The Tribal Mind: Don't blame poor Kyle and Mal

Wednesday May 9, 2007 04:08 PM

Who We Are

To find out how to abolish State Governments, go to Who We Are.

by David Dale
Kyle Sandilands is the Malcolm Turnbull of entertainment. Malcolm Turnbull is the Kyle Sandilands of politics. Both are so on the nose they are perceived to taint any brand they are associated with, which makes it impossible for them to perform their functions (opposition leader and shock jock).

Both are being held to unprecedentedly high standards of behaviour, because both are victims of a change in national sentiment. If this was 2001, they'd be winners. But Australians are leaving this decade in a very different mood from the way they entered it.

Back in 2001, a British producer named Simon Cowell helped to create a talent quest format called Pop Idol (which was soon franchised as American Idol and Australian Idol). Idol's appeal was its mixture of sadism and inspiration. Before being voted on by viewers, would-be singers were analysed by a panel of judges who fitted three archetypes -- The Bitchy One, The Waffly One and The Kindly One (usually a woman). Cowell was the prototype Bitchy One. In the Australian version, his clone was a music producer named Ian Dickson. Dicko's putdowns were not as witty as Cowell's, but he had a capacity for self-mockery that tempered his shredding of the contestants.

Australian Idol was Australia's most watched series of 2003 -- the same year Mark "Headkicker" Latham was riding high in the opinion polls as Opposition leader. The Waffly/ Kindly/ Bitchy formula was repeated in a host of other talent quests, and it worked a treat for Dancing With The Stars and Australia's Got Talent. In 2005 Dicko left Idol, and The Bitchy One became the radio jock Kyle Sandilands. He replaced Dicko's brutal humour with raw aggression.

Sandilands resembles Latham (and Turnbull) in apparently having no capacity for self-criticism, but this was not a problem while TV and radio audiences enjoyed macho competitiveness as part of their entertainment.

Now we come to 2009, The Year of Living Lovingly. Seven weeks ago, this column quoted a perceptive reader named Wazza, who had sent in this comment about MasterChef: "I much prefer to watch something constructive and which builds people's self esteem rather than something that is destructive and tears people down. I'm glad they aren't going down the road of 'Game on, molls!' bitchfighting of Big Brother. That is soooo 2006."

Part of MasterChef's success seemed to derive from replacing the Waffly/ Kindly/ Bitchy judging formula with Practical/ Kindly/ Eccentric. This column remarked: "Judging by TV tastes, the economic crisis seems to have put Australians in the mood for constructive cooperation and gentle generosity. If so, this is not a good time to be Malcolm Turnbull."

As it turns out, this is also not a good time to be Kyle Sandilands. The stunt which led to his removal from his radio show and from Idol -- getting a 14 year old to discuss her sexual experiences -- was premised on sadism. Sandilands further failed to read the national mood when he offered excuses instead of apologies -- just like Malcolm Turnbull, when he responded to revelations about Godwin Grech.

Does this mean Australia at the end of the Noughties prefers opposition leaders who do not attack and shock jocks who do not offend? Sandilands and Turnbull are entitled to ask: "You hired us to go in boots-and-all and suddenly everyone is wearing woollen socks. What do you want from us?" We might reply: "Well, it would help if you'd just shut up for a while."

Go to Comments to tell them what you want.

David Dale is the author of Who We Are -- A snapshot of Australia today (Allen and Unwin). For daily updates on Australian attitudes, bookmark blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

COMMENTS

What we want is constructive criticism not bitchy comments. We want the 'cast' to be great - but we want some help for them to get there (aka - the master class concept of master Chef). We want to like and respect the judges as a team trying to help the cast in a collegiate way - not ripping them apart like a pack of dogs!!

by Jess p on August 07, 2009 at 12:32 PM

I quote from your column:
'Sandilands and Turnbull are entitled to ask: "You hired us to go in boots-and-all and suddenly everyone is wearing woollen socks. What do you want from us?" '
WHO hired them? Neither were chosen by the public. Turnbull was hired by an opposition cabinet! Sandilands was hired by a particularly odious radio station.

by Steve B on August 08, 2009 at 08:19 AM

Turnbull and Sandilands are employed as the public faces of interests that seek to manipulate public sentiment for wholly self interested ends. They do this by playing on each individual's insecurity, fears, ignorance, greed, voyeurism and desire for acceptance to create a herd mentality that operates at the border of what is socially and morally acceptable. The more successful these public faces are though, the more likely it is that they and the interests they represent eventually cross that border, as Sandilands did on his radio show and Turnbull and the Liberal party continuously do with their policy platforms. The trick for society now is to embrace the "Master Chef" model so that future reincarnations of Turnbull and Sandilands are left where they belong - without a voice.

by Carly K on August 08, 2009 at 05:42 PM

Sandilands, dross of the airwaves and yesterdays head-kicker. Sack him.

by groucho on August 09, 2009 at 06:57 AM

I would often listen to the Hot30 when they were hosting it as it was clean and nicely cut, but i started to listen to their breakfast show less and less as their true colours started to show.
Quite frankly, since about about the time that Jackie O and Kyle did that thing to one of their colleagues, where they had the guy dropped in the middle of nowhere with nothing but the clothes on his back and he had to get back home, i had found them to be at that time a little too sadistic for my taste. yes the concept and the idea was good, creative and clever, but some of the pranks were cruel and the jokes quite spiteful.
They believed that had a good formula for business and ran with. However, like most forms of the entertainment industry, nothing lasts forever and since the inception of the 'Master Chef' model, the pair should have seen the writing on the wall.
Whilst Kyle is taking the full brunt of the 'scandal' as he is seen to be the major instigator, Jackie has been escaping quite a large amount of attention. i find this to be a little unfair, as the pair both did the show. They should have done their research and found out what the mother was going to ask in the first place then used a bit of COMMONSENSE! Asking a 14 year old girl about her sexual history on air is suicide and smart-mouth questions like Kyle's is asking for heavy consequences.

by TinyAvian on August 09, 2009 at 12:10 PM

I am saddened that a 14-year-girl being traumatised on-air was the only thing that could shut the King Kyle empire down. If only the earlier warning signs of spiteful, vindictive, callous, arrogant content on the radio program could have been heeded to avoid this terrible attack on a girl who had already endured something awful. Both should be sacked, the 'stunt' was abhorrent and reprehensible.

by Tara-S on August 09, 2009 at 07:10 PM

It's a lot to think about!!!
Small towns already often feel they are lost in the shuffle, of the needs put forward by larger places/towns &cities , when Govts decide on issues that affect both , ......they feel that way , over small regional issues , ...so what on earth will they feel like , trying to be heard, & have their own projects acted on , over every other town in Australia ?
How could we trust , the relatively small amount of people that there are in Federal Govt , to oversee the whole of Australia , ...when we cant even count on them to administer , what is due to to War Veterans, (a relatively small section of the population), in just one small portfolio....??????
BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR ....YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT !
Jenny Bell

by Jenny Bell on August 09, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Interesting connection Mr Dale, but I see them more as being tall poppies on different extremes of the class spectrum. There is a major difference between them - Kyle has (sorry, had) a wildly popular morning radio show, while Malcom is an incredibly unpopular opposition leader.
Kyle is essentially a celebrated bogan. For me his low level of education shines through every time I listen to him. We know his story of him being a kid living on the streets, and in his early Hot30 days, it meant he could more easily connect with his young audience. In the radio market that 2Day aims for, he essentially played the 20something guy who kept going to schoolies - hence older listeners who still wanted to listen to Top40 music didn't feel like threatened. He's merely this decades Doug Mulray - his job is the slightly creepy older guy. For me the key moment, that set the tone for the debate - was when he kept the questioning going after the rape revelation. It's a shining example of his poor journalism skills and low intellect.
Moving on to Malcom. Mr T embodies wealth and privilege, simply by the way he talks. He has a 'Prude & Trude' accent - a mix of rural Australian/ and faux-British. Being a (much poorer) resident in Sydney's eastern suburbs too - I'm aware of the ridicule we inflict on those who appear to live that stereotypical Eastern Suburbs lifestyle. You know, the people whose casual dress looks like they are going horse riding. Malcom had pretty low popularity from the start if I'm not mistaken. In the age of Obama - I do not see him ever becoming Prime Minister.

by Gareth on August 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Kyle was only doing his job, and the mother shouldn't be putting her 14 year old daughter on air to ask those type of questions, those questions belong at home in a private conversation bewtween the two of them. I think that it has gone to far and believe that Kyle and Jackie O radio show is fantastic. Hope to see you back on air soon..

by Carolynne on August 12, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I think comparing Kyle & Malcolm is a little far fetched. Despite the totally tasteless radio stunt, Kyle's show actually rates very well, whereas Malcolm's poll figures (especially post Utegate which turned out not to be Utegate ) aren't rating well at all. The second reason I think it is a poor comparison is that even if one does not agree with Malcolm (which on the whole I don't) one does have to give Mal some credit for being intelligent enough to ad lib or BS when cornered, Kyle on the other hand has never shown his quick thinking skills nor a high level of intelligence. The only thing really they have in common is not unpopularity but wealth and appearances in newspaper headlines. I also (even as a staunch Labor) voter, think that Malcolm would never steep so low as to ask the question that Kyle did of the 14 year old.

by kate on August 16, 2009 at 12:12 AM

My favourite show on TV (well UK TV) is Britains Got Talent..... forget about the Australian rip off.... The UK version is such an uplifting show.... I think the days of the judges with nasty comments is gone.... It is funny how judges seem to have a persona tho.... Simon Cowell on BGT is great he is very laid back...still honest but not so abruptly.... where as when he is on Idol he is nasty... but it seems to be excepted cause that is the character he has built after so many season.
For the record i cant stand Kyle and he deserves all that he gets... i was at his taping of Enough Rope last year and he is one of the most self centred people i have ever seen. U would think that someone as imperfect as he is (physically and mentally) would be a little more humble.

by JM on August 16, 2009 at 03:53 PM

The Sun-Herald

Who We Are

The Tribal Mind: Don't blame poor Kyle and Mal

COMMENTS

POST A COMMENT

Comments Terms & Conditions

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVES