Points 1) and 4) are facts. Points 2) and 3) are you just making shit up and not a reasonable assumption at all.
Yeah, this is my thought too. And suicide is an extreme; there are other awful potential consequences that should have been taken into account.
The nurse could have lost her job over this. Is making people laugh worth someone’s livelihood? Especially during a bad economy?
The hospital could have had its reputation completely tarnished over the actions of one person. Again, is a funny prank worth hurting a hospital’s image and all the professionals who work there?
What if very personal information about Middleton had been leaked? Is violating someone’s medical privacy worth a few laughs?
Suicide is just one of many bad outcomes that should have been accounted for before this prank was signed off on. A quick exit strategy should have been planned once the prank got past the receptionist, to mitigate these risks. It doesn’t even seem like the DJ’s and the producers thought much further than “Wouldn’t it be funny if we pretended to be the queen?” and that is why they deserve all the scorn they’re getting.
…Lyndon LaRouche? Is that you?? :dubious:
I think saying that there’s some kind of “need” is attributing it more weight than it deserves. Its just a prank, nobody needs to do it, its just done.
I would ask you and Cicero, what should be a reasonable expectation of a prank like that. Given that prank calls from radio stations are made all the time, I can remember one prank that got Fidel Castro on the phone, and one that pranked Sarah Palin to think she was talking with French President Sarkozy, and nothing really became of those, what should be a reasonable expectation? We’re only talking about this prank because it went horribly wrong, and I think the DJs should pay some penance for that. But its not like people go into these things expecting something terrible to go wrong. For me to accept **Der Trihs’**s explanation, I would have to think that the DJs went into it expecting whoever answered, whether a nurse or operator, to be fired. In fact, I think most of us think that we’d be hung up on and we’d get a bit of laugh and that will be that. That’s why I can’t get too worked up over it. Sorry but I just can’t participate in the outrage
I remember that, it was all over the news. The man, Jonathan Schmitz, actually killed the gay friend Scott Amedure after the friend confessed his love for Schmitz on the show. At the time, Schmitz seemed to have taken it well, I saw the interview on TV and he laughed and covered his face. I remember Amedure talking about fantaszing about licking whipped cream off his friend’s chest or something.
Well, there are numerous risk factors in suicide that would not necessarily be detected by her employer (or, if acted on, would lead to too many type 1 errors). Women tend to suffer more occupational stress for instance (though the degree to which profession contributes to suicidal ideation is arguable - here’s one study which found levels were elevated for and another). Unemployment may be a contributory factor, as would a loss of social status, which she may have seen as a consequence.
Edit: Oh, also, I think the initial intention of the DJs was to get rebuffed, but they ran with the opportunity to obtain further information more as an attempt to expose flawed organisational procedures (much like grey-hat hackers do - one of the many reasons I’d take that statement from “Anonymous” with a pillar of salt) than to deliberately wreck a career.
We also tend to overestimate our own abilities in general. Apart from security specialists (and even there, usually only those trained or employed specifically for these purposes) we tend not to question people’s motives. Again, this depends on circumstances: we’ve been drilled not to give passwords out or respond to dodgy emails, for instance. It seems that this hospital did not have adequate training for the staff in patient confidentiality protocols (or the staff adopted a heuristic: so far, no family members have complained about divulging information, so it’s ok). Perhaps they didn’t even have any protocols in place! There were other fairly salient points which may have warped her judgement that’ve been mentioned too, such as the media focus on this particular guest and the time.
Latest update is that 2dayfm have canceled their Christmas function, which was going to be tomorrow night, and are donating the $13,000 bar tab to charities that support people suffering depression. Also they are resuming running ads on air and are donating the profits on all advertising for the rest of the year to a funds set up to support the nurse’s family, and have committed to a minimum $500,000 donation (considering running without ads was supposed to be costing them $150,000 per day, either the donation will be much, much more our there’s some number fudging going on).
Seems rather canny, really.
If they’d just resumed ads, their sponsors would have been urged to boycott them. They’ve bought themselves a couple of weeks for the outrage to simmer down. Anyone urging their sponsors to boycott them until the end of the year is taking money out of the mouths of the nurse’s family. It’s much trickier to petition advertisers and propose they advertise until December 31, then cease all advertising. It’s also harder to look credible contacting the sponsors later and ask them to boycott 2dayfm over a three or four week old incident.
And elbows, we’ve established the news of the nurse’s death broke in the middle of the night, our time. That’s why the pre-programmed promos ran for a couple more hours. Please drop it unless you’ve got some proof they were still running once the station was actually notified of the death.
Why? 3) seems near-inevitable to me, and 2) almost as much.
What makes you think that they don’t go “horribly wrong” all the time? If this nurse had just gotten fired, what makes you think we’d see nearly this much coverage? Not that I think that the DJs would consider that “going wrong”; they’d just laugh harder.
No, it’s Colonel Mustard pretending to be Lyndon LaRouche.
