Hospital Nurse Who Took Kate Hoax Call Found Dead

[*Jen*]

If you want that kind of audience, then yes, you'll do those kinds of stunts. However, just because you say "people want to listen to this" doesn't mean the station has to give it to them. That is their choice. And if they choose to do these kind of stunts, then I say they are responsible for their actions 100%.

Maybe. But are tobacco companies 100% responsible for people who smoke? People choose to smoke, knowing it's bad for them, and their choice counts for something.

I think it's the same here. People choose to listen to a show that does these stunts regularly. Sure, the presenters chose to make the call, but people have a voice, they have agency. It's their choice to listen, to appreciate and to enable it to continue, or to shut it down.

I do see your point, and to an extent I agree with it, but the media doesn't operate in isolation of society. They cater to it, feed off it, do what it wants.

Hence, chicken and egg

[Angelskates]

If you want that kind of audience, then yes, you'll do those kinds of stunts. However, just because you say "people want to listen to this" doesn't mean the station has to give it to them. That is their choice. And if they choose to do these kind of stunts, then I say they are responsible for their actions 100%.

Listeners = advertising. They can be responsible for their actions, but they can't be 100% responsible for other people's reactions to their actions. And again, we really have no idea whether the nurse killed herself as a reaction to the prank.

The DJs set up a prank call, some found it funny, some didn't. A nurse who answered the phone and transferred it to someone else, who gave out confidential information to some ridiculous-sounding idiots. Lots of people laughed, which is the DJs jobs, to get people to laugh. Later the nurse who transferred the call killed herself. So all of a sudden, the DJs are to blame? The DJs did their job, they got some people to laugh. They can't be responsible for how every single person reacts.

This woman killed herself, doesn't she bare some responsibility for that? I know it's controversial, but if you do something mean to me - deliberately or not, if I later kill myself, are you to blame? If I kill you, who's to blame? If you call me an idiot in front of my boss, and I later kill myself, or you, or the boss for laughing - who's fault is that? Are we not all responsible for our actions? Or are we responsible for others' actions and reactions too?

If this woman had killed the DJs instead of herself, would it be the DJs fault?

I'm really just thinking out loud, because I suicide brings up different emotions in people. If person A kills someone, it's almost always person A's fault. If person A kills themselves, we always look for someone/something else to blame. I don't think it's ever as simple as we make it. We're a complicated bunch, humans.

[suep1963]

Tobacco companies do not have to make the product available to consumers. Radio stations do not have to make prank calls to be viable in the market. When you choose to do something, make something, define yourself in a certain way, then that is your choice, and you are responsible for that choice. No chicken and egg here.

[bek]

It's easy to point the finger at the DJs and say it's their fault 100%, but I just don't agree. I'd put it at 50/50 between them and the people who listen gleefully.

I disagree here a bit.. People may be okay with some pranks but there is a line that can be crossed. For example I use to watch the Bachelor and yes the guy/girl broke up on tv but for me everyone knew that game. I felt the show crossed the line when they convinced one girl the show was over had her get attached to a fiance onscreen and then had the engagement broken off on scream. For me I was done with the show.

People might be fine with some pranks. But trying to get someone's medical info broadcast on air-is an entirely different matter. My opinion is yes there are pranks but there's a line and this line got crossed. They were asking for priviliged legal information after all. Completely unacceptable.

Its not like the audience asked them to find out about the Duchesses's medical situation. That was all on the journalists.

[*Jen*]

Okay, fair point, morally at least. Legally though, they're in the clear, because society tolerates it. Well, up till now.

[Angelskates]

Tobacco companies do not have to make the product available to consumers. Radio stations do not have to make prank calls to be viable in the market. When you choose to do something, make something, define yourself in a certain way, then that is your choice, and you are responsible for that choice. No chicken and egg here.

People can choose to change the station and not listen, just as people can choose not to buy the cigarettes. Companies choose to make things available, but the public chooses whether to not to make use of it or not. Tobacco companies make cigarettes available to make money, radio stations do pranks, to get listeners, which gets advertisers, which gets money.

[bek]

Okay, fair point, morally at least. Legally though, they're in the clear, because society tolerates it. Well, up till now.

Do they though? I mean how many prank calls actually involved someone trying to get medical information about another person. Confidential medical information that is privileged by law. The hospital can face fines for releasing private information. The nursers licensing. So this then ceases to be just a prank IMO.

For example the company I work with huge fines if we release private information-including our business... So why should some nim wad calling in pretending to be someone they are not and then broadcasting said breach on the air be treated as oh just a funny prank? Yes responsibility of those protecting the info. But something to be said with those fraudently and yes fraudently trying to get the information.

This is a perfect test case to get some limits on this type of thing. If not than people can do anything and can it a prank and get away with it. (Easily this one can be called fraud-easily)

Angel Skates once again I'm a radio station and I do pranks. That doesn't give me the right to break the law while committing a prank. And fraudently saying your someone else to get legal information your not entitled to-that's breaking the law.

[Angelskates]

Do they though?

They did. Prince Charles laughed, as did many others.

Of course that has all changed now; no one's laughing at the death of the nurse, but many did laugh at the prank.

[bek]

They did. Prince Charles laughed, as did many others.

Of course that has all changed now; no one's laughing at the death of the nurse, but many did laugh at the prank.

Just because they laughed doesn't mean anything. And some said that Prince Charles laugh may not have meant he wasn't seething... Not everyone thought it was haha funny. People will laugh at anything-doesn't mean its right. And plenty were upset about it. This person probably felt her entire was life was destroyed. And nursing organizations were already seething over this. Plenty of people complained before.

[julieann]

Listeners = advertising. They can be responsible for their actions, but they can't be 100% responsible for other people's reactions to their actions. And again, we really have no idea whether the nurse killed herself as a reaction to the prank.

The DJs set up a prank call, some found it funny, some didn't. A nurse who answered the phone and transferred it to someone else, who gave out confidential information to some ridiculous-sounding idiots. Lots of people laughed, which is the DJs jobs, to get people to laugh. Later the nurse who transferred the call killed herself. So all of a sudden, the DJs are to blame? The DJs did their job, they got some people to laugh. They can't be responsible for how every single person reacts.

This woman killed herself, doesn't she bare some responsibility for that? I know it's controversial, but if you do something mean to me - deliberately or not, if I later kill myself, are you to blame? If I kill you, who's to blame? If you call me an idiot in front of my boss, and I later kill myself, or you, or the boss for laughing - who's fault is that? Are we not all responsible for our actions? Or are we responsible for others' actions and reactions too?

If this woman had killed the DJs instead of herself, would it be the DJs fault?

I'm really just thinking out loud, because I suicide brings up different emotions in people. If person A kills someone, it's almost always person A's fault. If person A kills themselves, we always look for someone/something else to blame. I don't think it's ever as simple as we make it. We're a complicated bunch, humans.

I agree with you, this was just a joke but everyone involved is lucky the information they did get wasn't use in a malicious manor to harm the Dutchess or her family. This wasn't a case of constant bullying until the victim couldn't take it; I think the woman's suicide is on her.

[bek]

I agree with you, this was just a joke but everyone involved is lucky the information they did get wasn't use in a malicious manor to harm the Dutchess or her family. This wasn't a case of constant bullying until the victim couldn't take it; I think the woman's suicide is on her.

How was it not a case of bullying till the victim couldn't take it. The two nurses had what happened put on international television everywhere for the world to see. These two nimwads KNEW and promoted and exclaimed this prank for all too see. They knew full well these nurses would be made laughingstocks. So by broadcasting it everywhere and giving permission for other outlets to broadcast everywhere. The radio station did bully these nursers.

And not to mention it wasn't Prince Charles' medical information or Prince Charles wife. I'm sure at this point the royals try to make light as much they can but if you think the hospital didn't hear it you have another thing coming. As someone who handles private information over the phone, and who can lose her job over crap like this I'm sorry-I fail to see how this is some funny "ha ha joke".. This was someone's life's work we are frankly talking about,.

Once again nurses and hospitals deal with enough pressure every day and life and death information. That they have to put up with pranks like this.

And maybe people thought it was ha ha funny because they didn't realize this ha ha funny moment could cost someone their job.

This is at the point where the Royal family is getting extremely tired of the media. I hope an example is made of the station and these jocksters.

[suep1963]

So what I'm seeing here is as long as it's legal, and society (or some of society) tolerates it, it is OK (and some say justified) to engage in unethical and questionable behavior, because heaven forbid, anyone takes responsibility for their actions. We can just go ahead and do whatever we want because it makes money for someone, someone may find it funny and all will be well in the world. No one is at fault for their actions or the choices they make and we must all just "live and let live" because somewhere, someone laughed and that makes it perfectly fine. Good--glad I got that understood.

[Angelskates]

Suep, I don't understand what you're saying. Do you think I should be responsible for my actions, and you're actions/reactions? This nurse wasn't bullied by the DJs, her colleague may have been, but she wasn't. If I kill myself because you pretend you're a policeman and ask my friend some personal information about someone else, which she gives, is it your fault?

Morals and ethics differ for individuals. Everyone has their own, which is what makes us unique. Do you think the law should choose which morals and ethics are "right", whose does it choose? People make choices, that's what freedom is about. We are responsible for our choices, should we also be responsible for the choices of others? When and how would this work?

You seem to want to make this simple, it's the DJs fault. I don't think it's that simple. The DJs didn't ask this nurse the confidential information. Nothing has been proven to show the prank was the reason for her suicide.

You haven't yet answered, if she'd killed someone else, whose fault would it have been? If she killed the DJs, would you say it was their fault? What if she'd killed the nurse who gave the information?

[misskarne]

The thing is, this IS bullying. The DJs set out to humiliate someone. That was their end goal because for DJs like that it is ALWAYS the end goal.

Whether their aim was to get a nurse flustered and be told to piss off, or to get the information, somewhere along the line these DJs KNEW someone was going to be embarrassed. And so they went for it.

Then they promoted the hell out of it, which only served to seal the deal and ensure that the nurses involved were going to be completely humiliated, made laughing stocks of, even recieve threats and be told they should be fired.

Sorry, at what point is this NOT bullying?


I LOATHE those shows where practical jokes and pranks are played. Humiliating someone is NOT funny.

[bek]

If I kill myself because you pretend you're a policeman and ask my friend some personal information about someone else, which she gives, is it your fault?

Impersonating a police officer is a crime. I believe impersonating a royal (especially in order to get information that only the royal is privy too) is also a crime. just because these shock jocks have gotten away with these things for so long doesn't mean they aren't committing fraud when they pretend to be people they aren't. At least before when they were pretending to be people they were not they weren't getting access to private information that they weren't legally entitled too.

And yes these folks are indirectly responsible. This lady may have feared her job-and losing one's jobs have led plenty of people to suicide...Add in concepts of honor in other societies and its very possible this lady would not have done this (we won't know for sure) if it weren't for these people.

They may not have intended for this lady to die. But they definetly intended to humilate her. (So one could argue yes they were intending HARM when they did this one.)

Just because these shock jocks have gotten away with this for so long, its their job, and people think its ha ha funny. Doesn't make it a-okay. After all drug dealers are just doing their jobs, and plenty of people want their product.

Now do I want to see these people in jail for life nothing like that. (I'd likely give them probation)...But I think this radio station deserves to lose its license and them their jobs.

Now that a life has been lost due to these funny ha ha jokes. Its time to put in an end to it.

I'm just doing my job when I'm harming or hurting another person. Doesn't work. And nobody likes to be humiliated. Now you have the radio station CEO claiming "we are humans too" And acting like they are the victims. Apparently when they are publically humilated its not so fun. But its perfectly fine for them to humilate others.

[suep1963]

I am saying that every human being is responsible for their actions and their choices. Not that of others. I am not talking about the nurse dying--however she died. I've never mentioned her. I am sick and tired of everyone saying the DJs did nothing wrong because 1) radio stations need to do stupid things in order to have listeners and therefore stay in business 2) this wasn't a terrible thing because Prince Charles laughed for goodness sake, 3) society tolerates such behavior, therefore it's acceptable.

I am not talking legalities--I have never mentioned the law or if this is even a legal matter--I am talking ethics and quite frankly, I do not believe ethics and moral are different and we can just pick and choose something that makes us feel OK and good and say that is ethical, that is moral. Doing an action with the end purpose to score points off of someone else is unacceptable behavior--no matter what kind of spin you wish to put on it. "Haha--got you on that one you stupid bint--you are too stupid to know that it wasn't real--what a joke." Lovely behavior to be sure.

As for your last question:

You haven't yet answered, if she'd killed someone else, whose fault would it have been? If she killed the DJs, would you say it was their fault? What if she'd killed the nurse who gave the information?

where in the hell did that one come from? Have I been talking about death and killings? How can I have possibly have answered such a question that didn't even exist until you decided to pose it to me for whatever reasons of your own? Why should I be addressing an issue that didn't even exist until your post? "I haven't answered yet"--you make that sound like you and other posters have been asking me this and I've been ignoring it. What planet did THAT question just drop down from?

I have said, in every post that I have written in this thread that there has been a deplorable lack of responsibility for the DJs choice of action. They did it, no one else placed that call. To say that it's society's fault, the media's fault, or anyone else is just an excuse--and a lousy one at that. And that to excuse that lack of responsibility is not acceptable either.

[bek]

And even if it isn't a crime it doesn't mean abusing others and humilating them is morally a-okay.

[Cachoo]

Suep, I don't understand what you're saying. Do you think I should be responsible for my actions, and you're actions/reactions? This nurse wasn't bullied by the DJs, her colleague may have been, but she wasn't. If I kill myself because you pretend you're a policeman and ask my friend some personal information about someone else, which she gives, is it your fault?

Morals and ethics differ for individuals. Everyone has their own, which is what makes us unique. Do you think the law should choose which morals and ethics are "right", whose does it choose? People make choices, that's what freedom is about. We are responsible for our choices, should we also be responsible for the choices of others? When and how would this work?

You seem to want to make this simple, it's the DJs fault. I don't think it's that simple. The DJs didn't ask this nurse the confidential information. Nothing has been proven to show the prank was the reason for her suicide.

You haven't yet answered, if she'd killed someone else, whose fault would it have been? If she killed the DJs, would you say it was their fault? What if she'd killed the nurse who gave the information?

If this was indeed a suicide I have a hard time believing the prank was the sole reason she took her life: I do believe that sort of humiliation could be a tipping point for someone who might already be on the edge. And I think the DJ's were paid to engage in this type of behavior as it garners ratings. My problem would then be with the people (owners/managers) who promote this sort of programming. And for chrissakes---this was a hospital---Kate was there because she was ill. Their actions may not have been illegal but what a TOTAL lack of sensitivity towards someone having a tough time.

[AragornElessar]

For those who are saying they did nothing illegal...

It is in the actual statutes of the Aussie Communications Act that when talking to the public over the air, you should never misrepresnt yourself or why you have contacted the person you are speaking on air w/.

That's fraud BTW. Not to mention the fact they shattered the Code of Conduct that all broadcasters work under, whether they're shock jocks or serious journalists. Being on air brings w/it certain reponsisblities.

These brainless idiots clearly thought they were above that. Also up till 10pm EST on Thursday night, the Station's website was trumpeting this as "The Best Royal Prank EVER!!" on the main page of their site w/a picture of Kate under the banner. I went over to add my own disgust at what these twits had done in the Comments area, which is how I know about that up there.

I also hope these two end up being fired. As soon as Jacintha put them through and they realized this was actually working, was when they should have hung up.

Oh...I'm sorry, I keep forgetting...They really didn't mean any harm by this. That is nothing but the stuff that fills my Nephew's cat's litter box. They were out to embrass someone and thought it was a huge joke.

No one's laughing now.

One thing I can't figure out is this though. This station's been nailed w/two separate five year Probation periods for stunts like this in the past. How on earth knowing that, did the Lawyer not stop this from going forward? He/She had to know putting this on air would end up creating a storm and the people saying "Who knew it would blow up like this?" in this day and age are being pretty naive about that part of all of this. That's the part that boggles my mind.

[MacMadame]

To those expressing such outrage over pranks, you've never watched Candid Camera, Just Kidding, Punk'd, Prank My Mom, Scare Tactics, or any of the many similar prank shows that have come and gone over the years? You've never played an elaborate practical or April's Fools joke on someone?

I never watched any of those shows all the way through unless I was in a situation where I couldn't control the tv. I think those shows are dumb and not funny and I don't play elaborate practical jokes and hate April Fools Day.

But I am not outraged by the prank, either. I suspect that a lot of people who are outraged wouldn't be if the nurse didn't die.

There's a HUGE difference between tricking someone into lets say getting in a pie fight. And tricking someone into revealing (even a little) private medical information. And doing something that could cause someone to lose their job.

First of all, I don't think there is. Tricking people is tricking people. Second, the DJs did not set up their prank in order to trick anyone into revealing private medical information. They were trying to get to speak to Kate, not her nurses.