Duchess hoax: Australian radio station 'sought permission'

[alp227]

Source: BBC

The Australian radio station at the centre of the UK royal hospital hoax death says it tried to contact the nurses involved to seek permission to broadcast the taped conversation.

Sydney station 2DayFM said at least five attempts were made.

King Edward VII's Hospital said it had no comment to make on the claim.

Nurse Jacintha Saldanha was found dead three days after putting through a call that gathered details of the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge's condition.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20661961

---

Sounds like more CYA BS to me.

[freshwest]

1. Agreed.

[pepperbear]

7. +1 "Well, gee, Mom, I TRIED to get permission to borrow the car....."

[DeSwiss]

2. K&R

[ashling]

15. Great comment!

[yardwork]

3. Did they obtain permission?

No. Therefore it doesn't matter how many times they "attempted" to obtain permission. They didn't have permission.

Sheesh. A two year old gets that.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Acknowledging they knew the DJs needed permission certainly doesn't help their case.

[DRoseDARs]

6. Phone records from the station and hospital, showing the times and lengths of each call, would help.

Or hurt, depending on whose claim they're being compared against.

[LisaL]

8. Oh come on. You seriously think hospital would give them permission?

[DRoseDARs]

12. Oh come on yourself. Did you read anything I typed there? I'm not taking a position as I don't care.

It would be easy for either side to produce phone records backing up any claim of either having made or not having received phone calls from the involved opposite party.

[LisaL]

32. What difference does it make whether they called or not?

Considering they need to obtain permission to broadcast, instead of just making attempts.

[aquart]

34. You're wrong. Utterly.

[yardwork]

29. The station's legal counsel would appear to be incompetent

or the station is lying when they claim that their attorneys reviewed these statements and the decision to broadcast the show.

Maybe the station tried five times to reach their attorneys and when they failed, went ahead and aired the show anyway.

[freshwest]

9. Heck, I think a dog gets that, too. Who's kidding who here? Another corporate CYA.

[jsr]

5. Yeah sure.

[Tunkamerica]

10. so when this happened:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/scott-walker-buffalo-beast-phone-prank_n_827058.html

how many here were against it? i wasn't.

nobody seemed to have a problem until the tragedy of this woman's suicide. And from what i can tell they barely talked to her, they talked to the other nurse for much longer. It's also not certain that this had anything to do with her death. it's easy to be against the dj's because a woman took her life. But, they are in a very large crowd of others who have made humorous prank phonecalls for decades.

The call was not mean-spirited and they don't seem like bad people, just typical radio dj's. When I first heard the story, before her death, all I thought was: terrible impressions, and i bet someone at the hospital feels dumb. I truly don't think they caused her suicide and this idea that they should be vilified amazes and confuses me.

[enlightenment]

11. There's a very large gap between

"I wasn't" and "nobody". There are plenty of people who don't appreciate that kind of thing, despite your conviction that everyone thinks it is oh, so hysterical.

Because you see nothing wrong with pranks of this nature doesn't mean they are appropriate. It doesn't mean they are harmless.

The clueless tw*ts that thought this was funny are not responsible for her death - and very few people are saying that they are. What they are saying is that actions have consequences and in this case the consequences are especially lasting and tragic.

People who pull pranks like this do not think. They do not consider the possible ramifications of their actions beyond the immediate "humor".

Would it have been funny if someone lost their job because they were taken in by this? Or were even simply disciplined for being naive? Why? In what way is that amusing?

[Tunkamerica]

13. first...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x487981
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4758509

first two i found through search.

i didn't say nobody, i asked: how many?

appropriate? for who? for drive time radio dj's who had been doing this for years? please define your term, because "appropriateness" is in the eye of the beholder.

why censor twits? or were you saying something else?

should all humor be limited by "possible ramifications"? i don't think so. sad world if that were true.

no, that wouldn't be funny. but if that were the case i'd refer you to your own words: actions have consequences. people mess up all the time, they don't all commit suicide and i, for one, don't think the dj's deserve to be blamed for her death.

My original point was, and strill is, merely that i saw no one getting upset by that instance of misleading someone over the phone. This, truly tragic, suicide made everyone change their mind suddenly? It's cognitive dissonance at best.

Should we cancel all comedy because someone might do something terrible? According to what I've read over the last few days... yes.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Comedy is a thing which can not be self declared. That is, no laughs, it ain't comedy.

I wonder if you always take the 'it was a joke' explaination at face value? When Coulter says something horridly racist, then says 'I'm an entertainer' is that also a free pass? Are there any metrics at all? Would you say that Rush was just being a good comic when he called a 12 year old girl the family dog? Is it acceptable because others have been insulting children for years, or because he is on radio?
Part of why these hacks are not comics is that they lack a sense of context. Most listeners are not amused by the idea of pranking a hospital, because we and our loved ones all go to hospital and we want serious treament, not interference from hack radio chatter merchants who don't know how to get a laugh. Like a funeral, your gag better be downright hilarious to a huge majority of people if you are going to mess with a hospital.
Actual comics own what they say and do. Do yourself a favor and Google this term: Comedian Apologizes. The list is staggering. So long is the list that it makes any argument that a declaration of comic intent serves as absolution seem obviously ungrounded in reality.
When the entire world is booing you, you have not told a funny joke. No amount of pleading will make people see it as funny.

[Tunkamerica]

45. no one was booing until this happened.

it was presented as funny until the death. those that came in afterwards saw it as unfunny from the start but the whole western world's media were presenting it as funny until she ended her life. suddenly everyone thought it was terrible from the start.

when i first heard the audio, the day of, i didn't think it was all that funny, but i didn't think it was mean-spirited in any way. The djs' show has been cancelled; they're pariahs and will probably never work in their industry again. Her suicide wasn't their fault but they will be blamed for a long time. Pile on.

[enlightenment]

40. I'm going to stop with the first point.

That "nobody" comment that you say you didn't make.

From your post:

nobody seemed to have a problem until the tragedy of this woman's suicide.

As long as we're defining terms, why don't you define "nobody" for me - because it apparently means something different to you than it does to the rest of the planet.

[Tunkamerica]

46. sorry, didn't read my remark again. you're right.

but from the links i went back and looked at nobody had a problem.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. DJs do this because it gets ratings

i.e., they are doing it for money.

Walker is a public official, the nurses were not. Walker was not conned into divulging legally protected information, at least one of the nurses was.

Now, if the Daily Beast reporter violated any wiretape laws, that is his fault, and he should be prosecuted for it.

When you undertake to "prank" someone, YOU are the person responsible for the outcome.

As they say, "It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt."

Someone got hurt.

[yardwork]

30. The issue of patient confidentiality plays a large role here.

The station may have thought that this was just another prank call, but the nurses who were tricked into violating patient confidentiality would not see it that way. For them, this mistake could cost them their professional reputations, making it difficult to ever obtain another job in the health care field. It's that serious.

The Hospital claims that they were being supportive of the nurses, but my guess is that they were called on the carpet at the very least. They had to fear that they would lose their jobs. The story was splashed across the internet and wasn't going away. Even if they kept their jobs, they would be known forever afterward as the nurses who told a radio show about the future queen's medical status. Their names, their voices were all over the internet. You can't just laugh that sort of thing off.

The fact that the disc jockeys didn't realize this doesn't let the station off the hook. They claim that their legal counsel reviewed the pre-recorded show and approved it for airing. I don't believe the station.

[Beaverhausen]

31. a call to Scott Walker in his office is different than a call to a nurse in a hospital

surely you see the difference, right?

[aquart]

36. Yes. I expect that happens a lot.

That you don't get the difference between this idle trash and the Walker call also likely happens a lot.

[magical thyme]

41. I rank "prank" calls to hospitals in the same category as "prank" calls to 911

Medical staff are not hanging around hospitals for your entertainment. They are there taking care of the very ill and injured. Mistakes on their part can have dire consequences, up to and including killing patients. Distractions, quite frankly, are not welcome.

Not to mention that healthcare privacy violations are grounds for discipline up to and including termination.

Personally, I have no problem with prank calls to jobs where lives and careers are not literally hanging in the balance. I do have a problem with prank calls to hospitals, 911, police stations, fire stations because your fun and games could potentially cause a distraction that leads to bad consequences for me.

[Ash_F]

42. Excellent response

A hospital is a completely inappropriate environment for pranks. If what they did wasn't illegal before, which I doubt, it should be now.

[marshall]

49. At the very least they put this woman's job in jeopardy

She was not only humiliated on an international level, she was also facing consequences of being duped by the DJs posing as family members. The radio was cruel in its disregard for this woman's personal and professional well being. Broadcasting it as they did gave the impression that she agreed to its transmission.

[C4cats]

14. well that makes it all ok then...!

I know, instead of taking responsibility for irresponsible, lazy journalism (deejaying) let's blame the victims. They tried to get permission, well I bet that's making the family and friends of the nurse a whole lot better!

[hrmjustin]

21. Welcome to DU and I hope you enjoy the site.

[SemperEadem]

16. would it have been just as funny

if this was some ordinary citizen who was the target of the hoax?

That it was the Duchess of Cambridge who was the target of this kind of disrespect doesn't in any way make it funny.

I'm sorry that this woman is dead, but the fact of the matter is had these two idiots not concocted a plan to make a joke out of the Duchess' condition, this woman might still be alive. Trying to get permission after the fact is a little like wrecking the car and then begging the owner for permission to drive it.

This is what lying will get you... now they have to face the consequences of their actions and they should never be allowed any room from this for the rest of their lives.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

18. Five attempts? What kind of hospital doesn't answer its damn phones?

I'm still siding with the DJs on this one.

