What’s a sackable offence on radio?

What’s a sackable offence on RadioLive?

Gross misogyny by Willie Jackson and John Tamihere doesn’t seem to have been.

Will losing advertising revenue change that?

Willie Jackson and John Tamihere have been criticised over the way they interviewed an 18-year-old girl who said she was friends of one of the gang’s victims on Tuesday.

They were forced to apologise yesterday but that wasn’t enough for some, and today’s show saw a guest panelist storm out after a heated on air row.

Now it has emerged that a number of advertisers have withdrawn their support of the show and RadioLive while the pair remains on air.

ANZ, Yellow and Freeview have confirmed they are cancelling their ads on the show, and AA Insurance has indicated the same.

It came after blogger Giovanni Tiso contacted around 30 companies which advertised on the Willie and JT Show yesterday, asking them if they would reconsider their support of the programme. . .

The station also lost a guest:

Matthew Hooton walked out of the RadioLive interview today after becoming embroiled in an argument with one of the show’s hosts and being told to “shut your mouth”.

The writer was a guest on Jackson and Tamihere’s RadioLive show discussing the Roast Busters and the fall-out from the scandal, but it quickly descended into an argument when Mr Hooton confronted them about their attitude towards a young woman they interviewed on Tuesday.

The row culminated in Mr Hooton being told to “shut your mouth” or leave the studio. He walked out to shouts of “get out, get out of our studio”.

Listeners could hear fumbling as headphones and microphones were taken off before the station quickly cut to an ad break. . .

The attitude of the hosts in appearing to blame the victim in the interview is part of the problem and there are questions over whether some police have a similar attitude.

Police Minister Anne Tolley has taken the unprecedented step of referring the case to the Independent Police Complaints Authority:

Police Minister Anne Tolley says she has written to the Independent Police Conduct Authority, asking it to investigate the “Roast Busters” case in Auckland, particularly the questioning of a thirteen year-old girl in 2011.

“Parents of young girls need to have confidence that complaints to Police about sexual assault are investigated thoroughly and appropriately,” says Mrs Tolley.

“As Minister, I can’t delve into the details of a Police investigation – politicians cannot interfere in Police inquiries.

“But the IPCA does have the power to carry out an independent assessment of the details surrounding these events, and I believe this is the right course of action to ensure the public has confidence in the Police on this matter.

“This morning the Commissioner has again assured me that this inquiry has been thorough, and that there was a comprehensive investigation into the victim’s complaint.

“However, I have made it clear to the Commissioner that I am disappointed that the full facts have not been available to me or to him.

“I don’t expect to be told finer details of Police operations. Police must remain independent of politicians. But I do expect Police to be talking to each other.

“I would again urge any young women who have been affected to come forward and talk to Police as a first step in gathering evidence which can be used to bring people to justice.”

This referral is the right action when there are so many questions about the way the case has been handled.

Police at first said they hadn’t taken any action because there had been no formal complaints. But four girls complained to police.

. . . She was one of four girls who went to police over incidents involving Roast Busters. She went through the process of making her complaint with police formal via an evidential video interview.

The other girls were all aged between 13 and 15.

She has now said she will lay a second complaint with police because her alleged attackers were “sick boys that were twisted in the head”. . .

It takes a lot of courage to make a complaint of this nature, even more so if an earlier complaint wasn’t handled sensitively.

6 Responses to What’s a sackable offence on radio?

  1. Andrei says:

    Do you know what was said on that show?

    Or are you just accepting what you have been told and that is it was “unacceptable”?

    All of this is generating more heat than light


  2. homepaddock says:

    The interview is no longer on-line. The only quotes I can find now are here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/9368329/Roast-Busters-interview-furore

    “The 18-year-old woman, who called herself Amy, called the RadioLive show yesterday to talk to the pair about the Roast Busters, only to have the hosts describe the group’s online bragging about sexual encounters with drunk underage girls as “mischief”. . . .

    “The RadioLive hosts said that if “some” of the girls had consented, “that doesn’t make [the Roast Busters] rapists, does it?”

    It doesn’t matter if “some” consented. If even one didn’t that’s rape.


  3. Andrei says:

    See that is a paraphrase. at best, of what was actually said and it is given almost entirely devoid of context.

    Why can’t we hear the whole show, or at least the segment and judge for ourselves? Hmmmm

    And you want to hang somebody on that?

    Matthew Hooton yesterday totally lost the plot while discussing this, his ears were stopped and his mind was closed while his mouth was going a million miles per hour, an empty rave that illuminates nothing.

    Anyway the mob has been aroused, another Kristallnacht is called for and the blood of a few scapegoats will be, metaphorically at least, spilled.

    It is all so depressing, at times it feels like we are all swimming in a sewer.

    But then again when I checked my facebook feed this am a young man, a friend of no 1 daughter , had posted a picture of a woman’s hand adorned with engagement ring

    I asked her, she said YES! Happy days!!!

    So all is not lost in darkness – God grant them many years


  4. scrubone says:

    I sort of agree with Andrei.

    I’ve seen too many of these things where someone has been criticised because someone interpreted what they said as meaning x, when actually reading it yourself you consider that a more fair interpretation is y. But everyone believes that someone said x, because that’s the story that goes around and few people bother to check.


  5. homepaddock says:

    I agree that there is a danger in misinterpreting something someone said. I read more quotes from the conversation yesterday which backed up accusations they were suggesting excuses for rape but can’t find it now.


  6. Cadwallader says:

    I am not a fan of these hosts. I would say though that on hearing the excerpt they seemed more indifferent rather than insensitive. They did not purposefully disparage the caller rather they didn’t absorb the gravity of her comments.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: