Forum Topic

Terrible news about the nurse's suicide.

What an awful thing to happen and just ghastly for all concerned - especially her family.But there seems a lot of blame flying around and I am not sure that is reasonable. Would anyone factor in potential suicide when thinking about any practical joke? The Aussie presenters must be mortified: they didn't disguise voices or anything did they?Did the hospital management make a drama out of it? Doesn't sound so - but my bro-in-law, a retired consultant, says managers bully nurses - and if you weren't English, maybe even a mild rebuke would be seen as condemnation.Terribly sad for all - including the royals of course.

Sara Nathan ● 5030d17 Comments

The presenters were trying to sound like the Queen and Prince Charles. I wouldn't imagine you or I would have been taken in for a moment but the poor nurse obviously was. And as they then laughed about how bad their accents were and how surprised they were at being put through to the nurse who discussed the medical information, it must have made the original nurse feel even worse at having been duped. A desperate tragedy for her family and colleages.

Lorna Dodd ● 5030d

While I'm sure no malice was intended in this instance, that particular radio station have a history of doing similar stunts, with similarly awful outcomes - including one girl being goaded on air confessing she had been raped. There have been calls to shut it down and many of the advertisers have withdrawn their support

Jeremy Thorpe-Woods ● 5029d

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/07/2dayfm-australia-shock-jock-stationGuardian story about 2dayFM

Jeremy Thorpe-Woods ● 5029d

If the advertisers withdraw altogether then that's it...but probably it will re-0emerge with a new name.But the presenters are toast and I am not sure that is wholly fair.It could be seen as a failure of management both by the radio station AND the hospital - what were they thinking having no protocol and no phone operator on 24/7 while they host royals - which they do all the time?

Sara Nathan ● 5029d

In reply to your first post, Sara, I disagree with you.  The Editor/Producer/Presenters may not have factored in a suicide, but they should have factored in the potential for shame and the end to the person's career.  Also, the media have a huge responsibility of influence.  When people are listening/watching our programmes (I work in TV too as you know) we do not know the state of their minds.  I think possibly this poor nurse was already depressed but this tipped her over.  That is what needed to be factored in, the unknown state of someone's mind, the potential for shame, humiliation and demotion.  If I had been part of that team I would have been asking questions about "what harm might this do to that person if we broadcast this"?  I asked this question to my husband before the woman took her own life (if she did).The presenters never thought they'd get through, but they did and they recorded it so should have taken advise.  You and I know that it's easy to get caught up in our nuclear team and find it ever so funny to have pulled off such a trick but never think of the wider consequences.  It happens but it shouldn't.It's not fair to put the presenters out in the frontline either - you and I know that they are just figureheads and the Editor and Producer are responsible ultimately.  But even then, all members of that team should have voiced an opinion if in doubt.  I have done and you probably have done so too, when not Editor.

Angela White ● 5028d

Angela I agree with you 100%.

Milena Vincic ● 5028d

I am more than happy to hold the station - and the hospital management to account. But I wouldn't demonise the presenters who may have been a little thoughtless - though actually I don't even think there is evidence for that - they thought they would get a brush off and look a bit silly themselves and get a laugh.It's the currency of Aussie radio and I don't think such a result has been contemplated, let alone happened before. And the DJs were obviously expecting the station to do compliance pre tx - not unreasonably as they wouldn't do it themselves.Mark you somewhere between "we called the hospital five times" and "we never received a call" someone is telling porkies. And actually even if the station did call, they got no consent and are therefore at fault. It would have been refused.

Sara Nathan ● 5027d

I think the essence of the matter here is not who is to blame but an overhaul of ethics within the media.  Even if the nurse had not committed suicide, I find the prank questionable and any prank like it.  Where are the ethics in NOT thinking about the consequences for the switchboard staff, the nurses, etc?  How big does the consequence have to be in order to rethink tx (transmission for those not in the trade!)?  Suicide?  To me that's way too late.I think the media have a far more powerful position than some in charge are capable of recognising, handling or warrant.  It is a huge responsibility and should be taken far more calculatedly and more seriously.

Angela White ● 5027d

I don't think we can extrapolate from the behaviour of one rather scruffy Australian commercial radio station to the ethics of the media as a whole or in this country.It seems they weren't even compliant with their own code of practice - in not getting permission. Look what happened to Ross/Brand in our nearest parallel: one ex-career, and several producers and the BBC damaged - and it dealt with the business quite speedily. But can you lump the whole "media" together? Quite difficult once you deal with bloggers, newspapers, broadcasters, twitterers and the like. Converged maybe, but not identical.

Sara Nathan ● 5027d

I'd agree with Angela about the ethics of the affair: the whole point behind this kind of hoax call is to have fun at the expense of someone else - the person who is, hopefully, taken in by the impersonation and says something 'funny'. Their reaction is the climax of the stunt and if they are taken in the hoaxers are triumphant. This may be OK if the person the other end is robust - or possibly up to no good and therefore fair game.But to deceive someone who is just doing their job (and at 0530, when the best of us might be forgiven for being less than sharp,) without regard for the possible reaction of the target being humiliated, is just plain wrong. The repercussions in this case have been immense and tragic - but the possibility is always there. I've always hated 'reality' broadcasting that seeks to humiliate someone for 'fun' - now we can all see what can happen when the person concerned feels that humiliation intolerable. I’m glad to see the remorse of the broadcasters – but at least they are getting counselling. Why didn’t the hospital support the nurse more robustly after the event? And why was the piece given airtime without the broadcasting company’s protocols being followed? Much more to come.

Lorna Dodd ● 5027d

I'm not sure what happened with the support for the nurse at work.  I can only imagine it might have brought shame and humiliation upon her and a strong, severe reprimand, as one would expect.  Where was royal security in all this?  Surely they should have filtered out calls regarding the Duchess and handled themselves.I'm not lumping the media together, rather TV and radio in this case.  I do not see this as an isolated case and I think there is a growing trend to name, shame, humiliate and pull stunts without showing any integrity.  Indeed, this Australian company may not be the BBC or Channel 4, for instance, but that's no excuse and equally should not let big broadcast channels off the hook with "well, what do you expect, it's only a small outback company".  There is a trend towards this type of broadcast.  It must be questioned.

Angela White ● 5027d

I think the Hospital - which after all is used to having resident Royals - must look at its procedures. Fancy having no protocol when they have a resident royal AND not having a telephone operator. Just doesnt seem sensible. And I would expect them to be. Whereas my expectations are very moderate (Sorry Angela but it's the hospital has the duty of care here)of how the Aussie radio guys behave. Apart from anything else, we can't do much about it. I don't see them being extradited, do you?I think the trends in media behaviour are questioned - and rightly so - as never before. But I wouldn't want too much to be built on one extraordinarily unfortunate incident.

Sara Nathan ● 5027d

Agree about the hospital and the royal security - both are questionable.I am recently feeling very uneasy about the broadcast media and newspaper media in this country.  We had the Lord McAlpine fiasco.  The poor man may well have committed suicide too.  How serious does it have to be before we question ourselves in broadcast?  We don't have a crystal ball.  I am also feeling uneasy with your answers or thoughts, Sara.  I do not absolve the broadcasters in this by shoving blame on the security at the hospital.  Ignorance is not an excuse.

Angela White ● 5027d

Actually - though Lord Macalpine was a fiasco - in fact the effect was that it CLEARED his name of rumours that had circulated for decades.The same abuse victim made the same allegations to the C4News correspondent who did a piece for me on Bryn Estyn in 1996/7.We couldn't substantiate it and of course didn't broadcast - but it had dogged him, quite unfairly, for ages.I am not absolving broadcast management in this case. But nor am I willing to heap blame on the presenters for something that was not forseeable in its tragic consequences. As is usually the way, management failings - often systemic - get down-played while the guilt of individuals is exaggerated. I think it's what happens in story-telling.

Sara Nathan ● 5027d

I think it is difficult to generalise about the nature of all broadcasting, and I certainly don't feel qualified to comment, however it is possible to come to a conclusion about the specific agenda of this radio station. 2dayFM are notorious in Australia and have a history of this kind of broadcast, it is their agenda to 'shock and entertain'. There have been a number of incidents, the most notorious (until now) being when one of their 'shock jocks' was suspended after a particularly humiliating interview with a young teenage girl who was pushed so far that she broke down on air and admitted to have been raped. To say his response to that was insensitive is a massive understatement.The irony is that these two presenters were brought in to replace that presenter (who has returned to air in another slot). I agree it's wrong to accuse them, they seem distraught and it was after all a prank gone wrong, and they were following the agenda so clearly set out by the station. I feel the direction of the radio station does not stand scrutiny, and that the station's management should be brought to account. There were calls for 2dayFM to be shut down after the last incident, and I'm sure there will be more after this. Let's hope, for once, that the public will is served.

Jeremy Thorpe-Woods ● 5027d

Radio station to donate to nurse's family:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20673899

Kim Bobsin ● 5027d

I think the radio station is doing what it can to mitigate. But the real problem here is that these 'pranks' are considered  to be radio journalism. If enough people wrote to the station explaining they were no longer listening, and copied their letter to their biggest advertisers, the problem would simply go away. Unfortunately too many of us are willing to indulge our curiousity about the Royals and support the radio stations, photographers with long range lenses, gossip magazines and more. Time to break the habit I'd say.No customers, no product. Oh, and keep Keith Vaz out of it.

Maire Lowe ● 5027d