Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter


TV & Radio

Jul 29, 2009

Kyle and Jackie O's live lie detector test goes very wrong

A 14-year-old girl disclosed live on air this morning that she was raped at the age of 12, during 2Day FM's Kyle and Jackie O breakfast show.


A 14-year-old girl disclosed live on air this morning that she was raped at 12, during 2Day FM’s Kyle and Jackie O breakfast show.

The disclosure occurred live on air during a lie detector test, a regular segment during which a person is strapped to a detector and peppered with questions by their partner/mother/sister/best friend, and moderated by Austereo’s Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O.

Sandilands’ nemeses, the “fun police” Media Watch, gave us a run down of 2Day FM’s form on lie detectors last year. According to MediaWatch, “contestants have had their honesty tested on subjects like STDs; masturbation; anal sex; threesomes; and eating faeces during sex.” After one particularly controversial episode, Jackie O said:

JACKIE O: I, I apologise to anybody out there who has been offended with this segment that we’ve done all week, I know it’s probably gone too far and I do apologise about that.

KYLE SANDILANDS: What sort of a dork have you turned into overnight? — 2Day FM, The Kyle and Jackie O Show, 27th June, 2008

This morning the person in question was 14-year-old Rachel, who was strapped to the machine and then interrogated by her concerned mother, who said that she was worried about Rachel indulging in under age sex and drugs [LISTEN HERE]:

JACKIE O: We’re all a bit nervous actually because mum Michelle has brought her daughter in to go on the lie detecto r…

JACKIE O: What’s your worst fear, is it the sex, is it the lying, the possibility of doing drugs, smoking?

MICHELLE: Drugs and sex and older boys …

JACKIE O: Has she told you she’s had sex before or do you think she’s a virgin?

MICHELLE: … I think she might have had sex before.

JACKIE O: Right. But she hasn’t said anything?


The segment began on an uncomfortable note:

JACKIE O: [laughs] Alright we have her hooked up to the lie detector!

KYLE: Ohhhh!

JACKIE O: She’s not happy! I just saw her listening to that replay!

KYLE: How are you Rachel?

RACHEL: I’m scared!

Undeterred, Kyle and Jackie O pressed mother Michelle to continue. Rachel was then grilled about her school attendance, and insisted angrily that she’d never wagged, even though the lie detector said it was so.

Next up, virginity:

MICHELLE: Have you had sex?

Rachael, sounding uncomfortable and resentful about the line of questioning, answered:

RACHEL: I’ve already told you about this and don’t look at me and smile because it’s not funny! [PAUSE] Oh, OK! I got raped when I was 12-years-old!


KYLE: …. right. And is that the only experience you’ve had?

MICHELLE: I only found out about that a couple of months ago. Yes, I knew about that.

RACHEL: And yet you still asked me the question.

MICHELLE: The question was, have you had sex, other than that?

JACKIE O: Rachel, I’m really sorry, we didn’t actually know that that was the case, and I think 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 all right? It’s okay, you just take a breather, it’s fine. We always have counselling services here, Rachel, if you need that. Have you had any counselling over this issue?

MICHELLE: No, she hasn’t.

JACKIE O: Okay, well we have all of 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. Okay, honey, we’ll just let you go for a while. I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that was…

KYLE: Okay, mum, sorry, we needed to — that’s something we should have probably known before we started this.

JACKIE O: Yeah, definitely.

KYLE: So let’s do that, let’s get you — if you guys haven’t had any counselling, or anyone to talk to about that, we’re happy to pick up the bill for that, we’ve got them here. Do you want that, mum?

MICHELLE: Yes, that’d be good, that’ll be good.

JACKIE O: Yes, okay.

KYLE: And that might — you know, that might — going through that, might answer some of the questions that, you know, you guys are having difficulty communicating with.

MICHELLE: Okay, yes.

KYLE: Okay, Rach, thanks for coming in, darl, sorry about that. Okay, we’re out, everyone.

Jenny Parkes, 2Day FM General Manager, told Crikey this morning:

Kyle and Jackie and 2Day FM were saddened by the turn of events this morning. In the normal course of preparing the segment all due care and consideration was given to the family and clearly we didn’t know anything about this traumatic incident.

