Royal Prank Call Nurse 'Commits Suicide'
- Thread starter GameBoy27
- Start date
Really? Feel free to read something helpful.One wonders how many thousands of "cyber-bullying" (whatever THAT is) cases have ever been prosecuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying
Unless of course you have your Spelling Nazi hat on today, just for shits&giggles. Ot is it just for your personal entertainment.
From what I believe is the tone of your question, one heck of a lot more than you think. In my small corner of the world we've had at least five in the past two years.One wonders how many thousands of "cyber-bullying" (whatever THAT is) cases have ever been prosecuted.
Apparently the DJ's get it. The guy says he was gutted, by what happened. He's certainly not blaming the nurse.
It might have something to do with the 20,000+ negative texts, emails and tweets.Just heard it on the news the Autralian radio programm has been canceled.
Yes, also the network says that there will be no more "prank calls." Call me jaded, but I will believe it when this policy has held for several years. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ls-after-tragedy/story-fndo2j43-1226533965564 http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...show-suspends-prank-calls-20121210-2b5h9.htmlJust heard it on the news the Autralian radio programm has been canceled.
Also, if the DJs are being entirely truthful, it appears that the decision to air the 'phone call and post the call on the internet were made by broadcast executives at Southern Cross Austereo. However, that doesn't address the gloating tweets and comments on the station's webpage made in particular by Mr. Christian.
All if which relates to a relatively minor privacy violation and is unrelated to the suicide.Yes, also the network says that there will be no more "prank calls." Call me jaded, but I will believe it when this policy has held for several years. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/day-fm-bans-prank-calls-after-tragedy/story-fndo2j43-1226533965564 http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/2day-fm-cancels-show-suspends-prank-calls-20121210-2b5h9.html
Also, if the DJs are being entirely truthful, it appears that the decision to air the 'phone call and post the call on the internet were made by broadcast executives at Southern Cross Austereo. However, that doesn't address the gloating tweets and comments on the station's webpage made in particular by Mr. Christian.
Obviously those are your opinions, others disagree.All if which relates to a relatively minor privacy violation and is unrelated to the suicide.
The DJ's are really really sorry, sort of.
THE radio presenters at the centre of the royal prank call have claimed they were not ultimately responsible for a stunt that has caused outrage at a London hospital, provoked fury in Buckingham Palace and been linked to the death of a British nurse.
Mel Greig and Michael Christian, the presenters of 2DayFM's Hot 30 show, came out of hiding to issue tearful apologies on Monday night on two television programs. But they sought to distance themselves from responsibility for the prank call to the King Edward VII's Hospital on December 4 in which they pretended to be the Queen and Prince Charles and were put through to a nurse who spoke about the medical condition of the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge.
''You prank someone, you record it, then it goes to the other departments to work out what they want to do with it,'' Greig told Nine's A Current Affair. ''It's been done for years. It was routine for us. It wasn't anything different.''
Asked by host Tracy Grimshaw what guidelines were in place to determine what was acceptable in a prank call, a visibly upset Greig said: ''It's not up to us to make that decision. We just record it and then it goes to the other departments to work out. I don't know what they then do with it. We just do what we do, which is make those calls.''
Her co-host added ''there's a process in place'' for what goes to air, and the royal prank ''was put through every filter that everything is put through''.
''We just made the phone call and that was it. We don't get to make those decisions, we don't get to make those calls, that's done by other people. Our role is just to record and get the audio and wait to be told whether it's OK or not OK.''
An internal review had found ''company protocols were adhered to'' in airing the segment. They included ''internal legal review'' and ''authorisation''.Their account tallies with a statement issued by the station's owner, Southern Cross Austereo, on Monday.
The chief executive of the company, Rhys Holleran, told 3AW's Neil Mitchell on Monday that five attempts had been made to contact the hospital before the segment was broadcast.
''We don't claim to be perfect and we always strive to do better,'' Mr Holleran said. ''We have initiated a detailed and rigorous review of our policies and procedures to inform any improvements we can make.
''We are also providing support to our people who are deeply saddened by this tragic and unforseen event.''
The call was lauded as a coup by the hosts and other media outlets last week. Sydney's Daily Telegraph hailed the pair the day after the call as having ''bagged the best international scoop so far in the unfolding soap opera that is the Kate Middleton pregnancy''.
But following the discovery of the body of Jacintha Saldanha, who is believed to have taken her own life, - her brother claimed she had ''died of shame'' - things turned sour for the presenters and the station they represent.
Facing an expected advertiser backlash, all advertising was suspended from 2DayFM on Friday. The blackout has been extended to Wednesday and was described as being ''until further notice''.
The Hot 30 show has also been taken off air and the future of its presenters is uncertain.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...arful-hosts-20121210-2b5pu.html#ixzz2EfruK3QX
THE radio presenters at the centre of the royal prank call have claimed they were not ultimately responsible for a stunt that has caused outrage at a London hospital, provoked fury in Buckingham Palace and been linked to the death of a British nurse.
Mel Greig and Michael Christian, the presenters of 2DayFM's Hot 30 show, came out of hiding to issue tearful apologies on Monday night on two television programs. But they sought to distance themselves from responsibility for the prank call to the King Edward VII's Hospital on December 4 in which they pretended to be the Queen and Prince Charles and were put through to a nurse who spoke about the medical condition of the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge.
''You prank someone, you record it, then it goes to the other departments to work out what they want to do with it,'' Greig told Nine's A Current Affair. ''It's been done for years. It was routine for us. It wasn't anything different.''
