A Mad Fucking Witches update

In a previous article which looked at the tactics and impact of Mad Fucking Witches (MFW), I included their sustained advertiser pressure against Kyle Sandilands due to their concerns that his content normalised misogyny and other harms. Since then, on the 31 July 2026, Kyle announced he was stepping down from his judging role on Network Seven’s Australian Idol. He linked the decision directly to MFW’s ongoing campaign and according to The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, Kyle said that MFW had targeted potential and previous advertisers of the show, creating problems for Seven’s sales team. “I’ve told Channel Seven this morning… that I’m standing down from Idol for the good of the brand to continue,” he said.

MFW itself publicly claimed the outcome as a significant win. In a post on their Facebook page the same day, the group wrote: “And the wins just keep on a-keep on a-coming, witches. This time, it’s HUUUUUUUGE.” They noted they had run a campaign against Kyle’s Idol appearance starting earlier in 2026, concurrent with the radio campaign. “This was the last big conquest we wanted to make on this issue, and it’s just brilliant, Kyle has now ‘resigned’ or been sacked from that broadcast as well as from his radio show. Witches could not be happier.” The post continued: “If someone’s unfit to appear in the mainstream media, they’re unfit. There are no ifs, buts, maybes or exceptions. That’s why we expanded our campaign to Idol this year… because we don’t want Kyle’s verbal violence and misogyny anywhere near free-to-air commercial media channels.”

This language is consistent with earlier statements by MFW’s founder Jennie Hill. In April 2026 interviews with Women’s Agenda and others, while the Idol campaign was underway, Hill said that even though Kyle’s behaviour on the television show “isn’t as bad… as it was on radio,” he had “demonstrated that he’s not a fit person to be broadcasting anywhere in Australia.” The group wanted Seven not to renew him for 2027 and indicated they would restart pressure if necessary.

There’s a content distinction here that’s important to highlight. Australian Idol is a mainstream, family-oriented talent competition. Kyle’s television persona on the show is a lot milder and more restrained than his radio persona, it’s the “cuddly” version of Kyle and MFW’s own statements acknowledge the difference in behaviour while still insisting he remains unfit for any mainstream platform. It’s obvious that MFW’s stated goal was never limited to removing content they found objectionable as once the radio show ended, the campaign continued against a different format that lacked the original content that caused the concern. The group’s own words, “unfit to appear in the mainstream media,” “no ifs, buts, maybes or exceptions,” “not a fit person to be broadcasting anywhere” all point to a broader objective: the removal of Kyle from free-to-air commercial television and radio altogether.

This is a position that MFW has articulated before and the Idol decision simply makes the more obvious. The group treated the television role as continuous with the radio one, regardless of the different audience expectations and content standards of a family talent show. MFW’s method remains the same: identify advertisers, contact them, frame continued association as a brand-safety risk, and sustained pressure until commercial discomfort becomes too much. Kyle himself cited sales-team problems caused by the campaign as the reason for his exit. Networks and brands, operating in a highly competitive advertising market, respond to perceived risk. That dynamic has now extended from a controversial breakfast radio show to a long-running mainstream television show. The implication is that the standard applied by MFW is not confined to specific on-air material that can be adjusted or moderated. It becomes an attack on the individual and their continued presence on mainstream commercial media. The original content functions more as the entry point rather than the limiting principle. A family show with a different tone and audience is still treated as an unacceptable platform for the same individual.

This raises questions about consistency and scope. If the objection is to content or behaviour, successful removal of that content from radio should reasonably end the matter. Continuing the campaign against a milder television role confirms that the target is exclusion from mainstream visibility. This is an expansion of activist power into determining who may appear on commercial free-to-air platforms, using economic pressure rather than regulatory findings and excluding the right of the audience to choose what they listen to or watch.

Kyle is moving to a subscription platform with the first show launching Monday 10th August where MFW tactics will have zero effect due to the lack of advertising. What remains unknown is how MFW will react if Kyle allows sponsorship of his show or gives away prizes sourced via contra and opens the door to MFW.

So, MFW’s underlying goal then is exclusion of individuals from mainstream commercial radio and television who have different views than those of the high priestess of MFW, Jennie Hill and her coven and that is significant influence for a relatively small online activist group. Whether one regards the outcome as accountability or overreach depends on how one weighs the group’s definitions of harm against the value of different views and personality diversity.

The intention is now clear from the group’s own words and actions. The removal of content they deem as unacceptable is just the beginning not the end, they want the removal of the individual as well because they have a different viewpoint. Alan Jones, Kyle Sandilands and Karl Stephanovic are the high-profile examples so far and if the MFW influence continues then where does it end?