Society can't stop having fun because of those emotionally incapable of processing a little prank.

Society needs to stop sending the message that you can ruin another person's life by ending your own.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Wow, you have no feelings whatsoever, do you?

Talk about blaming the victim - you are blaming the nurse. You say she was "emotionally incapable of processing a little prank." You imply that she wanted to ruin someone else's life, because you claim society sends that message - so you are saying she heard that message, and decided to act on it.

And the article does not say the hospital didn't answer the phones; it says the station couldn't get in contact with the nurses again. The hospital may have, correctly, refused to connect the radio station to them (you shouldn't be able to phone up a hospital and say "I need to speak to the nurse who was on duty some time ago" unless there is a medical reason to do so). They may have ended their shifts by that time.

[Kelvin Mace]

24. Also, Sparky here

seems to believe that "society" has some sort of right to "fun".

Gosh, I'd live to see the legal justification for that one.

I can certainly understand that they usual reaction to a prank is not suicide, BUT, it is a possibility and the person pulling the prank is to blame none the less.

Also, to me, there is a difference between a prank between siblings/room mates/friends, and a prank perpetuated by a commercial enterprise for profit.

[graegoyle]

20. This isn't "fun", this is harassment.

Some might find it funny, but how would those "people" feel if someone came to their workplace and had some fun where their own livlihood was put at risk.

Mind you, I do not put the woman's suicide on the DJs, I just hate this particular antic.

[Kelvin Mace]

25. When a person sets out to play a "prank"

they assume all risk/liability for the outcome. After all, whatever follows would not have occurred had they not pulled the prank.

So, if you decide to leap out of the bushes dressed as a zombie and the person is so frightened that they step off the sidewalk into traffic and die, you are the the proximate cause of the death.

If your prank involves public humiliation, then you must understand that not everyone responds to such humiliation predictably, thus extreme reactions are possible.

Finally, these DJs were doing what they do for MONEY. They are paid to do this kind of shit, and their bosses are well aware of what goes on. Once we make sport of people for money, all bets are off, and the prankster is responsible for all consequences of the prank.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. This "little prank" seems to have contravened a few laws

Britain has wire tape laws that forbid recording conversations without a person's consent. Also, they have privacy laws like HIPPA which make it a serious crime to access people's confidential medical records under false pretenses.

"Society" needs to get a freakin' life that doesn't involve "fun" at other people's expense.

[aquart]

39. Oh, good. Extradite the little creeps and make them do time in Britain.

[TheMadMonk]

44. Wire tap infringement could depend on the hospital switch.

If like so many others these days, there is a "warning" that the call may be recorded for security or training purposes, then that amounts to implicit permission for all parties to make their own recording.

As for who is responsibile for revealing confidential info, that would be the 2nd nurse who volunteered detailed information in response to a very generic question.

[Kelvin Mace]

48. I agree, we will have to see

how this was done before applicable laws might be applied.

The 2nd nurse would be in trouble under US HIPPA law, but the person soliciting the information under false pretenses would also be in trouble.

[LanternWaste]

26. That's one way to rationalize the maintenance of mean-spirited behavior...

"Society can't stop having fun because of those emotionally incapable of processing a little prank. .."

That's one way to rationalize the maintenance and continuance of mean-spirited behavior... it's not much else, but it is a whopper of a rationalization.

[yellowcanine]

35. Ah - unauthorized release of medical information is not "a little prank."

It is a crime in most places, Australia included, I am guessing.

[aquart]

37. THEY DID NOT GET PERMISSION FROM THE NURSE THEY ABUSED.

THE HOSPITAL WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO SPEAK TO THEM OR GIVE THEM PERMISSION. NOR WAS THE NURSE.

That lack of permission is open door to a lawsuit and I hope it bankrupts them.

Which, no doubt, you will find uproarious.

[Ash_F]

43. 'This person killed themselves to get back at the DJ's!'

Democraticunderground 2012

[struggle4progress]

22. "Do we have your permission to broadcast this?"

"No"

"OK. We're gonna try this again. Do we have your permission to broadcast this?"

"No"

"OK. We're gonna try this again. Do we have your permission to broadcast this?"

"No"

"OK. We're gonna try this again ..."

[Scout]

28. what kind of simple minded idiots think this kind of stuff is funny anyway?

can't stand those kind of radio stations that program for 13 year olds.

[yellowcanine]

33. Well hooey then they should not have broadcast it. That is not an excuse, it is a confession.

[aquart]

38. Yup. I hope the lawyers are lining up on both continents.

[randomtagger]

47. Feel bad for the DJs

That nurse was mentally fragile and/or unstable. I feel for the DJs because no reasonable individual could expect the prank victim to commit suicide. They made no attempt to humiliate or degrade her. The "bullying" moral panic is reaching a ridiculous fervor.