Kyle Sandilands, I am laughing at you

Kyle Sandilands, I am laughing my arse off at you.

I am laughing at you because instead of doing the smart, media savvy thing of using your radio show to say “hey, our next tv show is going to be waaaay better”, the only thing your pathetic little brain could do was act like a petulant little child and go “waaaaah, someone reported that the audience abandoned my show and so I’m going to say rude words”.

I am laughing at you because we all know the insults you use towards women – fat, ugly, slag, troll – reveal to everyone how you think about yourself.

I am laughing at you because only someone with the sexual immaturity of a 12-year-old would use the word “titties”.

I am laughing at you because you think that acting like an arsehole makes you “controversial”. It doesn’t. It just makes you look like you’re trying really hard to be controversial and there are few things more pathetic than that.

I am laughing at you because you think that giving journos photos of yourself posing with attractive women half your age who obviously have no interest in you, makes you look cool. It doesn’t. It makes you look like you don’t have any friends who want to hang out with you.

I am laughing at you because every time I see your heavily-photoshopped face on the side of a bus stop, I point and laugh, and the strangers around me laugh at you too.

I am laughing at you because those pictures always get defaced. By other people who are laughing at you.

I am laughing at you because you’re a coward who bullies women, and every time you do it, the rest of us think that you were probably bullied in school. You were probably atomic wedgied on a daily basis. It would explain a lot. (Update: This point was to say he’s a coward and a bully and to create a mental image of Sandilands being wedgied. However, as readers have pointed out, I have sided with the bullies and laughed as they hurt someone. I have offended people and I am sorry for that. Please accept my apology.)

I am laughing at you because we all know that if you weren’t a “celebrity” then you’d never get to see a vagina.

I am laughing at you because you think that driving around talking to prostitutes makes you look cool and like you’re doing edgy tv. It doesn’t. It’s been done before – by people with talent – and so it just makes you look sad and unoriginal. Dude, it’s 2011, get with the program.

I am laughing at you because you look so uneasy in your own skin, like you expect us all to suddenly say “naah, we’re just fucking with you. We made you a celebrity as a joke and this whole time we’ve all been laughing our arses off at you because you actually believed we liked you, ha, ha, what a loser”.

I am laughing at you because you think that threatening to hunt a woman down makes you sound powerful, but it doesn’t. It makes you look like a coward who hits women.

But what I am not laughing about is that, yet again, Jackie O, who giggles as Sandilands spits his misogynist nonsense, will get off scot free. Honey, you’re just as bad as he is.

Update: Thanks to @katedoak for sending me this: “Sandilands and his co-host just laughed off a caller who answered a strange competition by suggesting a “tranny” be drugged, killed and buried”. The pair of them are fucking disgusting.

77 responses to “Kyle Sandilands, I am laughing at you

  1. Hell yes.

    Whoever thought giving Vile Kyle and Jackie O a TV show was a good idea really needs to go back and rethink that idea. I saw about 5 minutes of the show while I was channel surfing and it was HORRENDOUS. All they were talking about was who Janice Dickinson has slept with. WHO CARES?

    There is a petition you can sign to get him removed…

  2. Poor Kyle doesn’t handle criticism well, does he? Mind you, if he’s planning on hunting down everyone that suggests he’s a talentless bully who has milked his notoriety for far too long, at least he’s going to have full-time work lined up when media executives finally realise that he’s toxic and punt his ass to the bitumen. What does he class himself as? A journalist doesn’t seem to fit, and he doesn’t deserve the title of celebrity. Is there such a thing as a journalebrity?

  3. Really really good, NWN. 🙂

  4. Reading about Jackie O explaining earnestly that he isn’t ‘anti-woman’ was nauseating. She should seriously ask herself if she wants her daughter spoken about like that one day, and realise that contributing to a culture in which that sort of thing is ‘laughed off’ is only going to make that more likely.

    • Oh, I am so sick of her “but he’s a really nice guy” act every time he says something disgusting. Seriously love, if he’s that nice he wouldn’t be saying this stuff in the first place.

  5. I really hate that his tirade keeps getting reported as a “fat attack”, as though calling someone fat is the absolute worst thing you could ever say to someone… presumably with the underlying assumption that BEING fat is the worst thing that could happen to anyone? Kyle Sandilands didn’t just call Alison Stephenson fat. He called her a piece of shit, he made comments about her appearance, he demeaned her job, he made derogatory remarks about her breasts and then he threatened to hunt her down. That’s not a “fat attack”; that’s another example of woman-hating and threats of violence. And in his non-apology this morning he pretended he couldn’t even remember her name (despite clearly naming her and her job the day before) and kept referring to her as “this woman” in an arrogantly dismissive manner. Totally calculated.

