205 replies to this topic

[Order66]

My perspective on this changed after I saw the Current Affair interview. They m ade the point that radio shows do these things all the time. I still think it was a mean prank, but if you are going to impune these two radio hosts, then are you going to impune every other morning radio show around thew orld that aired the prank? I think it's stupid programming but it is what it is, there's no reason to single out these two. I also believe them when they say they had no say over whether it airs, they just record the bit and thne pass it on to people behind the scenes. They're probably don't concern themselves over what;s acceptable to be played on the air, it's not their job. It was obvious they felt bad about it. I don't see what legal action will accomplish.

[RamblingRebel]

acidhead, on 11 December 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

It's already been acknowledged that the two radio DJ's are publicly charged with impersonating another individual in order to obtain confidential information.  Perhaps this case will set a president for future obstructions.  What shouldn't be under review right now is freedom of expression rights.  Let the law run it's course and protect liberty at all costs.

So where does that leave the lawyers who said it was OK to air this?

[glorybebe]

From what I read, they are also in trouble for not getting permission for the 'prank' to be aired.  Now:

Quote

The Australian radio station which made a prank call to a UK hospital that apparently resulted in the death of a nurse said Tuesday that it would donate at least 500,000 Australian dollars (US$524,000) to a fund for the nurse's family.

http://edition.cnn.c....html?hpt=hp_t1
So, they know that they could be sued and did not cover their arses.  They said that they called the hospital 5 times before airing it, then they should ahve made that 6th call, they might have actually talked to someone.  Logically, if you don't get the ok, then why the hell do you go ahead with it?

[Beckys_Mom]

glorybebe, on 11 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

From what I read, they are also in trouble for not getting permission for the 'prank' to be aired.  Now:

http://edition.cnn.c....html?hpt=hp_t1
So, they know that they could be sued and did not cover their arses.  They said that they called the hospital 5 times before airing it, then they should have made that 6th call, they might have actually talked to someone.  Logically, if you don't get the ok, then why the hell do you go ahead with it?

I watched the full interview  taken from  libstaK's post below..  The two DJ's over and over again said, they had to pass the recording over to higher authorities before it was given the go ahead, but they wouldn't say who it was that reviewed the recording before it went out.. Yet the station is sitting back allowing the two DJ's to take the fall and face the music..

I am sure the hospital can find out from BT if they did receive calls from the radio station, times and date..That's easy done.. But like you just mentioned, they didn't get the go-ahead but did it regardless ..Something not right with that story

libstaK, on 10 December 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Here is the interview withe DJs just aired tonight
http://news.ninemsn....-breaks-silence

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 11 December 2012 - 08:08 PM.

[glorybebe]

Beckys_Mom, on 11 December 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I watched the full interview  taken from  libstaK's post below..  The two DJ's over and over again said, they had to pass the recording over to higher authorities before it was given the go ahead, but they wouldn't say who it was that reviewed the recording before it went out.. Yet the station is sitting back allowing the two DJ's to take the fall and face the music..

I am sure the hospital can find out from BT if they did receive calls from the radio station, times and date..That's easy done.. But like you just mentioned, they didn't get the go-ahead but did it regardless ..Something not right with that story

Between the administration of the hospital and the higher authorities of the radio station...it's like they are passing blame back and forth.  There is no way that I will believe that the administrators of the hospital weren't reading the riot act once this came out.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Our friendly neighbourhood Hacktivists have weighed in on the topic - basically saying "sack the DJs or we go after the sponsors".
it's a pity their just taking aim at the DJs and not the legal team that okayed the stunt, the administration of the station that okayed it for airing.....

[Still Waters]

More here -

"The nurse who apparently took her own life after she was duped by a hoax call made to the hospital treating the Duchess of Cambridge left a 'suicide note' for her family, it was revealed today.

The content of the note written by Jacintha Saldanha is unknown but it is understood to have been addressed to her family, according to sources.

