Kyle Sandipants and Jackie O-no-she-di'nt!
In case it doesn't get printed on the news.com.au website, here is the comment I just made in response to The Herald Sun's article, Jackie O is oh so to blame (which I've just now realised is four days old and counting). It feels good to express yourself when you know it might add to a serious debate that is going to have consequences.
"NOT saying Kyle and Jackie O are 'child abusers' for seeking the sexual humiliation of a child, but surely a paedophile or three garnered a glimmer of enjoyment in the very idea of a segment that required a vulnerable girl to reveal her sexual experience. What kind of a backward mother has this poor girl got? Did she not take the concept of someone having RAPED her daughter seriously? What could possibly possess even a bloody idiot to ask a rape victim if she was a virgin or not, LIVE to the entire country, WHEN SHE KNEW SHE HAD BEEN RAPED - much less the poor child's FEMALE parent? The sheer audacity, the shameless abuse and the mirth absolutely beggar belief. Kyle Sandipants is a reprehensible and cunning stunt-meister who's had this coming for a long time. What a powerful man... And Jackie O. I don't know why she ever hitched her wagon to that sociopath, but she regarded the episode HILARIOUS from go to woe. That's empathy? Sack these morons once and for all. They don't deserve the job. There are fresher and better talents out there crying for the slot who wouldn't degrade their audience with such nasty stunts. Give someone new a go, 2DAY-FM. You owe us that now."
"Us" - like I'd ever listen to that show. Jesus. I'm not wild about how it reads. For starters, it annoys me that I wrote "...has this poor girl got?" ("...does this poor girl have?" would have been better)... and "she regarded the episode hilarious" (where's the "as" - or maybe she "considered" it hilarious?)... never mind all the embarrassing, irate-old-man capital letters... Aiya! I just spotted "...garnered a glimmer of enjoyment in the very idea..." Ugh. Bear in mind that I had to edit it down from over 1600 words without the page timing out on me - poor, verbose me - but still. And so my apprehension remains. It really did read much more (ef)fluently before the not-so-masterly trim!
I don't think they're gonna publish it anyway, more's the pity for me. I should have stressed the ill-considered nature of the stunt when I mentioned paedophiles, and I only meant to use "Sandipants" (my far-too-cute moniker for the prick) if it was the second mention of his name, which it was in the first incarnation of the comment. But the real reason I think they might not publish it: I called Sandilands a "sociopath". He is one - no emotion, facial expressivity, display of empathy (ever), or evidence of a conscience - but would they print that? I should have backed that up too.
Also, remember when the news first broke and the media was reporting that 2Day-FM was going to arrange counselling for the girl "at their own expense"? Was DOCS really the best they could do? And isn't that covered financially by the public purse? And another thing - did 2Day-FM count on the news media dropping it once that echoing box had been ticked, which is exactly what they did do? The fact that they continually flout boundaries of contemporary public taste and ethics has never led me to believe that 2Day-FM is unaware of any of them. Anyway, I really do hope this brings Sandilands and that giggling buffoon, Jackie "O", down once and for all. For such a savvy media conglomeration, Austereo sure is stupid. Or believes that we are.
-- Not impressed of NW Sydney
P.S. "There are fresher and better talents out there crying for the slot..."? I mean, we're all crying 'for the slot' (yikes), but I think I might have meant "There are better, fresher talents crying out for a breakfast slot..." Just needed to say. OK, I won't go on. I want to fix up every bloody sentence now.
"NOT saying Kyle and Jackie O are 'child abusers' for seeking the sexual humiliation of a child, but surely a paedophile or three garnered a glimmer of enjoyment in the very idea of a segment that required a vulnerable girl to reveal her sexual experience. What kind of a backward mother has this poor girl got? Did she not take the concept of someone having RAPED her daughter seriously? What could possibly possess even a bloody idiot to ask a rape victim if she was a virgin or not, LIVE to the entire country, WHEN SHE KNEW SHE HAD BEEN RAPED - much less the poor child's FEMALE parent? The sheer audacity, the shameless abuse and the mirth absolutely beggar belief. Kyle Sandipants is a reprehensible and cunning stunt-meister who's had this coming for a long time. What a powerful man... And Jackie O. I don't know why she ever hitched her wagon to that sociopath, but she regarded the episode HILARIOUS from go to woe. That's empathy? Sack these morons once and for all. They don't deserve the job. There are fresher and better talents out there crying for the slot who wouldn't degrade their audience with such nasty stunts. Give someone new a go, 2DAY-FM. You owe us that now."
"Us" - like I'd ever listen to that show. Jesus. I'm not wild about how it reads. For starters, it annoys me that I wrote "...has this poor girl got?" ("...does this poor girl have?" would have been better)... and "she regarded the episode hilarious" (where's the "as" - or maybe she "considered" it hilarious?)... never mind all the embarrassing, irate-old-man capital letters... Aiya! I just spotted "...garnered a glimmer of enjoyment in the very idea..." Ugh. Bear in mind that I had to edit it down from over 1600 words without the page timing out on me - poor, verbose me - but still. And so my apprehension remains. It really did read much more (ef)fluently before the not-so-masterly trim!
I don't think they're gonna publish it anyway, more's the pity for me. I should have stressed the ill-considered nature of the stunt when I mentioned paedophiles, and I only meant to use "Sandipants" (my far-too-cute moniker for the prick) if it was the second mention of his name, which it was in the first incarnation of the comment. But the real reason I think they might not publish it: I called Sandilands a "sociopath". He is one - no emotion, facial expressivity, display of empathy (ever), or evidence of a conscience - but would they print that? I should have backed that up too.
Also, remember when the news first broke and the media was reporting that 2Day-FM was going to arrange counselling for the girl "at their own expense"? Was DOCS really the best they could do? And isn't that covered financially by the public purse? And another thing - did 2Day-FM count on the news media dropping it once that echoing box had been ticked, which is exactly what they did do? The fact that they continually flout boundaries of contemporary public taste and ethics has never led me to believe that 2Day-FM is unaware of any of them. Anyway, I really do hope this brings Sandilands and that giggling buffoon, Jackie "O", down once and for all. For such a savvy media conglomeration, Austereo sure is stupid. Or believes that we are.
-- Not impressed of NW Sydney
P.S. "There are fresher and better talents out there crying for the slot..."? I mean, we're all crying 'for the slot' (yikes), but I think I might have meant "There are better, fresher talents crying out for a breakfast slot..." Just needed to say. OK, I won't go on. I want to fix up every bloody sentence now.