    And Jackie O? After Kyle has finished looking up ‘misogyny’ in his little dictionary, perhaps you could look up ‘enabler’.

    • Yes, I was tweeting about that yesterday. Two days before White Ribbon Day and Fairfax and News Ltd both reckon the worst thing he said was calling her fat. And White Ribbon Day is something that both organisations give coverage to.

      • As does 2Day FM, according to one of their tweets this afternoon – “White Ribbon Day tomorrow, show your support.”

      • Right on!
        My bit of activism for this debacle has been to send emails to each company that pulls advertising dollars, commending them for their actions, and letting them know that I will give my business to companies who make strong stands against violence against women. I know it’s all about his bullshit hurting their brand, so maybe if enough people say ‘by refusing to support a misogynistic jackass you have positively influenced how I feel about your brand’ they might stick to their guns. Slim chance, but hey.

    • weird… that last reply should have gone to the original post, not your, sorry!

  6. “I am laughing at you because you’re a coward who bullies women, and every time you do it, the rest of us think that you were probably bullied in school. You were probably atomic wedgied on a daily basis. It would explain a lot.” More likely he was a bully then and still a bully now, I’ve got little time for bullies and no matter what they say I don’t believe they change much as they get older. I was bullied and lots of other people I know and none of them chose later in life to become bullies to make up for it.

    I love your blog, but it sits very uneasy with me, the implication that bully victims will turn out to be bullies in later life.

    • To be honest, I’m not comfortable with that bit either. I really just wanted to suggest that he’d been given lots of atomic wedgies, but it didn’t really work.

      Cdesign, welcome to the News with Nipples.

    • Not all bullying/abuse survivors will become abusers themselves, but many abusers WERE abused in childhood. It’s kind of a work backwards thing, not forwards, if that makes sense.

      • No, it doesn’t make sense, bullied is a form of abuse and 60-80% of kids are bullied at school and I dont think that 60-80% of the global population eventually will became assholes and as much as I liked this article, I cant stand that part since it seems to me you present a typical bystander behavior you know taking side with the bully and finding this kind of abuse funny (atomic wedgied) which it completly contradict the propouse of this article, to tell Kyle Sandilands that abuse people is not ok.

        • Alex, that wasn’t my intention at all. My intention was to create a mental image of Sandilands being wedgied, and also to point at that he’s not as tough as he thinks he is. I apologise for this point and will update the post to indicate my poor choice of words.

        • Sorry, I didn’t phrase my comment well. I didn’t mean that most people who are abused/bullied will become abusers themselves – I can’t find the figures right now but I think it’s something like less than 10% of victims become abusers. But many more perpetrators of abuse were previously abused – for example, it’s estimated that approximately 40% of abusive parents were once victims of abuse. So what I meant by work backwards, not forwards, is that you can look at someone who’s being/been abused and say, “There’s a pretty good chance they won’t become an abuser themselves” (looking forwards), but when you’re looking at an abuser/bully, there’s a higher chance that they were once bullied or abused in childhood (looking backwards).

  7. Thank you for the welcome, though I’ve been reading your posts for ages now on google reader, always interesting. Can’t remember where I heard about you, but glad I did. Just finished an extended Thanksgiving dinner so I’m in a great mood and thought I’d break my silence with a comment. Emily, you are absolutely right, the phrasing just didn’t sit easy with me. 😀

  8. It’s been a pattern of behaviour from him. Frequently against women. He has done this before. A Google search will show you that. And it’s not fair to his victims.

    A journalist can be told their story is crap. Fine. They can be told “you’re talentless” or “you’re biased” but they shouldn’t be told about their titties, or called a slag. The gender is extremely relevant.

    If he said “you’re a shit journalist, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you can’t write” or even I dare say if he simply called her a piece of shit I doubt there would have been a backlash. That’s rude, but what he did was different. Ali’s gender was integral in his attack as it so often is.

    And it’s not ok. I’ve heard people say to just ignore him, he feeds on this, this is what he wants etc. But his words send a very powerful message.

    500,000 people heard him refer to a woman as a “slag”, demeaning her “tittes” and listened to his female co-host laughing about it. Is that ok? Can I call women I disagree with that?

    But even worse they then hear him threaten to “hunt her down”. Some people say “just ignore him, don’t make a big deal”. But is that ok? Is it ok to threaten people if you’ve got a lot of money? Is it ok to threaten people if you almost definitely won’t actually go through with it? Is that fair to the people he treats like that?