A post-mortem examination on the 46-year-old nurse has begun today."

http://www.dailymail...ote-family.html

[glorybebe]

Wearer of Hats, on 11 December 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Our friendly neighbourhood Hacktivists have weighed in on the topic - basically saying "sack the DJs or we go after the sponsors".
it's a pity their just taking aim at the DJs and not the legal team that okayed the stunt, the administration of the station that okayed it for airing.....

Yeah, the administrators are the ones who had the control here, yes, the DJs did the call...isn't it always the little people who get all the blame.

[shaddow134]

Simbi Laveau, on 11 December 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

Well you can let us know,when it happens to you .Karmas a b**** ?
It's illegal in most places to not ask permission to air stuff like this ,especially given it involved a monarch ,and it was done to them without their knowledge .
Here in the USA ,they MUST SAY ,you are on the air now .If they decline to be hear ,conversation over.
They would be in jail now,if it had been the USA,and one of the presidents kids. I dare say its the same in Canada .

[Order66]

Wearer of Hats, on 11 December 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Our friendly neighbourhood Hacktivists have weighed in on the topic - basically saying "sack the DJs or we go after the sponsors".
it's a pity their just taking aim at the DJs and not the legal team that okayed the stunt, the administration of the station that okayed it for airing.....

What's the guiding moral principle behind "do what I say or you're ****ed?" Terrorists and mobsters must be the most virtuous people ever. Hacktivists are bunch of hypocrites, or maybe hackto-crits?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Order66, on 11 December 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

What's the guiding moral principle behind "do what I say or you're ****ed?" Terrorists and mobsters must be the most virtuous people ever. Hacktivists are bunch of hypocrites, or maybe hackto-crits?

If they were terrorists I'd hardly call them so within earshot would I?

[DKO]

Simbi Laveau, on 11 December 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

Well you can let us know,when it happens to you .Karmas a b**** ?
It's illegal in most places to not ask permission to air stuff like this ,especially given it involved a monarch ,and it was done to them without their knowledge .
Here in the USA ,they MUST SAY ,you are on the air now .If they decline to be hear ,conversation over.
They would be in jail now,if it had been the USA,and one of the presidents kids. I dare say its the same in Canada .

Do they really have to tell them they are on air before the call? I watch/listen to Howard Stern all the time, never have I heard them say that before a prank call, same with other American prank calls I've seen.

How would the prank call even work if they are told beforehand that they are on the radio?

Not trying to argue with you Simbi, just curious on those examples.

[Simbi Laveau]

DKO, on 12 December 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

Do they really have to tell them they are on air before the call? I watch/listen to Howard Stern all the time, never have I heard them say that before a prank call, same with other American prank calls I've seen.

How would the prank call even work if they are told beforehand that they are on the radio?

Not trying to argue with you Simbi, just curious on those examples.

In the USA,we have a few shows that do daily pranks .One,that actually amuses me,is called War of the Roses. I used to listen to it at work all the time .
They get them on the air ,and once they get them going,they have to let them know they are on the radio .They say this on the air,as the prank progresses.
If the object of the prank doesnt know 1000s may be listening to them be duped,they radio station can be sued.


http://www.ktu.com/p...r-of-the-roses/
It outs cheaters. Some are funny .

As it states here,its an FCC regulation .
http://en.wikipedia....ses_(radio_show)

The FCC can fine tv and radio 10,000s ,for violating code.
It's just not allowed here ,at all.

Edited by Simbi Laveau, 12 December 2012 - 02:55 AM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

In Australia at least the law says you can't broadcast people's covertly recorded words without their permission. Therefore "live" prank calls aren't actually "live", we've had a fair bit of trouble along these lines recently which is why the call was pre-reoreded and then vetted by the lawyers.

[Simbi Laveau]

Wearer of Hats, on 12 December 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

In Australia at least the law says you can't broadcast people's covertly recorded words without their permission. Therefore "live" prank calls aren't actually "live", we've had a fair bit of trouble along these lines recently which is why the call was pre-reoreded and then vetted by the lawyers.

It's the same principle here.
Shows like Hidden Camera,and Punk'd,none of that stuff can be aired without permission .Even some news stations.
And as everyone knows,at the end of the pranks,the person is made aware they are in camera .
It's not just by design ,it has to be done .