I don’t understand why you think the DJs are comic book villains.
It’s the mustaches, and the way they keep twirling them all the damn time.
I think sadism is a pretty common trait. That’s why they have an audience.
In better times, a joint MI5/SAS squadron would have already been dispatched to have a little chat with these “DJs” and “producers”…
(I’m kidding- mostly) 
That’s the one.
Yeah, the one that gave the info does. The ‘humiliation’ would not have occurred had she not been stupid enough to think she was speaking to the Queen, and breached patient confidentiality. Curiously, I don’t know if she’s ever been named.
Might be useful to heed your own demands as far as ‘stop blaming’ is concerned; and I think that if there was a pre-existing condition, it’s VERY relevant.
'Twas the Brits that made it headline news. I’ve already stated my opinion on the rest, and unlike some others, are not compelled to keep bleating on about it.
Yeah - like the nurse who blabbed, eh?
I’m sure this has been done.
Indeed.
The Queen was pranked by a Canadian DJ a few years back and fell for it. I’m no royalist but I like to think she has the decency (and good sense, and desire not to be hypocritical) not to berate someone for falling for something she had, herself, fallen for. Further, the Queen is notoriously cleverly advised and has a very disciplined staff. One of the first things they would think of in this context is that their employer was successfully pranked by a DJ. They aren’t going to presume to berate on the family’s behalf and open the Queen up to a charge of hypocrisy.
Further, the hospital came out very strongly and said it had not disciplined the nurse. If they are lying, that’s a big call for them to have made to do so. Her workmates and others would know if she had been disciplined. The walls have ears in workplaces. People blab. The hospital either aren’t lying or, if they are, they are taking a huge risk of getting caught out real bad. My money’s on the former and anyone who automatically assumes they are lying is going out on a limb, IMHO.
People blab only if they have nothing to lose by blabbing. If, however, the hospital authorities have shushed them to silence, either with threats of losing their jobs or promises of monetary gain, then all bets are off.
My money’s on the latter.
You’re not getting my point. I don’t have an expectation of an outcome to a prank call. I don’t see any reason for them to be made. Some people may find them side slapping funny. Some people also enjoy bear baiting and/or incest (note - I am not comparing this to them). The whole concept is not one that I find amusing. It is more cringe worthy.
Wow, I was shocked to read that she had killed herself! I for one believe that the DJs expected to be rebuffed, and are truly horrified that they might have contributed to someone’s death, however tangentially. I don’t like radio pranks at all, but often they do seem to be “Hey, watch us be stupid and cause someone a little confusion before they hang up on us! Har, har!” rather than trying to get people in trouble. There is no way anyone would expect a hospital to disclose confidential information about a royal to some dingbat who just called on the phone.
It seems to me that the real villains of the piece are the institutions. The DJs keeping the act up when they got through can be chalked up to utter shock and not knowing what to do, but what asshole reviews that tape with a cool head and decides it should air? That’s where someone could reasonably have thought it was an invasion of privacy and it would endanger someone’s job.
At the same time, it seems like the hospital totally failed to train staff for the most basic protection of patient confidentiality, which they should be on top of for Joe Schmo, never mind celebrities notoriously hounded by the press. It’s possible one or two nurses (did the deceased even vouch for it being the queen, or did she just pass along the call cold, and the second one fell for the DJ’s spiel?) ignored the training, but it doesn’t seem probable.
Okay so if the palace didn’t complain and the hospital didn’t discipline how is the prank responsible for her suicide? In your scenario there was no impact to her job.
That’s how pranks are supposed to work. The people responsible are those who were willing to roll the dice with someone else’s job/future.
Of course they couldn’t know the nurse was fragile. So what? They were willing to risk it for a gag. They took the risk, they should suck it up and own some responsibility here, as they set these events in motion, no one else, - for laughs.
I think there would be a lot more coverage of things going horribly wrong if things in fact go horribly wrong.
Other than the Castro and Palin prank calls I mentioned, I remember another prank that was done using a phone and a radio. I think it was Opie and Anthony in New York, who had a couple call in while secretly having sex in a church’s confessional booth. I believe the DJs were fired and had their show canceled for that.
Of course I can’t prove a negative, and little or no coverage doesn’t mean there’s no pranking going on. I just feel that more people aren’t sadistic, just reckless, and you’re assuming sadism when the result is known, but a million things we all do everyday can lead an ill person to harm himself or others, so don’t make things out to be worse than they are unless you have proof of people’s thoughts or a history of behavior.
I guess I don’t get what you mean by you don’t see a need for this to happen. What’s the need of anything to happen? What’s the need of a radio show? Obviously a prank is what they wanted to do and they did. There’s no calculating need beforehand, it was just something that’s done. Or you can say that they need to make money for the station and one way of justifying their contracts is by doing things that get ratings, and pulling stunts like this is one method. So…I guess. You’re losing me with the claim of necessity.