Kyle Sandilands is the host of an FM breakfast radio program that emanates from Sydney and is networked nationally. He is also a judge on Australian Idol. At least he was until two weeks ago. An incident on his radio program has resulted in an indefinate hiatus, and he has been stood down from Australian Idol. This article provides some background.
I don’t want to go into the incident in question or even Sandilands’ personality. It is the reaction to the incident that is remarkable. Clearly he has made a lot of enemies. But the exent of the criticism of Sandilands is not all motivated by personal malice.
It seems reminiscent of the reaction to the Chaser sketch which saw that program temporarily removed from the air.
The opposition, criticism and even personal scorn which has been directed at Sandilands and the Chaser do not seem to be aimed at what they actually did. They have both forged their careers with performances displaying acerbic, critical and mocking wit. The line they crossed in the public conciousness was not what they did, but who they did it to.
It is no coincidence that both situations involved children. This is understandable. Children deserve special consideration. Not because they are more precious, but because they are more powerless. They are unable to fully appreciate their rights and need to be protected against those who would take advantage of them or abuse them.
Yet even in these cases the actual acts against children themselves were indistinct. Sandilands (his female colleague Jackie Henderson, ‘Jackie O’ seemingly having escaped sanction) was not responsible for the child’s original plight. If the child had not been assaulted, or if the incident had not been recounted during the interview I don’t think the furore would be as great. It should be argued that responsible adult behaviour would never have involved a child in the situation that took place, whatever the outcome. There was no malice toward the child. But it was a stupid and degrading situation. But a lot of things that radio hosts engineer are stupid and degrading. The Chaser people did not seem to have any target in mind. They weren’t criticising terminally ill children. Again they were behaving stupidly, but with no real malice.
In both cases what they were doing was performing for audiences who had increasingly encouraged these performers to more and more excessive displays.
What can we learn?
Well this is not the recovery of an older morality. Few commentators are calling out for a return to older standards. After all, these people stand at the vanguard of those who attack those standards. It is not their criticism of standards that has outraged people.
This is not even really the last vesitges of the older morality hanging on. There seems to be some sort of fear that these incidents will result in performers reigning themselves in.
This seems to be a different morality in which public opinion judges what is too far. When the line is crossed judgment is severe. These people were not judged to have done a wrong thing. They have been judged to be wrong people. Kyle Sandilands is now judged ‘Vile Kyle’ by the Melbourne Herald Sun. He didn’t make a mistake. He’s a bad person.
Where can the personal redemption that the Bible speaks of enter this scenario? Forgiveness of sins is also God’s personal transformation of your nature. Contemporary society doesn’t seem to believe in transformation of the individual. You are what you have done.
That seems easier than to make complex evaluations about society, personal tragedies and flawed personalities.
mgpcpastor's blog 