Asked by host Tracy Grimshaw what guidelines were in place to determine what was acceptable in a prank call, a visibly upset Greig said: ''It's not up to us to make that decision. We just record it and then it goes to the other departments to work out. I don't know what they then do with it. We just do what we do, which is make those calls.''
''We just made the phone call and that was it. We don't get to make those decisions, we don't get to make those calls, that's done by other people. Our role is just to record and get the audio and wait to be told whether it's OK or not OK.''
An internal review had found ''company protocols were adhered to'' in airing the segment. They included ''internal legal review'' and ''authorisation''.Their account tallies with a statement issued by the station's owner, Southern Cross Austereo, on Monday.
The chief executive of the company, Rhys Holleran, told 3AW's Neil Mitchell on Monday that five attempts had been made to contact the hospital before the segment was broadcast.
''We don't claim to be perfect and we always strive to do better,'' Mr Holleran said. ''We have initiated a detailed and rigorous review of our policies and procedures to inform any improvements we can make.
''We are also providing support to our people who are deeply saddened by this tragic and unforseen event.''
The call was lauded as a coup by the hosts and other media outlets last week. Sydney's Daily Telegraph hailed the pair the day after the call as having ''bagged the best international scoop so far in the unfolding soap opera that is the Kate Middleton pregnancy''.
But following the discovery of the body of Jacintha Saldanha, who is believed to have taken her own life, - her brother claimed she had ''died of shame'' - things turned sour for the presenters and the station they represent.
Facing an expected advertiser backlash, all advertising was suspended from 2DayFM on Friday. The blackout has been extended to Wednesday and was described as being ''until further notice''.
The Hot 30 show has also been taken off air and the future of its presenters is uncertain.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...arful-hosts-20121210-2b5pu.html#ixzz2EfruK3QX
It is preposterous to suggest they have any responsibility for the suicide, either morally or legally. To believe they did you would have to have the ludicrous belief that someone would commit suicide because of a prank call, rather than because of a mental illness.Obviously those are your opinions, others disagree.
On the other hand they did engage in privacy violation quite openly.
Right there is a major part of the problem when you start dehumanizing someone because of their station in life. What part of very ill, pregnant, at risk of loosing the child do those who write such things either not grasp or if they do grasp it why do they feel it is acceptable to ignore?Sydney's Daily Telegraph hailed the pair the day after the call as having ''bagged the best international scoop so far in the unfolding soap opera that is the Kate Middleton pregnancy''.
True. But as a society we seem to accept that the very famous have fewer expectations of privacy than others do.Right there is a major part of the problem when you start dehumanizing someone because of their station in life. What part of very ill, pregnant, at risk of loosing the child do those who write such things either not grasp or if they do grasp it why do they feel it is acceptable to ignore?
Yeah all tearful apologies now this particular "prank" backfired so spectacularly.
http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/video.aspx?cp-documentid=cbcc2012-1012-0739-0047-231422223300
Me thinks the tears are for themselves.
http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/video.aspx?cp-documentid=cbcc2012-1012-0739-0047-231422223300
Me thinks the tears are for themselves.
Overdramatizing again, Aardie? The royals make your brain go mushy.Right there is a major part of the problem when you start dehumanizing someone because of their station in life. What part of very ill, pregnant, at risk of loosing the child do those who write such things either not grasp or if they do grasp it why do they feel it is acceptable to ignore?
The plain fact is that nobody bothered the pregnant girl. The pranksters was able to talk to a nurse, who said that the girl had been given fluids and was resting. Hardly more information than was given in the royal press release. Although I agree that the prank was in bad taste, that is in itself no crime. What damages are you claiming for the royals??
A prank call could be a factor in a suicide.It is preposterous to suggest they have any responsibility for the suicide, either morally or legally. To believe they did you would have to have the ludicrous belief that someone would commit suicide because of a prank call, rather than because of a mental illness.
On the other hand they did engage in privacy violation quite openly.
Your logical flaw here is that an event can only have one cause. She could have been mentally ill and also could have been negatively impacted by the prank call.
Events can have multiple causes.
WE don't have much information about this lady at all, but it is entirely possible that this really radical statement could be the case "The suicide was caused by mental illness. pressures at home, her early childhood and the prank call."
Life is not as simple as you might like it to be.
So your argument is that it is okay for pranksters to obtain and publish private information about people via fraud.Overdramatizing again, Aardie? The royals make your brain go mushy.
The plain fact is that nobody bothered the pregnant girl. The pranksters was able to talk to a nurse, who said that the girl had been given fluids and was resting. Hardly more information than was given in the royal press release. Although I agree that the prank was in bad taste, that is in itself no crime. What damages are you claiming for the royals??
Great morals Dan. What does your daughter at UFT think? Care to publish some of her medical information as a joke?
Please inform your fellow legal experts Aardie and Blakie.A prank call could be a factor in a suicide.
Your logical flaw here is that an event can only have one cause. She could have been mentally ill and also could have been negatively impacted by the prank call.
Events can have multiple causes.
WE don't have much information about this lady at all, but it is entirely possible that this really radical statement could be the case "The suicide was caused by mental illness. pressures at home, her early childhood and the prank call."
Life is not as simple as you might like it to be.
No, if you had read the post you would have learned that my argument is, that the pranksters hardly obtained anything that was not in the royal press release. The call is on Youtube, if you care to know what information was givwn out.So your argument is that it is okay for pranksters to obtain and publish private information about people via fraud.
Great morals Dan. What does your daughter at UFT think? Care to publish some of her medical information as a joke?
Those are your words.Please inform your fellow legal experts Aardie and Blakie.