The moment we became aware of it was live on air and we brought it to an end as soon as we possibly could. As is only appropriate, we are offering all the assistance we can to the family, including counselling, in what is of course an extraordinarily difficult situation.

Crikey also put in a call to ACMA but they didn’t get back to us before deadline.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

64 thoughts on “Kyle and Jackie O’s live lie detector test goes very wrong

  1. Georgina Smith

    Sounds like an appalling segment, regardless of this particularly unpleasant turn. Why must we revel in others’ discomfiture or pain? It’s perverse.

    [edited] Being raped at any age is horrible, but when you’re in early puberty, haven’t yet worked out who you are or developed your own inner strength, it must be particularly psychologically (not to mention physically) damaging to endure such an experience.

    At least this sorry saga will get the poor girl the help she needs.

  2. John Molloy

    An obnoxious d-ckhead and an airhead have something blow up it their faces. Pity it wasn’t a hand grenade! Also, what was the mother thinking? There are child protection laws in NSW. From this distance, it seems they were breached.


    Is this mother a complete imbecile? No mother would subject a child to this kind interrogation on public radio — and it was the mother who asked the questions knowing that her child had been attacked. This is doing my head in.

  4. daveliberts

    While my dislike for Kyle and Jackie O is obvious to anyone who’s ever heard me rant about commercial radio, the mother in this matter needs to be prosecuted for what she’s done here. As the step-parent of two teenage women, I could never imagine subjecting them to anything like this and would be appalled if they ever had to experience it.

  5. Alison

    Both the mother and the radio station need to do some serious thinking. The mother is clearly unbalanced to put her child through that, but I also think the station needs to take responsibility for allowing a child to be put on that segment, regardless of the mother’s permission.

    It sounds like a ridiculous segment anyway, but if two consenting adults want to air their dirty laundry on the radio, then that’s fair enough for them. However, it is almost tantamount to child abuse when a mother takes her child’s privacy and drags it onto the public airwaves like this, particularly knowing what had happened to her!

    It is beyond belief – I’m with Wendy, it’s doing my head in!!

  6. paddy

    Sheesh! This makes the “cash for comment” saga seem positively trivial.

    Plus, I’m not even sure about the idea of Crikey pointing to the [listen here] link.
    Mind you, I didn’t click on it, (felt too repulsed by the written story) so I’m not sure how much it included.

    As J.M. says, let’s hope there’s some legal fallout for the guilty parties in this piece of sleazy crap.

  7. Evan Beaver

    I’ve always thought those 2 were repugnant. Turns out I was right. Oh well.

  8. Anthony David

    Sadly, even if these two get the boot, there will be someone else to replace their vapid airspace and an audience to pander to.

  9. Keith is not my real name

    I’m speechless, what sort of parent would do that to a child? ffs!!!

  10. robynfoskett

    Whilst I’ve never heard Jackie and Kyle, it seems to me that they handled a truly horrible situation very well.
    They stopped at once, they named the seriousness of it and offered Counselling support for the child.
    Goodness knows why such a segment even exists but…….
    I’d like to know what on earth possessed the mother to put her child in such a situation?
    If I’m kind, maybe she was desperate? Maybe this was the only way………?
    How truly sad and I hope they both get some support so nothing as hideous as this can happen again to this family

  11. Margaret Bozik

    How long before we reintroduce the gladiators to the Colosseum? This “reality as entertainment” trend scares the hell out of me.

  12. Daniel Ashdown

    The two presenters handled this as best they could under the circumstances….but I doubt Kyle will be calling anybody the “fun police” if they criticise his show because of this particular segment.

  13. gemgem

    Every live segment has a delay and they could easily have cut that admission/ revelation if they had chosen to. Despite their protestations I am sure that the team love the fact that their stunt has caused such a stir. This Springeresque entertainment will always have an audience and unfortunately they are merely supplying a demand. I don’t think it ‘went wrong’- I can’t see how it wouldn’t have ended badly. Even without the rape issue they were forcing a young girl to admit to sexual activity to apparently win tickets to Pink. Too far? Well, I wouldn’t want to be their legal team right now.

  14. Alison

    Daniel – actually I think Kyle’s brain was in neutral immediately after, as he said “KYLE: …. right. And is that the only experience you’ve had?”

    Uh, hello?? That is not a s_exual “experience”, it is rape – i.e. a non-consensual attack.

    I agree Jackie handled it quite well and I hope they received the promised counselling. Poor kid – half her problems probably come from her mother.

  15. Cade

    Mother of the year.

  16. Joe Seeth

    Don’t radio stations employ a delay on live segments to stop this sort of thing going to air? If they don’t then ACMA should force them to.

  17. Damo

    Let’s be clear about this: Kyle did not handle it well, he continued questioning the girl. Jackie O stepped in and Kyle followed her lead but initially he was clearly prepared to continue.
    I can only speculate there must have been some wild gesturing from producers to ensure Kyle didn’t continue.
    As for the mother…

  18. Stilgherrian

    I’m not sure that “the presenters handled a difficult situation well once it unfolded” is really a defence. They were c0mplicit in the situation being created to begin with.

    Somewhere along the line, they chose to conduct interrogations as entertainment. Somewhere along the line, they decided it was OK to interrogate children — about a subject as psychologically and legally fraught as under-age sexual activity. Somewhere along the line, they lost the ability to think through the implications of what they were doing.

    Even if they lost the ability to feel any empathy for the victims of their entertainments, I’m completely bewildered that media professionals — from presenters all the way up through producer to management — failed to see the big red flashing danger lights on this one.

  19. Allison Finley-Bissett

    Un – bloody – believable … what mother does this … and how is this radio entertainment…. no wonder I find myself listening to the ABC in the mornings now… why would/should a 14 year old be put in this situation? Its very inappropriate. Someone should be notifying the child protection authorities.

  20. bleeter

    The segment, relating to a 14 y/o’s sex life, strikes me as being child porn to start with. That people say Jackie O stepped and stopped it is excusing her initial glee at which the prospect of a child’s sex life was to be discussed. Child porn, from go to woe. Everyone – Kyle, Jackie, the producers, the mother… everyone *except the child*, needs a serious looking at from the federal police (child porn production?), ACMA all the way through to DoCS etc.

  21. Rob McLennan

    As a commercial radio professional with over 20 years’ experience at FM rock stations, I find this sickening. Leaving aside the abject stupidity of the mother – we all know people like that are out there – Sandilands and his producers should have known a 14-year-old is off-limits. Questioning an underage girl about her sexual experience borders on the illegal anyway, but the failure to thoroughly check the girl’s background is beyond belief.

    At the very least the segment should have been in delay, which would have allowed the pin to be pulled before the rape revelation could get to air. Better still, given the age of the participant, the piece should have been pre-recorded. And Kyle’s attempt at keeping the segment running even after the teenager dropped her bombshell demonstrates what an ignorant, stupid buffon this man is.

    No doubt these two self-absorbed wankers and the equally pathetic morons who continue to employ them, will quietly raise their glasses to another PR coup while earnestly telling the world – and the regulators – how sorry they are and how well they’ve handled this unfortunate situation. But the offer to pay for counselling is too little too late, and Kyle and J-O must now live with the knowledge that if this young girl’s life takes a turn for the worse, they are largely responsible.

    The fact is, the whole segment was poorly conceived and demonstrates what happens when so-called entertainers start believing the product is more important than the consumer.

  22. Alex Campbell

    The whole business has been absolutely appalling; from the actions of the broadcaster, to those of the presenters, and- in particular – that unforgivable breach of responsibility on the part of the mother. I couldn’t possibly imagine a more emotionally corrosive experience for a young abuse victim than that which has occurred in this instance.

    Whatever action is ultimately taken against Austereo or the child’s parent will never come close to reconciling the crimes perpetrated upon this defenseless individual.

    For shame.

  23. Fiona Boyd

    This is totally brutal, bullying exploitative parenting. This mother does not deserve the title. This girl is vulnerable in every way – at a new school, raped at 12, which the mother knew about and still wanted to expose her to scrutiny about her private choices in the most public and terrifying of ways. This child’s life will never be her own while she has a mother like this. Report the mother. I hope DOCS is on its way.

  24. Mike

    Although the station didn’t do enough background checking with the mother (or even have the common sense to pre-record the segment), the mother is the one that should be held accountable for this.

    As the mother confessed, she knew about the rape for a number of months but did absolutely nothing to support her daughter. Disgusting. I hope child protection services are paying her a visit.

  25. Stiofan

    Why is anyone shocked by this? Go to any primary school fete, and watch the Year 5 Dance Group grind out some piece of Slut-rap. Go to your an upmarket gallery and look at the photos of naked children. Turn on your TV and find out how Red Bull gives you a massive erection. What happened today was, in reality, nothing out of the ordinary.

  26. Bret Treasure

    Shame is right. Australian commercial radio slides further into the mud. Stop exploiting people. Stop humiliating people. Set some higher standards. Why do executives need to be told this? Have they no sense of propriety themselves? Utter sleaze.

  27. nico

    The nearest I come to listening to Kyle and Jackie O is via Media Watch – the quality of their output is not being disputed here.

    As well as all the comments about harm done to the child, I would add that I find it odd, and disheartening, that we live in a society where such public disclosure of very personal information is even an option. I can’t imagine what anyone involved in the incident was thinking.

  28. Stiofan

    Why is the mother in this case any different from a parent who lets their child be photographed by Bill Henson?

  29. Alex Campbell

    The sexualisation of children, whilst certainly a terrible feature of today’s market-driven society, is not the specific issue at play in this case. The matter in question relates to the breaching of a rape victim’s privacy – done so to a child by her parent, for commerical interests, in the public domain. The sheer volume of breaches committed in this one action against moral, ethical, and presumably legal codes goes beyond even that which we’ve now come to expect from entertainment providers.

  30. Alison White

    I’m not overly comfortable with the audio-link being made available (both here on Crikey and every other news organisation that has picked up the story). I haven’t listened to it, and I won’t.

    I realise that the segment was broadcast on radio, and so is now in the public domain, but it seems more than a little off and voyeuristic that so many more people can now ‘participate’ in this 14 year old child’s humiliation and pain.

  31. Michael Tatas

    I’m sorry, you can blame the mother all you like, but we’re talking about the type of people who listen to FM radio, you know, morons, so you can hardly expect any better. They’ll to anything to get on ‘tele’, or the radio as well i guess.

    But in gods name, how is it ok for these people to interrogate a child about sex? I mean someone, somewhere along the line should’ve said, you know, this just isn’t the right thing to do.

    Hopefully someone will be sacked over this. Hopefully some fat and un-funny douchebag.

  32. David1

    Stiofan your attitude in supporting the disgusting antics of broadcasters on public radio is shameful at best and pratically a tick for under age sex and child porn, at worse. If you are aware of many similar type incidents such as you have indicated ie: any primary school fete, and watch the Year 5 Dance Group grind out some piece of Slut-rap. Go to your an upmarket gallery and look at the photos of naked children. Turn on your TV and find out how Red Bull gives you a massive erection….what have you done about it? sat on your arse and watched it obviously and done nothing., even enjoyed it perhaps? Where are your obligations to young kids? You are as bad as 2Day FM and those two junk merchants Kyle and Jackie O. Its the the station and their staff at fault here, the broadcasting watchdog should be all over this like a rash and hopefully the law as well.

  33. Alex Campbell


    The case currently being discussed here is in many ways different to the one involving Bill Henson’s infamous exhibit. Austereo and the child’s parent have revealed, in the instance of the former, information regarding the s-xual molestation of a minor for commercial and ‘shock-value-adding’ purposes. The sheer acts of negligence (parental, psychological, legal, moral) perpetrated by the relevant parties on a cornered, under-age victim of such sordid abuse stands in stark contrast to the details of the latter example, in which a recognised artist continued a career-spanning, peer-reviewed, critically-acclaimed and abuse-free portrayal of a consenting (parent and child) individual. Of course there remains a myriad of disagreement regarding the notion of under-age consent – discussions and debates of which should continue to be engaged in by our community in a mature and serious fashion – but not being able, or willing, to see a difference between these two examples appears to me to be counter-productive in the protection of both children and civil liberties.

    In the end, there needs to be an understanding and acceptance within the community of the differences between product of a genuinely artistic nature – and that which is genuinely perverse or p-rnographic. It’s the only sensible thing to do amidst the madness.

  34. Daniel Ashdown

    I was gonna reply to this topic again earlier, but I was too busy listening to slut-rap (??), looking at Hensen photos and guzzling Red Bull by the litre.

    “slut-rap” lmao

  35. Heathdon McGregor

    if your aim is to offend you shouldn’t invite juveniles.Even with their “guardians” permission to join in.

