Radio but no one cares, take it as a joke because that is all it is!!!

    • JOKER says:

      12:05pm | 27/03/12

      I love a good laugh…  I think people need a thinker skin and get over their do gooder syndrome…  Men get the short end of the stick when it comes to having the micky taken out of them on Radio but no one cares, take it as a joke because that is all it is!!!

    • Reality Girl says:

      12:14pm | 27/03/12

      Ok so lets start with the disclaimer, I hate Kyle Sandilands, I think he is a self-serving egotistic prat.

      No for the reality. he has a show, he is paid to host that show, he got in trouble for saying something ridiculous on that show, most of his major sponsors pulled out because they realised he is a prat, his bosses either can’t or won’t sack him because he is a prat.

      ACMA have looked into the incident and ruled, the radion station say their expectation is not specific and too hard to comply with.

      Either KS will breach ACMA’s rules again and they will take action against the station or he will breach ACMA’s rules again and they won’t do a damn thing. Obviously, the radion station has no intention of muzzling him because he brings them ratings (and one would assume still gets advertising dollars from somewhere).

      Now we are bemoaning that the radio station will do nothing because their ratings are so high and most of their listeners are women and .....

      What? these women are probably all either, idiots .... or bitchy enough to get off on hearing other women demeaned ... yes

      who cares? they will all end up getting exactly what they deserve for being either ... idiots .... or bitches .....

      where are the nanny police when you need them, alive and well on the punch bemoaning that women don’t do enough for themselves, poor victim women, no longer are we being patronised and abused ... but we are now patronising and abusing ourselves ...

      well… der…. women have always been the world’s police when it comes to other women’s behaviour and they have never done a good job of making sure that they don’t sell themselves out for popularity, security or a man

      it’s time we stopped crying victim and started blowing the cover on the women’s conspiracy aimed at controlling other women through a thousand different strategies aimed at shelving personal responsibility and keeping all the other women at the average level

      the solution to kyle is easy, if you don’t like him, don’t listen, if enough other women are listening to keep him employed, then call them idiots or bitches and move on, they are not worth worrying about if they can’t work out for themselve that a) he is i a prat or b) that their desire to hear other women demeaned is a sad comment on their own level of bitchiness that does not earn them any points on the being a decent person level

      wake up women, in australia at least, we are imprisoning ourselves by trying to stay in with the other women, time to wake up and unleash your inner individual (even if it costs you) or stop whining if you choose to stay too long at the fair

      god, where is Erick when you need him

    • David says:

      02:16pm | 27/03/12

      I don’t think Kyle’s program will be around for much longer. The situation is becoming untenable for Austereo. They may love his ratings, but the reality is that with this ruling they could be one KS rant away from losing their license. That is something they will take seriously.

    • Chris L says:

      03:07pm | 27/03/12

      Reality Girl! Gifted with the amazing powers of reason and individuality, Reality Girl fights to protect the citizens of Earth from the evil forces of “Duh, the Lord of Dumness” and the seductive wiles of “Ew, the brainless”!

    • Bang says:

      12:21pm | 27/03/12

      Don’t like what your hearing from 2DayFm? Then why are you listening.. idiots..

    • David says:

      12:27pm | 27/03/12

      I wonder how many people who listen to this show are actually outraged? for most of them they would listen for the opinions of the hosts. Everyone has the right to be offended, but people shouldn’t be held back from free speech because someone who didn’t hear the program was offended. You didn’t agree with what he said? tough. deal with it. turn off the radio.  but don’t stop others from enjoying what they enjoy just cause you’re on the sensitive side.
      Also, if you’re going to rule out derogatory comments about women, thats just being sexist, it should be to rule out derogatory comments about men too. or is that still ok? geeze people, lighten up. turn off if you dont like it, but dont stop others from enjoying it if they enjoy it.

