Like most discussion on this incident on commercial radio, the situation is being over simplified. For example, the article assumes the girl in question is telling the truth. How do we know that she was in fact raped? How does she define rape? While lie-detectors are a very "iffy" device, what influence did the lie detector have on the girl?
There are lots of unanswered questions. I personally think the girl at the centre of the controversy is having everyone on.

There is no moral universe in the airways it all hinges on ratings and advertising dollars and over time, with competition, there is more pressure to push the boundaries.

The only way we, the public, can influence those at the top is to vote with our feet. Don't turn the dial to the shock jocks and reality rubbish that dominate our TVs and airways.

Well said Jennifer. Thank you for taking the trouble to care, and saying it for us.

For me it's a symptom of a broader neglect that is a sad and profound commentary on our materialistic culture. There are so many ways we don't take good care of our kids, from poor diet to poor school funding to abuse. Every species on the planet, bar one, devotes its greatest effort to getting its offspring off to the best possible start.

And Analyst's brutal cynicism is amazing but, unfortunately, not surprising.

Analyst manages to say in two breaths that there are lots of unanswered questions but that he/she thinks the girl is having us all on!

The points made and questions asked previous to this stunning assertion, however, are completely irrelevant. The mere fact of a mother colluding with amoral radio presenters to place her child in this absurd situation - where nothing she could have said or even a defiant silence would preserve her dignity - is child abuse, sexual or otherwise.

Analyst's conclusion is well nigh idiotic, at best, and at worst a condoning of this type of radio 'entertainment'. Where the listener blithely condones in this way - casting aspersions upon the girl's character - he or she is a participant in the abuse. That is 'reality' entertainment for you.

why, they inhabit the same moral universe as the rest of us - because we let them in, and so they can abuse a far wider audience than they could ever have imagined. This is the same universe where a young girl can be gang raped and caught on camera for further titillation on the internet.
Maybe beheadings became too boring, so the ante was upped.

When a person is looked upon as a 'thing', then all manner of abuse can happen, maybe this is just the start of something much worse to come.
And we thought Roman circuses only happened the once!

I simply ponder the attitude and lack of skills displayed by the mother in this entire episode.

Far from question the nature of radio broadcasters and "Shock Jocks" whose claim to fame is to sensationalise whatever topic comes within their graps

the real question to be asked is

where are the motives and morals and what sort of people do you call the attendant parent, who was there and was, in part, responsible for the protecton her child?

Or are we to assume the temptative value of a couple of tickets for a "Pink" concert were sufficiently persuasive an inducement to absolve her of all blame?

Analyst,
Has in my mind missed the whole point. The truth of the girl's "rape" is irrelevant.

What is at stake here is the unholy pursuit of MORE profit(aka ratings) and which toilet bowl of humanity they're prepared to lead the public in this search.

The problem is that the way the program was done. The show is a serial offender to proffering the public humiliation of people for entertainment (sic).
As I've said else where we all defecate but do we really need to roll in it in the search for ratings.

The child every child goes through real pain during adolescence we as assumed adults shouldn't add to that for our perverse voyeurism.

Ask yourselves the questions.
Did you really NEED to know about that girls pain real or imagined?
Are your lives better for it?
Is the girls life better for the experience of the show.?
Then where are the winners...The progenitors of the program?

Sorry if there are victims then the program is simply as called predatory and we don't need it.
Finally why pander to the lesser of society why not concentrate on raising their circumstances to levels WE would want for ourselves?
Simply put Do unto others as we would have done to us.

To prove I too have a dark side If it had been my daughter. KS etc would be now recovering from emergency maxofacial surgery

While finding the truth always matters, the question of whether or not the girl was actually raped is irrelevant when judging everyone involved in creating this program.

The truth of the girl's claims is a very relevant consideration when considering the 14 year old boy. Perhaps he is the forgotten victim in this affair. Perhaps he isn't.

Y'know when I grow up I'm gonna be a 'social commentator' or opinion columnist!

What a great job! You get to be the master of hindsight, and pour down judgement from your high horse, and get patted on the back for being righteous and perceptive. What a laugh!

'Apparently no one involved in this “stunt” took even a moment to consider what effect their actions might have on a young girl.'

And apparently you didn't either.

'We can hook young girls up to lie detectors and ask them about their sex lives.'

Well actually the mother did the asking about sex lives. A mere inconvenience to your sermon...

'including the adult who allegedly raped her when she was 12.'
Adult? I thought the guy was 14?

'Had she not revealed the earlier sexual assault, presumably the “stunt” would have never made the headlines'
Exactly. Masters of hindsight you all are. You knew the show was rating, getting awards, you knew the format, you now drag out other examples. It's a comfy bandwagon now isn't it!

'This is the cultural climate in which we currently dwell.'
Yes it is. And it rates the roof off apparently. We live in a democracy, where the majority have ruled!

'Clearly there is some disturbance in the family dynamic for a mother to publicly collude with others against her young daughter’s best interests. Having no knowledge of this particular family and its dynamics, there’s nothing further to be said by me about it.'

How nice. So you spare your wrath for the people providing the medium. I suppose you blame the road when you crash your car.