  36. Dee


    I just went to the 2day website to see what’s being said/not said regarding this morning’s incident (answer: not a lot). Whilst there I had a look at some of the Kyle and Jackie O blogs and archives. I’ve never listened to their radio show. Wow .. they’ve been doing this sensationalist, bullying crap for a while! Check out this link, where a schoolgirl studying for her HSC breaks down and cries whilst confronting her mother over her drinking. K & J justify this disgraceful ‘car-crash’ broadcasting by masking it in a cheap veneer of concern for the issue of alcoholism.

  37. Stiofan

    Bill Henson sells photos of (apparently “consenting”) naked pubescent kids to make money. To make money, Kylie and Jackie-O (or whatever their names are) get “consenting” kids to talk about their experience of sex. When the lumpenproletariat see societal elites rush to defend Henson and the parents who co-operate with him, it’s hardly surprising that they see no problem with taking their kids to participate in broadcast lie detector tests.

  38. Stilgherrian

    Sorry, what’s all this about people equating “naked” with “sex”? If someone can’t see bare skin without thinking it’s sexual — especially when it’s a child — then I reckon they have a serious psychosexual problem.

    Henson’s photos show nothing more than you can see at a Nipper’s carnival any summer weekend. And that’s an all-Australian wholesome thing, right?

  39. Heathdon McGregor

    Daer Stiofan

    I believe the difference between Henson and Kyle is that Hensons work was in a private gallery whilst Kyle is on the public air. I believe you could make a case both aligning and distancing them depending on your point of view. I believe the problem with Henson is some PR Rodent put the images up front on the advertising in order to create a furore.

    How many exhibitions had Henson had before the uproar. How many had used child nudity(artristic or not) to promote them?

  40. Keda Ley

    It is child abuse pure and simple to subject a 14 year old to public questioning about personal issues. Where is the legal consent? This is only compounded by the nature of the answer given, and the implications arising. The child was clearly distressed.These people (Mother included) probably have committed offences against child protection laws and should be investigated. The Radio Station and presenters should be investigated by the Broadcasting Authority.

  41. jacks

    That mother is a bitch and should have her child taken off her

  42. Pamela

    This is just too much. I have been increasingly concerned at the brutality of TV shows denigrating people who are too fat/ can’t sing/dance /cook and any other human activity they can fail. Now I hear that radio is doing the same thing.
    Why do we watch this horrible rubbish?
    Why do so many Australians enjoy seeing people hurt and distressed?
    Why do the media finding exploitation so lucrative and so exciting?
    What parent would put her child on show to hurt and harm in this way?
    What parent would ignore the fact that her child had disclosed being raped at 12 years old as nothing?
    I hope that Childrens services are interviewing this mother and acquainting her with the facts of life, love and caring for a chilkd?
    So what is next for Australians lust for shock horror and pain- shall we watch teenagers suicide for thrills?
    So civilization goes from watching Christians being torn apart by lions to modern day Australia where cruelty and brutality are spectator sports.

  43. Ben Aveling

    Some points to Jackie O for a partial recovery. Minus several million points to Kyle, to the lawyers who allowed any minor to be put in that position, and to the ‘mother’. I hate to imagine reasons why she might have knowingly done what she did.

    Full points to the daughter for standing up for herself in an dreadful situation – she comes across as the sanest person in what is an incredibly insane scenario.

    PS. I believe live radio normally works on a delay in the order of 7 seconds, enough to cut out a swear word or sudden outburst – not much use in a situation like this.

  44. Liz45

    Stiofan – There’s one big difference here – this girl was raped. Her mother knew it, and yet she allowed this grilling to go ahead. Why hadn’t she taken her daughter to a doctor, the police, a rape crisis centre, to see a counsellor etc. It’s just appalling, and if you don’t think it is and you have kids, I suggest you do some serious reading about the expoitation/sexual abuse of children, and how to protect them! The mother in question is beyond understanding. It was another assault on this young girl, and her mother was the perpetrator this time. I’m appalled and disgusted!
    Mind you, I’m not impressed with the rest of the media playing that so-called interview again!