    • Frank says:

      09:01am | 28/03/12

      does this show more about the quality of his listeners then anything? I mean seriously I don’t listen to the show because it is boring and 90% gossip and bullshit…we get enough of that on Sunrise and Today from their “LA reporters” if it is so hard for AusStereo to distinguish what constitutes a demeaning or offensive remark then they obviously don’t spend much money on defamation lawyers (I.e ask them what the law states such a remark is and work from there, basically if you get complaints and sponsers backing off its not good)...which I would think would be essential with a shockjerk like Kyle Sandilands…

    • Murray says:

      12:38pm | 27/03/12

      I wonder if the mothers of that fat slag, Kyle Sandilands, and Rhys Holleran are proud of their boys ?

    • Tony says:

      12:48pm | 27/03/12

      Kyle is a jerk but to think young women don’t like seeing other women put down misses the point that young women are extremely competitive and will adversely comment on other girls appearance and behaviour as a matter of course. We see it all the time and it is very unlikely to stop just because with maturity you realise it is not a good idea.

    • GE says:

      12:55pm | 27/03/12

      I am struggle with the vague terminology.
      Can someone define the meaning of demeaning?

    • DontMissTheTarget says:

      01:00pm | 27/03/12

      I do sympathise with what the CEO Rhys Holleran had to say. Take a look at some of the lyrics and music videos (of course radio is an audio medium but same argument) that people are listening to on these stations. I gotta say that a lot of this music and lyrics seem a lot more demeaning to women than what I heard Sandilands’s say (although his rant is not excusable at all). Lets not be singularly focused and target individuals as it is easier, maybe a starting point for respect to women needs to start with what we are playing on our radios first. Otherwise it all seems hypocritical.

    • subotic says:

      01:05pm | 27/03/12

      If you can’t call a News Limited journalist a “fat slag” and threaten to “hunt her down” then what *can* you do?

      Next I’ll have to stop calling a spade a spade…

    • Lexi says:

      01:07pm | 27/03/12

      The school yard is brought to radio - this “success” is just an example of school yard popularity…. Often the most popular girls in schols are those who bully other girls by demeaning them, belittling them, calling them names… and usually it is gender specific: b*tch, sl%g, sl&t, m$ll. Gee, go Kyle and Jackie O - you’re as intelligent as a bunch of 14 year old girls. And that’s basically the audience they’re appealing to (other people with similar mentalities to 14 year old girls).

    • Mal says:

      01:08pm | 27/03/12

      It’s all very simple really. Get rid of Sandilands ahhahahaha ahhahahaha hohoho!!!

    • Ben says:

      01:09pm | 27/03/12

      Ah yes, just like Nineteen Eighty-Four we have the two minute ‘Hate Session’ of the day. That’s right, people, no matter how righteous or liberal you believe you are, you love to hate someone. You love being part of a mob. You love to throw stones. You’re most at home with people think like you, cloaking your outrage under guises of tolerance and fairness. Today’s target is Kyle S. Hiss all you like, but all you’re doing is showing how easily led you are.

    • Lucky says:

      01:19pm | 27/03/12

      So true Ben

    • Lucky says:

      01:19pm | 27/03/12

      So true Ben

    • KK says:

      01:14pm | 27/03/12

      Firstly, Kyle degraded an individual, not women as a whole.  His comments were in relation to one person, not women as a collective.  But here we are, saying “derogatory against women” so men are just fair game?  Honestly most men wouldn’t care (see recent example of slagging off against the war hero guy) He didn’t really care, he just accepted the apology and moved on.  This is how guys work, we argue/fight, we say things its out in the open everyone knows where each other stands, and we move on.  Women sit on it, and brood, and then need to start some kind of vendetta.  The women have no one to blame but themselves, as this is exactly their behaviour. It’s art, immitating life, immitating art.  I couldn’t give a rats if its Kyle, or whoever at the microphone, the “generally accepted” is for one never general, and secondly politically correct bullsh1t that no one ever wants to hear.  Give me honest, from the hip, call a spade a spade people any day of the week, at least you know where you stand.  I hate these people that sugar coat words and then drive the knife in the second you turn your back.  Which is exactly what this article is.  It’s a PC skirt around the topic with a little sly knife in the back for Kyle, and one for the “skrags” who don’t mind hearing other women get put down.