    I think no. It’s NEVER ok to threaten someone. Serious or not. It’s NEVER ok to call a woman things like that. And when it happens it’s not ok to just ignore it. People have to speak up.

    • All very good points, Simon Black. However, News Ltd and Fairfax both reported it for several days as simply a “fat attack”, as though the worst thing he did was call Ali fat. News organisations shape the way we view the world, yet they skipped over the threat of violence towards her, that Sandilands said he’d “hunt her down”. If they are serious about making sure that people know that violence – and threats of violence – towards women is not ok, then surely they need to look at their reporting of these issues? I know this is something that you and I have talked about before.

      • While I completely agree with this point, for fairness’ sake, both organisations began coverage with focus on the “hunt her down” remark, then changed later in the day, I guess to move it along a bit. I’m not condoning this, though. Just pointing it out.

        • And when I say ‘remark’, I of course mean ‘threat’. Remarks are what people make at presidential dinners.

        • But what’s the news value in moving a story on to focus on the least serious thing he said? (HD, I do love a robust argument about journalism with you.)

          • Hmmmm. I never saw it reported like that. First day we didn’t report it at all. We only reported the ratings. Second day (first time reported) the headline was something like “Holden Fire: Sponsor silent after Kyle’s attack on etc ‘fat s***g … I will hunt you down”. Just in the order he said it. When it moved on it moved on to sponsors dropping him. I never saw fat attacks being given the priority. White Ribbon commented specifically on the threat of violence.

            • Um, what? Both Fairfax and News called it a “fat attack” or his “fat slag comment” and put the focus on the fat, rather than the threat of violence. The story I linked to in the post has “fat” in the headline (smh). This story focuses on the “vile pig” and doesn’t even mention the threat to hunt her down (except in the transcript at the very bottom, so clearly wasn’t considered as important as the fat comment). This puts the “fat slag” comment first. Colgan’s piece at is all about how he called her fat. You want to reconsider your comment, Simon?

              • No I don’t. One of the pieces is by the daily Tele. I didn’t see that one. The other two you’ve linked to if you look at the URL (which is created automatically when yu create the story) you’ll see the original title was almost exactly what I said it was. Why someone changed it is beyond me.

                Breaking news version is giving the threats in order that he said them as far as I can tell.

                • Giving the threats in order? No other reporting is done like this. All reporting puts what the journalist thinks is the most important part first and you know it. You also know that it’s rare for a reader to still be with you by your third sentence. The URL is meaningless when the vast majority of the audience will read the story without looking at the URL. I’ll make the point again that I made to HD – why would you move a story on to focus on the less serious bit, simply for the sake of moving it on?

                  • Bluntly – so people come back and read it again. There were few updates until sponsors began pulling out.
                    Like I said, not necessarily condoning, but just pointing out that both news organisations did at least START with “hunt you down” being the focus.

                    • My issue with it is that each update, the worst thing Kyle did was apparently calling Ali a fat slag. You can’t rely on your audience reading each update. So someone who missed the very first story – and many people did because only journos and news fans check websites regularly throughout the day, and the majority of people don’t fit into those two categories – only gets the stories in which the threat of violence is a minor point and the worst thing Kyle did was call her fat.

              • Wouldyou like to reconsider your comment that for “several days” it was reported simply as a fat attack? URL shows that from the very first coverage the threat was in there. It’s one of the bullet points as well.

                I’m not saying someone it should have been taken out of the header, that surprises me. I wouldn’t have done it. But saying it was ignored for several days is a bit sensationalist.

                • Hardly. Ok, so if the threat was reported on day one, but then a few hours later and for all the following day, the “fat slag” comment leads all stories, that’s somehow not focussing on the fat comment?

                  • I don’t know. I said I didn’t see that. I didn’t read every single single story. I agree the violence was the worst part. I disagreed with your comment that it had been ignored for days. I didn’t see that. I saw it covered prominently. Why it came out after, and when for that matter, I’ll look into.

                    Fat slag stopped leading stories pretty early. It was all “sponsors jump ship” as soon as Holden ditched.

                    • Simon, you’re missing my point: in each writing of the story, the mention of the threat of violence becomes harder to find. The first readers find out about what Kyle did, they learn that he called her a fat slag. You’re looking at the story as someone who works in the industry, rather than how it looks to the audience. A story needs to stand on more than a URL.

                      (Also, I find it troubling that you and HD are defending your employer without declaring your interest…)

                    • I explained the significance of the URL in a comment you appear not to have approved? I’m not explaining it again.

