Talk:Young Talent Time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
 |
Young Talent Time is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Australia To-do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, which collaborates on television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. |
Dunks, I agree "hysteria" was a hopelessly POV term, but the fact is that that aspect of the show is one of it's most-remembered features. It's not something that would be done now, and the massive increase in concern about paedophilia that occurred through the 1980's is the reason. And people did wonder (wrongly) about Young: see [1]. This stuff should be mentioned on the Wikipedia, and placed in context as the unfounded rumours that they were. --Robert Merkel 03:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Robert - I really appreciate yr feedback, but must vehemently disagree with your position.
I really cannot accept that these suggestions of Johnny being a paedophile are "the best rememembered aspect of the show". I think it's viciously scurrilous, incredibly derogatory and I think it denigrates everything Johnny achieved with and for those kids to suggest that these filthy rumours are what people most often associate with YTT.
"People" didn't "wonder" - they merely repeat vicious rumours and tasteless jokes, based on malicious stories concocted by the tabloid press. No different from a Lindy Chamberlain joke or a 9-11 joke. I seriously doubt that the authors of that Wikipedia article would repeat 9-11 jokes in that context, do you?
I also TOTALLY disagree about the perceptions of Johnny's interaction with the kids. Yes, it was a different time, but I think it's a VERY long bow to draw to suggest that interactions between adult males and child performers doesn't happen on TV now simply because of the "hysteria" about paedophilia and the assumption that it will automatically be interpreted as an improper relationship.
Concern about paedophilia is genuine, it's based on real and extremely horrible facts. Sure, it can (a la the infamous Mr Bubbles case) be used wrongly to persecute innocent people -- but of course that was hardly the first time Australian police have "fitted up" a suspect.
But there has never been any serious suggestion that Johnny ever acted improperly with any of the children, or that anything whatsoever relating to his attitude, manner or behaviour towards the Team was anything other than totally appropriate and professional.
The assertion that "people" (which people, exactly?) *might* fantasise about there being 'weird' overtones to YTT is not appropriate nor is it either factually or logically supportable.
I have to submit that this kind of comment merely perpetrates the "vicious rumours" (cf my Milesago article) that Johnny has had to battle against for years. Repeating these rumours in the context of this article merely serves to continue the *baseless* denigration of Johnny's character that has gone on for years -- and as I mentioned previously, I also have concerns that it might well be defamatory.
Face it -- those kids were supervised at all times, they had tutors and chaperones, their parents were always around -- and as one of Johnny friends noted in the "Australian Story" special -- don't you think, in the kind of world we live in today, that if there had been ANY impropriety whatsover it would have come out and been splashed all over the media and dragged through the courts years ago?
I have to reiterate that I believe this kind of imputation has no place either in this article or anywhere else. Whether or not any individual might perceive Johnny's interaction with the children as being in any way suspect is a matter of pure speculation and as such lies entirely outside the scope of both Wikipedia in general and this article in particular.
To illustrate: I think there's a world of difference between this instance and something like the allegations of corruption concerning former NSW Premier Robert Askin. Those allegations have been made repeatedly, in public, on the record, by reputable public figures and they have has been openly discussed in print, in Parliament, in royal commissions. I believe it is widely accepted that Askin was corrupt and that there is substantial evidence to support this assertion -- even though it also has to be admitted that there is and will probably never be any definitive proof (apart from his wife's multi-million-dollar estate, of course).
Repeating scurrilous rumours in the context of a factual article is just not appropriate in my view. I think it's also important to think about the people involved. It's easy to make glib statements about someone you don't know. I don't know Johnny personally, but I know people who know him and I can tell you that this kind of rumour-mongering is incredibly painful and distressing for him.
I'm sorry if I seem over-anxious about this, but it's something I feel very strongly about. It adds nothing factual to the article and only serves to perpetuate a false, ugly rumour that should have been quashed years ago.
Dunks 11:02, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response.
- Having been born in 1976 and having lived through the massive change in awareness and sensitivity towards child sexual abuse through that period and into the 1990's, I still maintain that in today's context there is no way a TV network would permit an adult male to do the "All My Lovin" show-closer with a bunch of kids as Young did, because of the overtones it would have. For that matter, I believe that male primary school teachers are a lot more circumspect about their physical contact with students than when I left it. However, as you have correctly pointed out, that's really an potentially illustrative example for an argumentative essay on social mores, not an article on YTT.
- By the way, while YTT was pretty cruddy television in retrospect, I happen to think that "The Real Thing" is probably the best Australian pop recording of the 1960's (at least of the ones I've heard), and it's a real shame it never achieved worldwide distribution. --136.186.1.116 05:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Robert - have to agree that The Real Thing is a major classic. Actually, you'd have to hope it's the best -- it was reputed to have been the most expensive single ever recorded in Australia up to that time; the recording and mixing reportedly ended up costing over $10,000 -- which would equate to roughly $100k today! Pretty steep for one track -- that's Fleetwood Mac territory! Singles usually only cost a few hundred to record at that time, albums a few thousand at most.
Dunks 07:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