  45. juancampana


    Bring me the company gun

  46. MissAmande

    I feel so sorry for the young girl in the radio interview. I can’t that the mother knew about the rape, and had not gotten any help for her daughter. And then, subjected her to more abuse by forcing her to re-live it live on air. She was more concerned about her daughter sleeping around, than whether she was recovering from sexual assault. A positive thing is that at least the daughter is finally getting some help. It’s also plainly obvious that the mother should too.
    As for the radio show, this kind of rot exists because people listen to it. The segement existed because people like to hear about others get humilated, and now it’s gone too far…

  47. jeebus

    What shocked me most was the mother’s complete betrayal of her child. To coerce her daughter onto a national radio show in order to interrogate her about sexual activity is bad enough, but to do so knowing her daughter had been raped, and never received counseling… This is disgusting neglect. The poor girl should be taken into foster care by guardians who are fit to raise her.

    As for Kyle and Jackie O, it’s clear they have abused the responsibility that comes with a national broadcasting platform, and their contracts should be terminated.

  48. Heathdon McGregor

    Dear Stilgherrian

    I thought a troll is someone who turns up at a website on the odd occassion to insult without any relevance the posters. I don’t believe I do that. I try to ask questions using stating what I believe so that if people believe I am wrong then I can be corrected with eveidence. I read crikey daily and comment when something catches my eye. I’m sorry that I dont understand symbols(words are good enough for me) so I believe your tongue was in your cheek. I think it is as destructive to a debate to accuse people of being a troll just because they dont share their views.

    Have a nice day

  49. Stilgherrian

    @Heathdon McGregor: I was referring to me as the troll, actually.

  50. Heathdon McGregor


    Sorry it came up as a reply to me

  51. Chris Johnson

    The pair are producing little more than radio porn by pedalling topics normally viewed as obscene, objectionable and unfit for print or television. Because the radio station is allowing them to abuse public airwaves it should lose its licence.

  52. Berenice Roberts

    Regardless of the revelations from the CHILD. And regardless of whether one beleives the hosts ‘handled it well’ or not. Who for a second thought questioning a CHILD about sexual behaviour on a radio program for fun was a good idea? Every adult involved in this decision from the producers of the show to the parents need to seriously look at themselves! I am the parent of two teenagers and could not and would not ever offer them up to be bait for such mindless drivel. Disgraceful.

  53. Ben

    What I want to know is where were the lawyers in all of this? How on Earth did Kyle and Jackie O get clearance to put the girl on air in the first place? What happened to due diligence?

    As others have noted here and elsewhere, even the initially “planned” segment of questioning a 14-year-old girl about sex and drug use on air raises questions of legality. So why wasn’t the segment vetted by the station’s legal team?

  54. Heathdon McGregor

    After a couple of days of thinking “how could the mother do this?” I am now wondering what could drive a mother to agree to this? Perhaps the parents have tried other thigns and this is a last resort. I dont have kids so I can only imagine how hard it could be to manage a young lady who has become sexually active/aware at an age younger than I expect?

    I dont have a clue what happened but I wouldn’t know what to do in this situation. Could it have been a last resort?

    Any how I hope the family can get help and get over this awful incident all round.

    As has been referred to before Where was the delay?

  55. Ben Aveling

    Statistically, the most common offender in child abuse is a live-in boyfriend, not related to the child. We don’t know if that is the case here, in fact, we don’t know anything. Allegations are just that, and lie detectors are notoriously unreliable. Also, statistically, a small minority of mothers put their own interests before the interests of the child, to the extent of supporting the offender against the victim – blaming the victim for causing trouble. Also note the mother’s follow up question: it was not ‘who did it’, which suggests to me that she already knew. It also raises a thought – clearly she was prepared to have this raised publicly. If she was protecting the culprit, she isn’t any more. But again, we don’t really know anything about anything, only what has been said.

  56. anne edwards

    i once called the station manager at 2day fm to complain about a segment on the same show (forced to listen to in a taxi) where a young girl phoned her father to say that she wasnt coming to stay with him for the holidays because she had been offered tickets to a concert (pink co-incidently). the offer for the tickets was ON CONDITION that she phone her father with that news live on radio. the poor man was absolutely gutted. the station manager (or his delegate) told me that the target audience was 15 and that kids that age have a different moral perspective from us 0ldies. i asked if he had children himself and if he could imagine how he would feel to have that done. he conceded that it may not have been in the best possible taste but didnt seem to ‘get’ that just because a 15yo might think that something like that was entertaining, it didnt absolve the adults producing from moral blame. i did also wonder at the time how Pink – who seems quite sensible in interviews – would feel about being indirectly linked to these awful stunts