                    • Riiight. So you believe that your audience – an audience of people who have not worked in the industry and have not used your employer’s CMS to understand how URLs are generated – needs to not only read the story but to look at the URL to know that the story they are reading is an update of the original, and also to know how the story was originally reported? Seriously?

  9. Roy Hadley wants to hunt Tim Flannery down too. What is it with paid mouths, is it the pay or the mouthing that gets to them? Great piece, shared it on g+.

    • Thanks sean dwyer. I’m generally off the internet on Thursday and Fridays so I missed the Hadley thing, but a friend told me about it over yum cha this morning. Hadley is so pathetic. But the thing is, bullies like Alan Jones and Hadley and Sandilands will continue to get away with stuff like this because their bosses either don’t care, or love the publicity, or both. After all, you don’t hire one of these guys for intelligent, nuanced arguments.

  10. Get to the real issue here.. the phrase ‘i’ll hunt you down’.
    So many are focussing on the abuse but ignoring this threat; a threat clearly made with malice and designed to intimidate and instill fear. This threat is an additional and serious level of assault directed at the female journalist and contains the type of language and menace that forms the basis of restraining orders.

    • This is very true. I was going to write a post about that, and about how News Ltd and Fairfax reported it as a “fat attack”, but I thought I’d rather just get people laughing AT him instead. Raphaellanightfire, welcome to the News with Nipples.

  11. Thank you for pointing out the Jackie O thing. The transcript doesn’t reflect her complicity in the situation but she completely supported it through her titters, half-hearted ‘protests’ and laughs.

  12. Yeah, I’m tired of being told to ignore misogyny that is fucking everywhere, and being told to just ignore Sandilands and people like him. It’s a shut-down strategy and it obscures the ways in which his words help to maintain a bigger system of misogyny that has real implications for real women in their every day lives. It’s not like it’s just coming from a few exceptionally bad individuals and could easily be avoided – it contributes to an entire culture.

  13. Hhhmmm, according to this rather nauseating article,. we just don’t like him because he appeals to honest working folk, and eats Big Macs, and we apparently are sneering elitists who eat shaved quail. Honestly, it’s impossible to parody this sort of rubbish>

    What this article says to me, as well as a big swipe at so-called ‘elites’ (FFS, I am a single parent on the pension right at the moment, and yet I am squarely in the ‘middle-class-elite’ demographic, when it comes to political opinions and tastes – which shows how absurd these ludicrous categories are), is that the writer is actually implying that the poor ‘bogans’ can’t control themselves and we shouldn’t mock them for it. Um….

    The article also hints that it is more worthy to honestly call someone a shit than spend 1000 words (carefully-crafted of course, because careful craft implies not just craftiness but ELITISM!) saying the same thing. It implies that he called her a shit and we are calling him ‘fat’ and implying that he eats cheeseburgers. WELL. Excuse me for disagreeing but I could not care less about his weight or size, her weight or size, or their respective diets, OR that of the critics of Sandilands and O.

    I happen to think that misogynistic hate speech and threats to ‘hunt someone down’ if they don’t shut their mouths is dangerous sexist abuse and shouldn’t be tolerated. Oh well, back to my ‘Ivory Tower’ to eat shaved quail for breakfast, better let the honest folks of the ‘Real World’ have their vitriol.

    • I meant to say, implies that he ‘merely’ called her a shit, and glided over all the bizarre nastiness about her physical appearance and so on.

    • I love articles about ‘middle class elitism’ and ‘the cultural mafia’ – isn’t it just as bloody elitist to shit on the middle class because they’re not working class? “They think they’re better than us and that just proves that we’re better than them!” Pot, meet kettle.

      In addition to your excellent points, how fucking insulting to imply that the working class are too stupid/poor/uneducated/unenlightened to care about misogyny and violence. Why – because they’re too busy doing an honest day’s work as little Aussie Battlers so they can buy cheeseburgers? Spare me the class stereotypes – misogyny, violence and threats of violence are ALWAYS wrong and I don’t care who the hell you are or what you eat.

    • I stopped reading when he said it was noble to call someone a fat s word (Slut? Slag? Shit?). Seriously, what the fuck?

  14. It’s disingenuous to bring class into it at all. The misogyny, the violence, it spans all social divisions.

  15. I’m quite conflicted about how to react to the latest atrocity to come out of Kyle Sandiland’s mouth. I am beyond appalled by his comments towards the female journalist but at the same time I wonder if half the reason behind him saying those things on-air is because he’s desperate to drum up any kind of media/social buzz to boost his flaccid ratings. He’s a shallow little twerp who is prepared stoop that low if it gets people talking about him and possibly paying more attention to him … and so I am loathe to acknowledge him cause it feels like I am falling into his furry knuckle-dragging paws.

