R0bert states:

<< Will this be a stage managed appearance where the family comes up smelling of roses and Kyle is the only villan (sic)? >>

I don't think that "the family comes up smelling of roses" at all, the motivation of the girl's parents needs to be and has been questioned by other - although I notice the focus is primarily on the mother.

Both Sandilands and Jacki O were suspended. Unlike the girl's family they have a public voice and therefore have been taken off the air. Surely, R0bert do don't believe these shock jocks should be allowed to continue to create such trash journalism. May this be the end of this type of journalism.

Perhaps Sandilands received greater attention because of this:

"After initially sounding uncomfortable with the questioning, the girl started crying and said she had been raped when she was 12.

Then Kyle Sandilands replied: "Right ... is that the only experience you've had?"

The girl's mother then said she had known about the rape. Jackie O then cut off the segment, saying the station had not known about the rape, and offered free counselling to the family."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/29/2640057.htm

And in complete contradiction this:

"Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O have been nominated for three national radio awards, including their controversial segment Heartless Hotline.

The 2DayFM duo - whose show is on hold following the recent rape revelation scandal - have been named among finalists for the annual Australian Commercial Radio Awards.

Sandilands and Jackie O are up for best on-air team, best networked program for The Kyle And Jackie O Hour Of Power, while the segment Heartless Hotline has been nominated for best station promotion."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/10/2651394.htm?site=local

I notice that both Sandilands and Jackie given equal attention - both pro and con.

rehctub, "If the 60 minutes program can just make one child speak out to their parents about their problems, then bring it on.

The stunt from the radio show was just that. No intention what so ever to make that childs world a better place."

I disagree for three reasons: firstly the end doesn't justify the means, or else privacy and rights are always up for grabs, it is depends on the rationalisation; and secondly, since when were the commercial current affairs shows concerned about making the world a better place? They are about entertainment and ratings; and finally, the likelihood isn't that one child might be saved, in fact the likelihood is that copy cat suicides will occur (refer Beyond Blue's concerns).

By your reasoning, Kyle and Jackie O could argue that their show publicised rape in minors and through increasing public awareness, it was justified. After all, it had already resulted in one child's alleged rape being taken seriously.

It is fallacious to argue that an action is justified because there is a possibility that one person might be saved. Obviously hundreds of young lives could be saved every year by banning backyard swimming pools, or better still, by banning motor vehicles.

Life is about assessing the dangers and managing risk, which is what Jeff Kennett, Chairman of Beyond Blue is trying to convey to the producers of 60 Minutes, who have ratings on their minds.

Foxy,

I'm but a product of the environment. I merely reflect the standard of debate. See, if I saw anything other than a bunch of pretentious tossers trying to sound smart, and predictable 'education is the key', 'think of the children' type narratives, I would find some interest other than messing with posters.

For all his faults, antiseptic at least finds angles on things that haven't been discussed.

'If you can't command attention by your admirable qualities..'
But I don't have any 'admirable' qualities Foxy. Anyway what I most admire is entertainers. The scintilating prose and wit of one Col Rouge is so much more entertaining than the psycho-babble of examinator.

Antiseptic,

Doofus, I was defending you going back to 'base premises' as meaning defining the terms. People always skim over what they are supposed to accept as the base of the argument, but you at least examine the base, often finding it lacking. I like the way you rolled back the assumptions that the girl was raped.

'why does every discussion here devolve into the meta-whinge about antiseptic?'
You love it! Come on man.

Fraccy,

'You gauche, ignorant creep.'
Such personal abuse. I thought you were one of the nice posters. Hey Foxy/examinator, I think the police are needed to bring her in to line.

'such as R0bert, CJ and other long time contributors '
ie: save me fellas, I'm a damzel in distress. Bring this brute into line.

'this post is only about a very small subset of men'
Just changing 'All men' for some men would do, or even just not calling people 'liars' if they say they personally don't fit into the skewed image you have of 'all men'.

'He uses every opportunity to trivialise any woman's POV.'
Oh no. We were making progress. Hey, try this... Think really hard and try to forget the gender of the posters. Is it possible, now I'm going out on a limb here, that sometimes a poster doesn't agree with your point of view, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender? Try hard now.

I think I said at the outset that IMHO the "blame" for this appalling show was wide and included the parents, producers et al. The people who give this sort of show its ratings and the rest of us for not complaining sooner. Surely we can see the difference between freedom of speech/ pursuit of happiness and retrogressive sewer diving.

I could see some value if they were actually reality rather than some misbegotten self fulfilling sewer of dreams...."build them and they will come". Each show becomes more offensive than the last.

Do we really need to see someone who has done their best being humiliated, belittled by some overly nasty self opinionated escapee from the darkest reaches of our id?

As I said the "media watch" replaying of the girl whose parent's family had been separated when they escaped from the killing fields being tormented for public 'entertainment'?

My words might be flowery but one doesn't need to be a rabid Secular Humanist to realize that luxuriating in such human effluence is hardly something we should aspire to.

Like the Monty Python song says. "We'd better hope there's intelligence out there because there's bugger all down here." (at times)

"It is fallacious to argue that an action is justified because there is a possibility that one person might be saved."

Cornflower,

Garbage - it's not fallacious if protecting the human aspects in life is your primary aim. If it's only to make a profit and pretend you're better than the next guy by being better or "superior" to them, then you'd be all for the idea.

Your idea is completely selfish and desultory towards the honest and principled people in society. You've obviously been reading too much of Col Rouge who has a similar detached disinterest on such matters.

I don't agree with the wowerism or political correctness that would see Kyle and Jackie off the air because they are offensive to some people. Vulgarity might offend but censorship is inappropriate. Who wants to return to the Fifties where the sharp-eyed morality officers of the churches told us what we could see and do? For minors there needs to be a line drawn in the sand because self regulation is not working very well.