So sad, the
story of the nurse at the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge’s hospital who
died, apparently from suicide, shortly after being subjected to a ‘joke’ call
from two individuals at an Australian radio station. It is obviously going to
run for some time.
But just why
are the newspapers referring to the deceptive call as a ‘prank’? How about
simply using the word ‘deceptive’ instead? I know the media have to concern
themselves with the risk of being sued for defamation, but no-one is going to
dispute that the call was deliberately deceptive – are they? Yes, the word ‘prank’
has an old fashioned ring to it. Maybe it fits nicely into the headline or the
sound-bite. But use of such words kind of endorses the idea that malicious
behaviour is ok if it is just done as a joke. The school bully’s cry when
challenged: “can’t you take a joke?”
I’m
interested in the legal sub-plots and the ethical problems that run beneath
such controversies. It is the kind of issue I examine in my novel Wounded Mountain.
One of the radio station bosses has come out and tried to offer some
justification by saying that the death could not reasonably have been foreseen
when the call was made. That suggests maybe he had already been to the lawyers
and obtained advice on the likelihood of being successfully sued over the death.
His focus has to be on the legal liability because he really has nothing to say
on matters like business ethics.
They say the
radio piece was signed off by lawyers. And then we hear that the radio station has
been challenged with the Australian regulators over previous incidents. So they
are probably well used to having items checked by lawyers prior to broadcast. They
are ‘edgy’, they will test the boundaries. Of course, the lawyers aren’t
responsible for a business’ ethical standards – that is for the people running
the business to take ownership of. And subtleties like ‘integrity’ won’t necessarily
be high on the list of priorities for a radio show that sets out to ‘entertain’
by provoking and humiliating people who happen to be near (not even in) the public eye.
This radio
station is a product of its audience. If it didn’t have listeners it couldn’t
sell its advertising. A ‘fake calls’ programme succeeds only if it has an
audience that wants to hear it. Apparently the local audience for the show is
primarily young, early twenties. Maybe they are not representative of the
general public. But anyone who ‘enjoys’ these programmes ought to pause to
reflect. Yes, a lawyer might tell you that you can’t be sued, the ‘chain of
causation’ is too long, it is not ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that someone would
commit suicide shortly after being deceived and publically humiliated; but the
people that consume this kind of spiteful radio show are responsible for what has happened.
Here’s a
prediction – the owners of the radio station will want to revert to their
original ‘business plan’ as soon as they can. It is costing them money not to
have advertising. So they need to get the PR and legal issues out of the way
quickly. And they need to recover their advertiser base before it goes
elsewhere. Reports say they have now offered money to set up a fund for the
dead nurse’s family. They’ll be desperately hoping the PR response will settle
things down at least enough that they can push the controversy aside and get on
with running the business for profit. Maybe there will be a scapegoat or two as
the process plays out. And if matters prove too difficult or drag on without
resolution we may find that the culprits simply pop up elsewhere.
You can find
Wounded Mountain on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wounded-Mountain-ebook/dp/B00A8GRXVA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355356197&sr=8-2
BBC News item
here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20696610
No comments:
Post a Comment