'The onus for changing society’s attitudes to sexual assault is not on the victims, it is on all those who have the strength and the ability to take on the task.'
So let's leave it to the master of hindsight social commentators, who do their work for free. They're not profiting from this at all are they?

'we are barbarians.'
Speak for yourself. I take no responsibility for someone else's entertainment. I didn't even know about the show.

'How many ears must one human have before s/he can hear people cry?'
Now it's sounding like a year 10 english assignment. You get paid for this stuff? Such poetry!

'If Ms Funnell is to protest Ms Johnston’s outing of her daughter, then she must accept that she herself has now outed that daughter to me and to everybody else in my household.'
As you're now responsible for spreading this girls pain.

'And how have we allowed them to turn our young into public objects of prey?'
See it works like this. Young people buy stuff. They also have interests and their own culture. Perhaps we can chain them up and make them listen to Jesus instead. Only allow 'suitable' entertainment, that you have OK'd. You seem like a good judge of what's dangerous or in poor taste. Yep, I think your morality is 100% representitive of the community. And if it isn't it surely should be.

What an opportunity for grandstanding and pushing barrows. I can almost feel the excitement as the opportunists join the travelling circus!

examinator,

'which toilet bowl of humanity they're prepared to lead the public in this search.'

It's always toilets and faeces and excrement with you isn't it. A strange scat fetish you have perhaps?

I think 'the public' can decide things for themselves

This member of 'the public' knows nothing but the extracts shown on ABC TV of this and other Sandilands/O games with people's lives.

My feet have voted. I won't be listening to that radio station in a long time and won't be watching a TV station that backs either of them in a long time. Not hard you might think if I mainly watch ABC, but I do watch many other shows as well.

We can't do much, but we can vote with our feet.

I agree with you that the onus should not be on victims to change public attitudes... this is a task that already traumatised people should not have to take on. That was not the point in my article. I was simple stating that it's problematic not to give space and encouragement if and when victims, of their own volition for their own reasons, choose to disclose. It's also problematic to view all disclosure through a lens which implies it that it is always inherently re-victimising. I'm not suggesting that disclosure has been easy, fun or always cathartic, but I am saying that it would be easier if attitudes towards sexual assault survivors were more progressive and informed.

Also in relation to Hetty J, I was aware of the paradox of further outing the daughter, but weighing up what is already in the public domain I decided it was a point worth making. Hetty J has a lot to answer for on many fronts. Anyway, healthy debate is always welcome and I was pleased to see you engage with my article. I didn't mean to offend you and apologise if this has been the case.

Nina Funnell

well they could of put me on the radio and put me on a lie detector and it would of proved i was raped and abused at daruk boys home windsor new south wales australia now known as the john morroney correctional centre windsor new south wales australia ,

the boys home the state of new south wales still continues to cover up about and have had the log books of misconduct records log books , excursion record log books , and isolation cell record log books ,

if the rapes and abuse were not true of what i have stated since 1997 why would the state of new south wales destroy these records , provinga victims case ,

where is the justice in our courts for us forgotten australians the victims the goverment of australia still cover up about ,

im real victimthe state of new south wales continue to cover up about , as of many other victims from other girls and boys homes and orphanages , state ward homes , state run church homes , out of home care , and many more other institutions in our country australia

I agree with huffnpuff

If the populist do-gooders and “social opinion shapers” of the sort Houellebecq aspires to be, when he grows up - (imho I think he would make a better card-carrying libertarian despite his leftie past)

As I was saying ….. If the populist do-gooders and “social opinion shapers” were to address the real issues instead of pursuing the short course to their own “15 minutes of fame” we might have fewer disrupted and torn lives to deal with.

And like I said before, the judgmentalistics and self-righteous seem to make a point of avoiding the role of the attendant mother in this pathetic freak show.

Houellebecq RE 'we are barbarians.'
Speak for yourself. I take no responsibility for someone else's entertainment. I didn't even know about the show.”

Exactly, we live in a reasonably liberal society. I am not responsible for the poor behavior, manners or sense of responsibility of others.

I do not steal and of seek excuses

I brought my daughters up without sticking them into a three ring circus for public entertainment. Admittedly, I did not get any free tickets to see Pink but I have reared two productive, participating and contributing members of society with values such that they do not cheapen themselves for monetary gain.

Nina, thank you for your response to my article.

I don't for a moment think that all disclosure is inherently re-victimising.

I think it's really important to note that very, very few victims of sexual assault will ever have an opportunity to disclose in a public arena, even though they might very much want to. There just isn't a forum for this.

I sometimes wonder if we ought to have a regular media report on sexual assault and domestic violence statistics, just as we have regular reports on the ASX and road deaths.

It is perplexing and worrying that even though there is probably more public awareness of sexual assault than ever before in human history, that has done nothing to reduce the number of assaults. The same can be said for domestic violence. Clearly, raising public awareness is not leading to less violence, sexual and every other kind. I could suggest many explanations for this, but there isn't room for that here.

I don't know what Hetty Johnston 'has to answer for.' I don't actually know of anyone who doesn't have to answer for something in somebody's opinion.
Jennifer Wilson.