    • Draconian says:

      03:39pm | 27/03/12

      Careful there KK, You’re bringing logic into the debate.

    • Lucky says:

      01:17pm | 27/03/12

      People need to stop being so sensitive, he is a shock jock. So by definition he will say ‘shocking’ things.

      This news.com ‘journalist’ was sledging Kyle and she got hers back. What’s the big deal? She is not innocent either

    • marley says:

      01:38pm | 27/03/12

      I was under the impression the extent of her “sledging” was to state on air that his new show had bombed in the audience ratings. 

      I love it.  Poor Kyle gets told his show isn’t a stunning hit, and that’s reason enough for him to go off on invective-filled rant - and yet some here are saying that it’s the women who need to harden the f* up?!

    • Miles says:

      02:43pm | 27/03/12

      Marley - What she said was based on her own opinion and that of a few tweets she read about 5 minutes into the show.  It was obvious that is was an opinion piece, given the language and statements used, as opposed to reporting on actual ratings.  She fired the first shot here - and now Kyle is being dragged over the coals for firing back.  It’s really pathetic actually.

    • Lauren says:

      02:50pm | 27/03/12

      You obviously didn’t read the article!

      Seriously - there was nothing wrong with what she wrote. It was typical news.com journalism (i.e. basic) but there was no personal attacks and all she stated were the facts - that the show did poorly in the ratings & the feedback from social media was that it was crap. That’s it.

      If anyone is being sensitive here, it’s Kyle.

    • marley says:

      03:12pm | 27/03/12

      @miles I have read the article.  Of course it was an opinion - that’s what TV critics usually provide.  And it provided facts on the show, on some of the early twitter feedback, and the writers’ opinion of some of the antics.  It did not attack Kyle personally.

      My view:  if this is what set Kyle off on a vindictive little rant, then he needs go back to short pants and a teething ring. It’s a lot less personally critical of him than he’s been of this journalist and half the Idol wannabees.  Cant take the heat?  Stay off the damn stage.

    • Iggy says:

      08:52pm | 27/03/12

      Marley, do you understand what ratings are? Cold, hard figures of how many people watched a T.V show. Not opinion. Also, do you realise how many tweets you can find in 5 minutes. Search a hashtag and with an average of 306000 tweets per minute uploaded to twitter, you can potentislly access hundred of tweets in five minutes. I’d also like to know how you’re aware of how long she spent researching her article.

      If Kyle didn’t want to hear from T.V critics he shouldn’t have gone on T.V. Critics, reviews etc are part and parcel of most creative medias. These people do this job because they love it. I know I couldn’t stand to watch T.V shows I know I have no interest in and then trying to reciew it without being biased.

    • marley says:

      09:32pm | 27/03/12

      @Iggy - what I understand is that the woman wrote an article stating that in her opinion, and in that of the first stream of twitters she accessed, the show wasn’t very good.  And from all I’ve heard, she was quite right and the ratings were in fact lousy.  So, she gave poor little Kyle a bad review.  But she didn’t slag him personally or threaten him or anything of the kind.  If Kyle can’t take criticism he shouldn’t be in the business.  Or he should toughen up.

    • Jen says:

      01:37pm | 27/03/12

      I don’t understand why they don’t just get rid of Sandilands? I wouldn’t think he was a big enough ‘star’ for them to be happy about losing all those sponsors…. They should just replace him and be done with it.

    • Martin says:

      02:19pm | 27/03/12

      @Jen

      Because even though Sandilands is an egotistical, motor-mouthed, misogynistic tool, his “bad boy” behaviour rates and ratings = $$$, even after half the station’s sponsors have jumped ship. $$$ are far more important than integrity these days and Sandilands knows this. I imagine Vile Kyle fears the sack due to “losing his edge” (whatever that is) more than the sack because he “crossed the line”.

    • GE says:

      02:54pm | 27/03/12

      @Martin

      A misogynist is someone who hates women purely because they are that.

      Kyle had a go at one person who
        1. he was in conflict with
        2. was a women

      Which of the above was the reason he had a go?

      I suggest it was 1.  If he was a misogynist he would be having a go at all women, in addition to those he was in conflict with.

    • marley says:

      03:17pm | 27/03/12

      @GE - on the other hand, if the article had been written by a man, would Kyle have responded in the same way, calling the guy a fat whatever, and threatened to come after him?  Somehow, I’ve got my doubts.

    • GE says:

      03:50pm | 27/03/12

      @marley
      You tout the hypothetical situation of the journalist being male as possibility having a different reaction from Kyle.

      1. My understanding is that Kyle has goes at many people he is in conflict with, regardless of their gender. In this case he is a Gender Equalist treating both genders the same. 
      2. His go is still at one person and not an entire gender.

    • Markus says:

      04:02pm | 27/03/12

      @marley, he did the same to Frenzal Rhomb when they criticised Jackie O for her a lack of professionalism. Threatened to destroy them, etc etc. A recording of the call may still be up on youtube if you want to have a listen.

      It’s not as if his reaction to this journalist was out of character for him.

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      07:01am | 29/03/12

      Just listened to the interview Ant posted. I am with you Marley. Very timid in comparison. No I don’t believe he would be so abusive. Probably because they might punch him. Kyle is a tough boy when it comes to women, not so tough when it comes to men.

    • julia says:

      01:49pm | 27/03/12

      From my experience kids hate Kyle and Jackie O and only channel surf on the radio looking for good music. They listen to their show because of the music they play and mainly only listen to the radio in the car anyway, otherwise it’s all downloads and sharing music with their friends.  They’re both too old to be attractive to kids

    • CK says:

      01:50pm | 27/03/12

      This is just the “Pareto Principle” in full swing.  The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

    • Alex says:

      01:53pm | 27/03/12

      Girls are also known as the worst for bullying other girls. Maybe its genetic without any help from idiots like Sandilands.

    • Mark says:

      02:06pm | 27/03/12

      Hi Tory- My issue with your piece is two fold.

      ” It’s not rocket science to work out what is “generally accepted”, especially with the aid of modern social media, where thousands of members of the public are happy to point out the line to you when you cross it.”

      Firstly, since when does “generally accepted” mean correct? Just because you’re offended by Sandiland’s doesn’t mean every other woman is. Do you have the right to take offence for them? No. But it seems you think you have a right to impose your offence on them regardless. You are telling people what to be offended by, see the irony?

      Secondly, social media- while visible- is very very limited, even just by looking at sheer numbers. Twitter and Facebook have less than half a billion users. I would be very hesitant in drawing conclusions from the opinion of 1/14 of the worlds population.

      Apart from that, it seems you are very keen to assume the victim status in this article. This affects the whole perspective of the article and is something that needs to be kept in mind when reading your point of view. It shows a level of bias, even if subconscious.

      My last point, and it is especially relevant in Australia, is context.

      If a person is speaking to another person and says something that can be taken offensively. A third person here’s it, knows it wasn’t directed at them, but can still claim offence? It’s a very subjective matter which is why it should not be dealt with at legislature level, generally.

      Would it not be better to deal with the intended individuals claims to discrimination rather than telling them what they are entitled to be offended about? The outcome for both parties would then be fair, in any case. Rather than the legitimised positive discrimination that we see when cases are decided under the general rule, rather than on circumstance.

      It’s a tough question to answer, but “the answer” has already been shoved down our throats by advocates and adopted by politicians keen to be seen to be doing something..

      The blatantly obvious but very widely accepted example of this is the “Violence against women, Australia says no” campaign. Men may not be more often discriminated against because of this, but the discrimination is there and is accepted by the so-called advocates of equality, feminists.

      People will come back and say “well why don’t you start a men’s advocacy group”

      Because that’s not the point. The point should not be to benefit your perceived audience. If you want something imposed on other people, against their will, then you better damn well make sure it is in everybody’s best interest, not just those of your perceived “market.”

      That is why everything an advocate ever says needs to be watered down. They are always at the extreme end of reality, which is usually hypocritical and completely unrealistic. That is why I would rather be classed as a thinker than an advocate- advocates are always biased. Why let a biased person make a decision? I wouldn’t, but we do.

    • Gomez12 says:

      02:32pm | 27/03/12

      @Mark,
      “If a person is speaking to another person and says something that can be taken offensively. A third person hears it, knows it wasn’t directed at them, but can still claim offence?”

      You might want to go and have a read of the sexual harrassment legislation - because that’s pretty much exactly what it says.

    • Mark says:

      03:20pm | 27/03/12

      Sorry, wasn’t as clear as I should’ve been. If Person A says something to Person B, who doesn’t take offence. Person C over hears and knows it wasn’t directed at them. Do they still have the right to take offence? If so, what logical conclusion was drawn to allow this in the letter of the law?

      I am no lawyer, but surely intent needs to be taken into account, especially with something as broad and individual as being offended.. 

      I am thinking along the lines of using swear words as a term of endearment. A very Australian thing to do. Very widespread and accepted by most but others do get offended. Should we care? It wasn’t intended for them, it doesn’t have that meaning when taken in context. Should they have the right to claim offence just based on principal?

      I think the person taking offence in these types of situations are the insecure ones, but they have forced their insecurities onto others.

      Don’t confuse this with victim blaming, they are not the same thing but I do know how some people love to get out of responsibility by using it.

    • M says:

      03:22pm | 27/03/12

      I cracked up when you said feminists were advocates of equality. Really I did.

      Are you taking women’s studies at uni?

    • Gomez12 says:

      03:46pm | 27/03/12

      @Mark
      “If Person A says something to Person B, who doesn’t take offence. Person C over hears and knows it wasn’t directed at them. Do they still have the right to take offence?”

      You were in fact quite clear the first time. - The answer is (Under Sexual Harrassment Legislation) a resounding “YES”.

      The example given (to me) was of two blokes commenting on a womans “Hot Arse” (The alleged woman does not have to work at the company, and could even be a celebrity celebrated for said “arse”), a third person overhearing that comment does in fact have a right to take offence, regardlless of their gender, involvement in the conversation or even the intent to be offensive.

      Likewise in your second example. Intent is irrelevant to offence.

    • CK says:

      03:51pm | 27/03/12

      Mark, great points, and well worded, even if some people didn’t quite get it the first time.

      The main problem with your response however - You have used logic.  We are talking about the least logical, most emotionally guided gender of humanity.

      Logic has no place here, and so your words will fall on selectively deaf ears, misconstrued and reconfigured so as only cherry picked points remain.  The rest they will dredge up in 3 months time to use against you, out of context.

    • John Findlay says:

      04:46pm | 28/03/12

      @ Mark and CK I totaly agree with you. The bottom line is that we now have laws in place that should a female decide that she wants to “get you” rational or not she can. Context of your words can be changed to suit, lie’s are hard to disprove and women are ALWAYS the victims.
      The small percentage of men who have done the wrong thing have made life hell for the rest of us. 2012’s idea of equality is we are all seen as equals in the eye’s of the law except that women are victims of men so we made some special one’s just to suit them and their special issue’s. (it’s a very big stick they have :()
      If I’m wrong then why doesnt this statement have any referance to boy’s, men, gay’s or the disabled ?
      ACMA’s ruling it refrain from broadcasting material that “offends generally-accepted standards of decency, demeans or is likely to demean women or girls, places undue emphasis on gender, uses overt sexual references in relation to a woman’s physical characteristics, and/or condones or incites violence against women.”

    • Tango says:

      02:08pm | 27/03/12

      A major issue for me is that the terms are open to interpretation. Who decides what is demeaning or indecent? Who is the arbiter? And when the composition of the arbitrating organisation changes will things that were not demeaning or indecent in the opinion of the previous management become demeaning and indecent and will things that used to be considered demeaning and indecent become not so?

    • andye says:

      06:10pm | 27/03/12

      @tango - As a guideline, I would say calling someone a “fat slag” and threatening to hunt them down is probably not appropriate. Seriously… how hard is it NOT to be an abusive jerk? Why do we even need guidelines?

      If Kyle had taken her apart with some wit, he would have gotten away with it. The problem is, he wasn’t funny. He spewed out some artless bitter insulting vitriol. If he is the king of radio, he should perhaps act that way, and not with some emotional thin-skinned knee-jerk reaction.

      I caught the TV show in question when it ran that one night. It was horrendous. It was so incredibly cringe-worthy that we couldn’t stop watching it just to see how bad it could get, and it did not disappoint. It deserved a drubbing. Responding with the cheapest crassest personal insults and threats simply demonstrated that his critics were right. His voice is his career. I would expect him to be better at using it.

    • Miles says:

      02:38pm | 27/03/12

      This whole country is becoming too soft and people are just so eager to get offended at everything these days.  Methinks it’s just another form of attention seeking in a very impersonal world.  Trouble is, the results of expressing such (faux) outrage often results in regulations with further isolate us from one another.

    • Andrew says:

      03:06pm | 27/03/12

      The sad thing is that an audience wanting to be demeaned or at least hear others being demeaned is nothing new, one well known announcer made a career of insulting people from behind his golden microphone. Don’t get me wrong, I find Kyle nothing but a loud mouth for whom I have no time at all, but it isn’t new and will continue because the people who listen want to hear it.

    • the cynic says:

      03:26pm | 27/03/12

      My other half doesn’t mind a bit of demeaning and put down on the odd occasion in fact we both get some excitement and perverted pleasure from it. The bonus is that we don’t have to listen to a pair of twits snarling and sniggering down the airwaves while giving or receiving the demeaning. Works for us!

    • D says:

      05:08pm | 27/03/12

      *giggle* - “Yet by his argument, the station cannot continue to appeal to this audience of young women while also promising not to demean them.” - Doesn’t this say as much about women (or at least certain perceptions of them) as it does the radio’s argument?

      I mean, we all know what style of behaviours are all too common among many young women when it comes to things like dating wink

    • Craig says:

      05:35pm | 27/03/12

      2dayFM is a moral free zone that exists purely to make profit. If that involves abusing people, they’ll go there. If it involved hurting people or enslaving them they would also go there.

      They cannot be trusted to act in any way that does not suit their narrow profit goals.

      I have made it a rule to never employ anyone who choose to continues to work at 2dayFM for more than a month after this ruling. I could not trust them to behave in the morally responsible way I would expect.

    • David says:

      08:56am | 28/03/12

      Profit is important to Austereo certainly, but if you want an example of a broadcaster that exists purely to make profit I would offer ARN (MIX, WSFM). They run their budgets as tight as possible and to them broadcasting is about nothing more than achieving the highest return on the dollar. Austereo, in their defense, is not like that. They do however have a win at any cost attitude and in my experience with them seem to believe that you don’t get to number 1 by being ethical.

    • Trent says:

      06:27pm | 27/03/12

      It seems to me Tory draws her conclusions on faulty logic.
      Holleran doesn’t say that he refuses to not demean women, he is asking for a definition of terms. I think it’s pretty harsh to call unreasonable, someone asking to know what the exact rules are, so they can better play by them.
      If the traffic act said “you will be deemed speeding if you’re generally accepted to be speeding”, I would call that unworkable.

    • Trent says:

      06:41pm | 27/03/12

      It seems to me Tory is drawing conclusions on faulty logic.
      Holleran doesn’t say that he refuses to not demean women, he is asking for a definition of terms. I think it’s pretty harsh to call unreasonable, someone asking to know what the exact rules are, so they can better play by them.
      If the traffic act said “you will be deemed speeding if you’re generally accepted to be speeding”, I would call that unworkable.

    • James Mathews says:

      10:16pm | 27/03/12

      Well I believe that Kyle should have the book thrown at Him personally as it shouldn’t be the station that copes the full grunt from some bigoted and unfulfilling remarks about a Female that I think is sick and tried of this, as she was only doing what she was paid to do and she didn’t get into any personal remarks about Kyle what so ever.
      I feel that people have a right to criticize but not on a personal level.