    • The problem with not paying attention to him is that he won’t go away if we ignore him. I don’t listen to their show so I have no idea how truly awful they are, but sometimes it gets in the news and I think “fucking hell, how can they get away with this”. So if we don’t challenge what he says, then who will?

  16. And the sad thing about this latest vile outburst is that the media will get tired of it and their show will continue (possibly with new sponsors) until the next bile heavy tirade when everyone will (briefly) be outraged again.. The chances of this impacting on Kyle’s “celebrity” is low indeed.

    All that said, I agree with your article 100% and really wish this vile immature child and his passive apologist would finally get the obscurity they deserve. I’m just not betting on it.

  17. How do people feel about what Wendy Harmer said in Crikey? As an expat I nearly cried when she said it’s not worth ‘playing the gender card’… My heart when out to all the Australian women who it seems are too frightened of having their voices dismissed by naming Sandilands for what he is – a misogynist. Her comment that young men would dismiss women’s claims that Sandilands is a misogynist because these women are old enough to be these younger men’s mothers was heart breaking to hear. She doesn’t seem to understand that just because he might be a misanthrope doesn’t mean his comments aren’t sexist and that he isn’t a misogynist. I cannot believe she offered as an example of his misanthropy a terrifying incidence of homophobia!!! Doesn’t she understand that homophobia is rooted in misogyny? Sister I have to tell you that this extreme public misogyny would not be tolerated in many other cultures. I feel the popularity of men like Sandilands and Sam Newman (and many more) who take up a lot more space on prime time TV and radio etc than is afforded any woman in Australia, should be seen as symptomatic of the backward step Australia has taken regarding respect and equality over last decade or so. It’s perhaps time to take to the streets again, as those brave Italian woman have done recently? I soooooooooooo glad to not have to face the barrage of bigotry anymore – depressing stuff.

    • Sadly, Wendy Harmer has prior form, believing that simply because she likes them, these men can’t be bad.

      Merryn, welcome to the News with Nipples.

      • She did recant on her previous support of Kyle, though.
        @wendy_harmer “I was once on record as saying Kyle wasn’t that bad. I take it back. He’s off the rails and Austereo are to blame for feeding his ego.” 23 Nov via web

        • You can read the article here. Harmer writes “There are myriad issues at stake here and playing the gender card on Kyle isn’t adequate. He has, as he says, insulted everyone.” True. But just because he’s a homophobe (amongst other things), doesn’t mean he’s not also a misogynist. If he was insulting Jewish people, we wouldn’t say “oh, he hates other groups too so he can’t be anti-Semitic”.

          Also, it’s not “playing the gender card” to point out that the way he speaks about women is disgusting.

          But, she’s right when she says “characterising this as a male versus female fight doesn’t do this issue justice”. There is no reason why all his revoltingness can’t be listed together. That, of course, is up to the journos, who still think the worst thing Sandilands did was call Stephenson a “fat slag”, and his threat to “hunt her down” is pushed further down in each story. I noticed that the two articles about him in the Sun Herald yesterday didn’t even mention the threat at all.

  18. The approach directly to advertisers is often the best when dealing with idiotic radio hosts. Mike Stark, an activist in the U.S. has had extensive success with this technique regarding right-wing nutbads in the United States.

    Has Sandilands had an interview with police? Having read the transcript, I would say that his comments come extremely close the threat to cause injury under the meaning of the Crimes Act.

    Remember, this is a guy that literally called his production company ‘King Kyle’. He is an extremely insecure, petty man. To be blunt, he reminds me of David Brent in the original UK version of the Office.

    • I’m concerned that the threat of violence seems to have been ignored simply because he called the journo fat. Mind you, Alan Jones suggested that the PM should be murdered and nothing happened.

  19. This works for me:

  20. Yah, the poor kids were hurt by the nasty Frenzal Rhomb man. Ironically, the dude actually did get a good hearing. Couldn’t imagine Jones, Hadley et al letting someone tear them a new one on their own show …

  21. Agree Jay did get to state his case.
    Here is another, Ernie is a laconic master, his last line is classic.

  22. Chilling the way he defaults to the “Blame the evil wimminz” position the second he is challenged on something. “I never thought a dingo took that baby in the first place” – not that he’d be old enough to remember, but that response is directly buying into the woman-hatred that fuelled the public campaign against Lindy Chamberlain during Australia’s immediate backlash era.

  23. Pingback: The problem with Mia Freedman’s ‘leggings are not pants’ column | the news with nipples

Go on, you know you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s