  57. Venise Alstergren

    After a brief eight hours in hospital with a dental problem, I’m reading the above comments with interest.
    STIOFAN: You are one V sicko sicko. You appear to go through life looking for evil, then you have the nerve to shout Eureka when you find it. Hopefully you don’t advise anyone on the arts front.
    I am quite revolted that anyone would have subjected this girl to this form of torture. However, who really stood to gain from this nauseating performance. 1) The audience? This is the sort of audience who would happily listen to dog-fighting; that would find this sort of behaviour unremarkable speaks for itself. 2) The program producers, the stars? If they can be called that-read 1). The producers-read 1). The company which owns the station-read 1).
    3)The child-would rather be dead.
    4) The mother? = her fifteen minutes of fame.
    NOW, with the exception of the lovely STIOFAN, WE can all throw-up!

  58. Pat

    There is some hope, with the exception of a few unusual comments, everyone seems completely revolted and horrified by these events.
    We have to as a society stand up for those unable to protect themselves.
    We must protest loudly like we do here and tell these radio executives that this is NOT what we want to hear. We do not want to see people humiliated and degraded.
    Never accept this rubbish quietly.
    Everyone-have a nice day!

  59. andy egg

    I watched The Fisher King by Terry Gilliam on video (!) sunday and was struck by the uncanny similarities between the the predicament of the movie’s protagonist Jack Lucas(Jeff Bridges) and our Kyle. Thought you might have the connections to get a message to Kyle to watch it. I thought that might help save Kyle from Jack Lucas’s kind of protracted suffering. And that we could get Kyle out hunting for the Holy Grail, before he has to wander the streets of Sydney Town (with a bad pony tail and a Pinnochio doll) looking for redemption.

  60. HellsBells

    From ACMA’s website today:
    ‘ACMA to investigate adequacy of community safeguards for live-hosted entertainment programs on commercial radio’.

    Reports on their earlier exploits reveal the content of K & JO’s morning squalfest routinely violated Codes of Practice 1, 2 and 6 developed by Commercial Radio Australia well before their latest appalling stunt.

    Apparently, ACMA’s responsibilities include:
    – promoting self-regulation and competition in the communications industry, while protecting consumers and other users
    – fostering an environment in which electronic media respect community standards and respond to audience and user needs.

    ACMA could perhaps investigate their own lack of response to Austereo’s lack of respect for what could be hoped are reasonable community standards.

  61. RaymondChurch

    ACMA in the past have never been known to investigate anything unless there is a hellava big noise being made. When was the last time they got off their backsides and actually initiated action. It took Media Watch to get anything done about Laws and Jones. In this current side show, from ringmaster Sandilands and his assistant, it wasn’t until the outrage expressed by thousands of Australians in blogs and on talkback and then the media generally that ACMA invited complaints to them and they would look into the affair. Hardly the actions of a dilligent, professional public watchdog. More like a sleeping pussy.

  62. Bullmore's Ghost

    Ben wrote: “What I want to know is where were the lawyers in all of this? How on Earth did Kyle and Jackie O get clearance to put the girl on air in the first place? What happened to due diligence?”

    That question crossed my mind briefly, too. The output of any broadcaster reflects the attitudes of its management. When you consider the crap that passes for radio these days, why would any station manager have the presence of mind to bother with a legal opinion — until he or she is being sued after the event. The management is as clueless as its employees.

    As the old saying goes: The fish rots from the head.

  63. Bullmore's Ghost

    RaymondChurch wrote: “Hardly the actions of a dilligent, professional public watchdog. More like a sleeping pussy.”

    … or worse. How about sycophantic supporter. Who could ever forget this from the then Chairman of the ABA:

    ‘Dear Alan, You have an extraordinary ability of capturing and enunciating the opinions of the majority on so many issues. This of course annoys those who have a different agenda. I suspect it is extremely irritating to them that you do it so well … Keep up your considerable contribution to the widening of our national debates. Sincerely, David.’
    -David Flint letter to Alan Jones, June 11 1999

Leave a comment


https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/29/kyle-and-jackie-os-live-lie-detector-test-goes-very-wrong/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.