How do we know that the nurse's suicide had anything to do with the phone call?
we don't know, though i think it's a damn good guess (and it does piss me off that some of the backlash-backlash talks about how she couldn't have been very stable to begin with -- like that matters!?). and honestly, for the purpose of my argument, i don't care whether she committed suicide because of the prank -- this just seems to galvanize masses of other people into denouncing pranks. which is about damn time IMO.
i was curious whether australia has no such laws as you describe, and what i could find in a first quickie search is that they do have industry-drawn-up radio guidelines that say a station must not broadcast the words of an identifiable person unless they have been informed in advance that the recording may go to air. if someone is unaware they are being recorded, the interviewee must grant consent for it to be played, prior to anything being broadcast. so IMO while the DJs are juvenile idiots, the real failure lies with the station's management who signed off on the broadcast.
they're now blustering that they tried to contact the hospital "at least 5 times". i know what yoda would have to say about that. and it shows pretty clearly that they KNEW they should get consent, but in the end they decided the risk was worth ignoring it. i hope their stock price continues to fall.
no subject
we don't know, though i think it's a damn good guess (and it does piss me off that some of the backlash-backlash talks about how she couldn't have been very stable to begin with -- like that matters!?). and honestly, for the purpose of my argument, i don't care whether she committed suicide because of the prank -- this just seems to galvanize masses of other people into denouncing pranks. which is about damn time IMO.
i was curious whether australia has no such laws as you describe, and what i could find in a first quickie search is that they do have industry-drawn-up radio guidelines that say a station must not broadcast the words of an identifiable person unless they have been informed in advance that the recording may go to air. if someone is unaware they are being recorded, the interviewee must grant consent for it to be played, prior to anything being broadcast. so IMO while the DJs are juvenile idiots, the real failure lies with the station's management who signed off on the broadcast.
they're now blustering that they tried to contact the hospital "at least 5 times". i know what yoda would have to say about that. and it shows pretty clearly that they KNEW they should get consent, but in the end they decided the risk was worth ignoring it. i hope their stock price continues to fall.