    • Fluffy Bunny says:

      08:10am | 28/03/12

      The big problem with this is that the majority of listeners who tune in to this jerk every day are women who are seeking their daily dose of gossip and put downs of celebs and not so celebs. Fair enough Kyle bit the hand that feeds him but c’mon, his show wouldn’t exist except for the vacuous that tune in every day - condsidering most of Kyle’s demographic is women,..

    • John Findlay says:

      08:33am | 28/03/12

      (SOME) Women love DRAMA ! if there is none in their life they will seek it out or create it. END OF LESSON

    • marley says:

      08:53am | 28/03/12

      Oh come off it.  The drama queen in this particular exercise was Kyle Sandilands.

    • John Findlay says:

      12:24pm | 28/03/12

      @ Marley, Why do you think Kyle has so many FEMALE listeners then ?
      It’s because of the DRAMA !
      Most men cant be bothered listening unless sex comes into the conversation.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      08:34am | 29/03/12

      Did someone say sex…?

    • Seth Brundle says:

      10:12am | 28/03/12

      You seem to be implying, based on the incident with Kylie “threatening” the journalist, that the stations sole purpose is to ridicule and belittle women. 

      I read the radio stations comments to mean “we can’t make jokes if we follow your guidelines because they are too restrictive and judgmental”.

      There is no story here.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:05am | 28/03/12

      Freedom of speech carries with it a responsibility not to harm, demean or otherwise cause ‘hatred, ridicule or contempt,’ to quote a title on defamation.
      This is even more true when the allegedly defamed has no recourse to legal arbitration and remedy because they cannot afford it.
      Most often legal recourse is available only to the wealthy therefore an arbiter of fair comment must be available and must be seen to be fair and equal in arbitration and remedy.
      We laugh at the discomfiture of others - that’s what jokes are all about - but there is a limit when the vicarious ‘schadenfreude’ is aimed at an individual not a class.

    • Ross says:

      11:26am | 28/03/12

      Sandilands, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt , I have no problem with any of them, I simply, would not bother to listen to them . why people do is a mystery to me. perhaps they just like to make them rich.

    • Rick of the Dustbowl says:

      02:52pm | 28/03/12

      Knock, knock, who’s there? Kile, Kile who?

    • Seamus says:

      09:48am | 03/04/12

      The solution is simple.  Legislate greater powers to the ACMA so thay can rid us of the likes of Sandilands and Kumi Stynes once and for all.  The fools only have appeal to pimply faced impressionable teenagers who are still wet behind the ears in any case.

    • Petery says:

      01:48pm | 10/04/12

      For an overpaid loudmouth who is a millionaire despite being of limited talent we are wasting lot of timedebating the issue of Kyle. The solution is simple boycott any company who advertises on his show.,2day fm stock value will go down, executives will get depressed,resign or suicide. Jacki o will go home and get pregnant again. Kyle will go to LA and die in obscurity . Amen
      Fankly he is just a man with a big mouth and not worth the space we are wasting talking about him.So let’s forget him and move on.

    • thatguy says:

      11:53am | 11/04/12

      what if Jackie O had said it ?

    • Nyani says:

      09:06am | 28/04/12

      Sandilands is an overstuffed creep from way back but if you look carefully at this Sandiland saga, behind the scenes are bosses revelling in his excreta dump. As they did with the pimple faced creep that trashed his parents home while they were away. Gave him employment to further spread his manure heap.
      McFadden is of the same colour as his fat mate, telling one contestant to ‘f’ off. Now do a check on Minogue who is commencing the whoopy shit too.
      This is what the bosses employ them to do, so it figures boycott if you want to succeed.

    • rgfe says:

      08:50am | 28/05/12

      One word says it all: MORONS.

      The people who work there: MORONS.

      The people who hired them: MORONS.

      The people who listen to the show: MORONS.

      Like attracts like.

    • Nordine says:

      11:30am | 31/05/12

      before, these pictures are aboleutlsy gorgeous. I know some other couples who were recently engaged and their engagement photos are nothing like these. I can’t believe how soon the wedding is! So happy/excited for you both

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter