1. I take your point Laurel, and agree that there is a fair bit of hypocrisy abounding here. It’s a bit of a mob mentality with everyone jumping on the bandwagon.

    However, if that bandwagon gets rid of me even having to hear about that jerk, I’m unashamedly on the bandwagon!

  2. Good points Laurel, Brands need to match their media channels with their values, not just with the ability to reach an audience. But it’s also ok for brands to say “Enough. You’ve gone too far this time.”

    Sandilands has gone to the ‘edge’ in the past – and seemingly learnt from it and (I think) even apologized. Up till now, Brands can (I think) be forgiven for believing that his ability to bring an audience is worth backing. I don’t think that is hypocritical. It’s just the brand managers planning their advertising mix.

    BUT The fact that he is both a slow-learner and a total misogynistic dick is now obvious for all to see. Brand managers that choose to back him with their advertising dollars from now on are making it very clear that they support him and his values.

    Sadly, Kyle has managed to get people thinking and writing and talking about Kyle. More people will probably tune in to his TV show for the controversy of it all. Is that hypocritical? Maybe.

    Everybody deserves second chances, but not for the same mistakes. Let’s see which brands align with him.

    Which ones could be suitable? Who is the leading manufacturer of vomit bags? Or how about Cockroach baits? Or Ratsak. Aah, there’s a leading brand that could win backing VileKyle…


    1. Well put Richard. Saved me some time writing it myself. Still, exposure through media is reflected by traffic numbers. Is that the wrong basis for selecting your advertising vehicle?

      Potentially (and in this case) yes.

      In reality, however, most high traffic sites are so homogenous, it’s difficult to pick out the bad ones before it is too late.

      “…he is both a slow-learner and a total misogynistic dick…”

      Just wanted to put that out there again in case anyone missed it. 😀

  3. This just goes to show the influence of the vocal minority has over big brand now. The reaction by big brands should have been a bit better thought out, rather than just a blanket pull which affects legitimate content production. I would go into a long nasty rant about hypocrisy but I don’t want to get into trouble…Oh what is that I smell?

  4. Spot on! He says he’s going to punch Dave Hughes in the throat and there’s no similar outrage. He says something to a news ltd journalist and it all kicks off. Deveny should keep her head down given her history. He should have been fired a long time ago but the people who are acting surprised now are massive hypocrites, they’ve been endorsing him for years. News Ltd were running his columns last week!

  5. I am a cynic – in a dwindling “eyeballs = numbers” world, the advertisers will be back, as will Kyle. Those who stir up controversy & have a voice > mild and reasonable, in obtaining attention. In this world, they get rewarded. Tomorrow will be a high ratings day for Kyle S., no?

  6. Just the fact we are talking about both of them proves that we are all hypocrites. We build this word and then we tear it down. If we don’t like it… don’t talk about it! The fact we even care what these people say, is showing them emotion. Lets talk about “Real” issues.

  7. You are full of shit, twitter is completely different than public radio, if Catherine had put the stuff you didn’t like in The Age then you would have probably had a point.

    Anyway came to your rant because you mentioned Catherine Deveny, unfortunately you are wrong and the read was a waste of time.

    Time to go home….

  8. I disagree with the hypocrite tag – the advertisers put their ads on the show because of the reach it has, and because they expect it to deliver certain standards of behaviour. Whilst he’s a shock-jock, most of the time Kyle stays within a set of boundaries (not ones i agree with, which is why i don’t listen to him, but they’re there nevertheless). He’s now overstepped the boundaries (again!) and the brands have reacted, as they have every right to do. The fact that they’ve reacted to unacceptable behaviour and to Kyle overstepping the boundaries doesn’t mean they are hypocrites for being there in the first place. You can be sure the contracts were pulled due to breach in contract – there was no reasonable expectation that “that’s what you get if you sponsor the show”.

    It’s like saying that to someone who buys a pit bull and has it for 10 years without any incident. Suddenly it snaps at a kid, and they get rid of it – would they be a hypocrite because surely they should have known that breed of dog is dangerous ? Or would they simply be reacting to the change in behaviour ?

    1. These comments would be fair enough as long as the pitbull didnt “snap” every six months – but K.S has been feral more times than I can count. These advertisers will be taking the moral high ground AGAIN in another six months when he jokes about rape or asks another under age girl about sex or makes disparaging comments about a contestants weight or a myriad of other things.
      And when he does, the same advertisers who came back in droves will leave en masse with the community cheering them for making a stand. Theres probably a better word than hypocritical…?
      Eyeballs at any price? Maybe. Certain standards of behaviour/boundaries? Absolutely not.
      Ah well, life goes on.

  9. NAILED IT! You are SO right. Catherine Deveny taking the high road in this was a bit rich and the sponsors — they were enabling that arrogant, self-important cretin. Well written, well cited, well DONE!

  10. Yes, what Kyle said WAS worse. Catherine Deveny’s comments were in poor taste.
    But what Kyle said was coming from a place of aggression and hatred.

  11. I don’t put the two in the same category. Kyle is a sad, petulant idiot. Catherine does push boundaries; occasionally I squirm at some of the things she tweets but overall I think her humour is imbued with a very thick layer of irony that I don’t think Kyle would even be capable of.

  12. Nia and Drew, others could see it as a radio journalist taking offence & slugging it out with a newspaper journalist vs a well known celebrity picking on an 11 yr old girl for laughs. Everyone has their own value system, everyone is “right”.

    I just think people should “own” their value systems & be accountable for them. If Kyle offends you time after time, stop listening and for Gods sake dont advertise on his show. If you find him funny, provocative and/or just the sort of politically incorrect ass that Australia needs, stand by him.

    Chopping and changing value systems based on public outcrys is hypocritical, no?

    1. I quite enjoyed your piece and agree with most of it. I suppose where I differ is with the Deveny situation. She made some pretty darn stupid comments on twitter and got fired for them, whereas Kyle has not. I admit I can be a hypocrite and have read much of Deveny’s work – some is very good, some is not, I suppose Kyle does some good work? I can’t give you any examples as I don’t listen or watch any of his shows. And of course, you don’t have to listen to him and that’s why he’s employed and the sponsors of the show know what he is capable of saying on air etc etc. But I still want him off the air (and have for many, many years) as he continually makes such sexist, bigoted and threatening remarks that not only offend but suggest to his audience that it’s okay and normal to threaten with violence people who you disagree with. Just as I want Alan Jones off the air for continually inciting hatred and fear.

      Thought provoking piece though!

      1. Thanks for your reply Laurel. Your suggestion to ‘just stop listening to him if you don’t like him’ message to listening punters does not apply to me as I don’t listen to him in the first place. However, his contribution to society occurs through the reporting of it through the media. Are you suggesting that I should not read the media, and just tune out to what is taking place completely? I am not interested in doing this, however much that might ‘send a message’ to the source somehow. I am actually interested in the issues raised, as these issues are very important.

        The ‘free market media economy’ argument that you seem to be taking seems very conservative, and un-interested in social change. Sure, the sponsors may be ‘hypocrites’ as you call them as they are only motivated by $, but this seems a really moot point in a debate that is actually quite important. 23,000 people are upset by what Sandilands has done. You appear not to be affected at all, and more interested in what Catherine Deveny is up to – which seems really weird to me.

  13. i agree with this line, i do not agree with all the sponsors pulling their brands from sandilands show and just parking them in other shows, that sends no message except they agree with him but they just want to seem like they don’t.
    If you don’t agree with his comments or his values pull sponsorship from the radio show that supports HIM.

  14. Finally someone gets it! No I’m not Kyle I’m just not allowed to comment. But this is great!

  15. I was an advertiser. My brand is mentioned above.
    We’re not hypocrites, but we are human and as time passes sometimes we forget the past.

    This is the first time we have been involved with one of Kyles “incidents”, and it will certainly be the last.

    This isn’t an unfortunate, flippant, nervous remark about rape; this wasn’t a sick “joke” about a concentration camp – this was a threat and that takes Kyle beyond the point of redemption. We won’t be “forgetting” ever again.

  16. @Greg

    Some advertisers have pulled out of the programme; others have pulled out of the network.

    We have pulled out of the network until Austereo tells us what they are going to do about Kyle. We have a few campaigns coming up in the next 6months which had or were likely to have Austereo placement – this will not be going ahead.

    To be honest, we can’t avoid Austereo forever (even if Kyle remains) – but we will certainly be taking a WIDE BERTH from anything he or his cohort are associated with (ie: we may go back to Austereo some day in the distant future, but that pig will never threaten or disrespect anybody on my dime again)

    – anonymous advertiser

  17. Hi Laurel,

    What you have misunderstood about this debate is that Sandilands behavior is inappropriate, unprofessional and undermines the business interests of his sponsors – as evidenced by the fact that his shock-jockery does not cause constant scandal, but has by his periodic hapless professional miscalculations. Your blog entry tries to avoid this point by arguing that some of the people criticizing Sandilands, or withdrawing sponsorship, are themselves guilty of similar things or changing their values. This does not reflect on the validity of the criticism of Sandilands. This is called an argument ad hominem.

    It is similar to criticizing you, Laurel, regarding this blog article, as Number #4 Woman Blogger in Australia, you are taking up common cause (with Sandilands) against other female Australian bloggers (Deveny and Stephenson) – implying that you have self interest at heart. See? it doesn’t direct any criticism at your argument, but rather at you.

    Beyond this you are making an argument for fence-sitting to try to avoid hypocrisy. This is an ideological rather than a rational standpoint in favor of the status-quo. To make this all sound a little too high-minded – “all it takes for evil to flourish is for good [people] to do nothing”. These are the values supported in this article, I don’t know if this reflects what you personally believe but i suspect it doesn’t.


  18. Everyone is focussed on ethical debates about whether Kyle is wrong or not.

    I see THREE issues 1. Kyle is rewarded for asshat behaviour by his station salary. 2. Australians who show their value systems by tuning in, in droves and 3. Advertisers who are “Yay Kyle” for gaining large numbers of ethically challenged Aussies audiences

    Go ahead and focus on #VileKyle if you want. But if you dont challenge the ethics of his listeners or his advertisers you will have him replaced by another asshat – & rewarding advertisers for backing out temporarily and hypocritically, only to see them supporting another asshat with an audience next week is short sighted.

    But by all means, continue to focus on the tip of the iceberg & ignore what layeth beneath 🙂 Just remember you wont change the Kyle’s of this world, they’ll just come thru a revolving door with different names.

    The advertising dude above is right – Austereo may be the only game in town, and advertisers have to continue to reward asshats in order to connect with audiences, whether they want to or not. Shitty world isnt it?

  19. Maybe we won’t change the Sandilands of this world but these wars are won by battles. Get rid of Sandilands and his replacements as they come through the door and by this process the ethically challenged Aussies may be educated and through them the advertisers… You might call it focusing on the tip of the iceberg but I call it fighting on the frontline. We can’t give up in the face of these asshats and resign ourselves to a shitty world. I refuse.

    Why are you and everyone else calling him Kyle? He is not, I hope, anyone’s mate here!

  20. I also strongly disagree. Catherine’s comments were in poor taste. Kyle’s comments were hate speech. He threatened to hunt a female journalist down. He called her a fat slag. He commented on the size of her breasts in a derogatory manner. As a woman, a fat woman and a journalist I take personal offense. It’s not hypocrisy for Catherine to also take offense, it’s smart. She got sacked for a lot less, so why is he still allowed to poison women’s body images on television and radio?

  21. I feel that the reason that makes this time different is that previously people boycotted the show, but this had no effect on Kyle. Now that the sponsors and advertisers are being targetted with a boycott, along with a growing realisation that their brands are being damaged by being associated with Kyle, they are pulling out.

    And after all, you could have a million+ listeners, but if you’ve got no advertisers then you have no income so it doesn’t matter how many listeners you gain… you won’t make money, so your show is fairly useless.

  22. I could never stand Deveny’s brand of humor. I thought it was only me. Obviously not! 🙂


  23. Pingback: Martin H Isaac

Comments are closed.