Current Affairs Royal Pregnancy

[peterms]

From what I've understood about radio prank calls, they're pretty much always prerecorded (and normally have a fair amount of editing out of dead bits... it wouldn't surprise me at all if a fair amount of refusals and subsequent bullying was edited out (I haven't heard the clip in question).

Yes, and I suppose discussion with Oz police and the radio station may be about things that weren't broadcast. Recording here if you're interested.

As well as being prerecorded, it has the air of being constructed to appear spontaneous, with things like "We've been handed a phone number...", the suggestion from one presenter that they call, with the other one interjecting "Look, I don't know...", the supposedly impromptu invitation to a third person to play the dogs, and of course having practised the accent and mannerisms. Pretty much entirely planned, rehearsed, and in line with previous company actions, by the look of it.

Some comment from an Oz newspaper:

...Manners and a few molecules of maturity should have been sufficient to stop the idea of attempting to contact a sick woman in hospital. “At some point, an adult should have said, ‘We’re not going to play this’,” former radio comic Wil Anderson told Fairfax. “It all comes back to, ‘Who’s the adult in the room?’”

Southern Cross Austereo, owners of 2Day FM, has plenty of adults. Some of them are lawyers, who gave the all-clear for the hospital item to run. Significantly, they apparently did so without observing a rule that radio stations usually follow for prank calls: they didn’t seek permission for broadcast from the people who had been pranked. Austereo boss

declined to say on Saturday if permission had been granted by the nurses interviewed, which we can take as a no. Former Austereo presenter Paul Murray confirmed to Fairfax that the radio network’s policy ‘’is that you must get the subject’s permission before you put the prank call to air’’, but that ‘’those rules don’t extend to subjects who are overseas’’.

If applied universally, that rule may have prevented this entire debacle from ever reaching the airwaves. ‘’I don’t think you can blame these guys completely for what happened,” said another ex-Austereo host, Peter Helliar. “Nobody knows what frame of mind the nurse was in.’’ A follow-up phone call, standard procedure in local pranks, may have helped. And we know 2Day FM had her number.

Not alone in Australian media, Wendy Harmer was initially impressed by the prank, tweeting: “Those two kiddos are legends!” Within days, news broke of Saldanha’s suicide. “I admit, I hadn’t heard this particular call in its entirety. I should have before I commented. Lesson learned,” wrote the veteran radio presenter afterwards. “Now that I have … it’s clear that the two DJs involved have broken the rules.”

The specific rules to which Harmer refers may be found in the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s Commercial Radio code of practice, which states: “A licensee must not broadcast the words of an identifiable person unless: a) That person has been informed in advance or a reasonable person would be aware that the words may be broadcast. b ) In the case of words which have been recorded without the knowledge of that person, that person has subsequently, but prior to the broadcast, expressed consent to the broadcast of their words.” ...

Sounds like the station doesn't apply the rules to people overseas. Whether they have any proper basis for doing so will no doubt come out soon.

But all this focus on the Oz angle does seem a little one-sided. I'm quite interested in the hospital, how it prepares staff for predictable fake calls, and how specifically it dealt with the woman in this case. It has presented itself as faultless so far, but there's a slightly discordant account here.

...However, a senior consultant at the hospital alleged that bosses had shown the nurse “little or no sympathy”. He said managers were “too tight-fisted” to employ late-night receptionists.

Hospital officials refuted those claims and said both nurses were told explicitly they would not be held accountable.

A medical worker from nearby Harley Street claimed: “The place is stuck in the 19th century and has a regimented tier of management.

“Anyone who makes a mistake, no matter how slight, will be made aware of it.”

[peterms]

I am reminded of the 1968 incident where an RAF pilot flew his Hawker Hunter under Tower Bridge.

If it had gone wrong and he had killed a load of people, he would have been forever vilified as an irresponsible bastard, there would have been endless enquiries and finger pointing over who was to blame, etc., etc.

But he got away with it, and went down in history as a daredevil legend, dining out on the story to this day.

My point? It's a thin line between a good stunt and a tragedy.

...On 5 April 1968 Pollock decided on his own initiative to mark the occasion of the RAF anniversary with an unauthorised display. His flight left the soon-to-be-closed RAF Tangmere, Sussex to return to RAF West Raynham in Norfolk; a route that took them over London. Immediately after take-off,^[3] Pollock left the flight and flew low level. Having "beaten up"^{[Note 1]} Dunsfold Aerodrome (Hawker's home airfield),^[3] he then took his Hawker Hunter FGA.9 (XF442) ground-attack, single-seater jet fighter over London at low level, circled the Houses of Parliament three times^[3] as a demonstration against Prime Minister Harold Wilson's government,^[2] dipped his wings over the Royal Air Force Memorial on the Embankment^[3] and finally flew under the top span of Tower Bridge...

Call me old fashioned, but I always think that one of the hallmarks of a demonstration is that there is some attempt to communicate ideas to observers.

This guy seems to have been performing manoeuvres which apparently held some meaning to him, but couldn't have been understood by others.

Daredevil legend? Or deeply troubled person? I understand he was soon retired on "medical grounds". But mental health issues were less openly discussed in those days.

[peterms]

Hmm. Seems to be something coming from the husband about the way Jacintha was treated. Story not yet on the website, but front page is available.

[coda]

Is the quote the Mirror used from a "pal"? I can't read it properly. I'd be interested in who that is.

[peterms]

Is the quote the Mirror used from a "pal"? I can't read it properly. I'd be interested in who that is.

Yes, I think it says a "pal". Hard to read. The story should be up soon, with other papers trying to fill in the details and see if there's anything in it.

[leviramsey]

Yes, and I suppose discussion with Oz police and the radio station may be about things that weren't broadcast. Recording here if you're interested.

As well as being prerecorded, it has the air of being constructed to appear spontaneous, with things like "We've been handed a phone number...", the suggestion from one presenter that they call, with the other one interjecting "Look, I don't know...", the supposedly impromptu invitation to a third person to play the dogs, and of course having practised the accent and mannerisms. Pretty much entirely planned, rehearsed, and in line with previous company actions, by the look of it.

Standard talentless morning zoo hackery, to the letter (especially the commentary while on hold, fairly obviously dubbed over the tape of the call).

[peterms]

Oz station says it tried to contact the hospital to clear the story.

(Why, if their policy is that secret recordings don't need to be cleared if the subjects are overseas?)

Two corporations engaged in a fight to prevent reputational damage to their brand. Only one can succeed. Probably neither. Jacintha largely forgotten, already.

[coda]

Yes, I think it says a "pal". Hard to read. The story should be up soon, with other papers trying to fill in the details and see if there's anything in it.

I'm inclined to believe this "pal" is a figment of the journalist's imagination. Much like the "source close to the club" featured in most tabloid sport exclusives.

[peterms]

Article on the case, and specifically the station, from an Oz policewoman:

...The station is a serial offender, one with serious form when it comes to humiliating women, because, overwhelmingly, 2Day FM's "pranks" have targeted women, often extremely vulnerable women.

The infamous lie detector "prank" revolved around the supposed hilarity of quizzing a 14-year-old girl about her sex life, in front of her mother, on radio. That it ended up spilling out the hurt of a past sexual assault was almost inevitable. At no point did it ever have the potential to be anything other than a prurient circus. That was its point.

Then there was the presentation, for laughs, of the psychological torture of two Cambodian women, "winners" of a competition that promised a family reunion; only to be told there was a catch:

Jackie O: Now, if you don't pick the right door, if Dana's not the door you pick, Dana flies straight home. No meeting.

Kyle Sandilands: So she flies over here, 15 hours. She stands behind the door. If you pick the wrong door Dana gets back on the plane, flies home, 15 hours.

The laughs continued until both women, survivors of Pol Pot's genocide, were reduced to tears, on their knees and begging...

It sounds like if this station is closed down, that can only be a good thing, regardless of their culpability in this case.

I see their shares are down 7.7%, and Anonymous are on their case.

[peterms]

I'm inclined to believe this "pal" is a figment of the journalist's imagination. Much like the "source close to the club" featured in most tabloid sport exclusives.

Yes, it's a convention, usually means the person themself but the reporter not allowed to say so. "A close ally of Boris Johnson..." and so on.

[TheDon]

Yes, it's a convention, usually means the person themself but the reporter not allowed to say so. "A close ally of Boris Johnson..." and so on.

No, it's just an excuse to make shit up and print it.

[coda]

It's on the Mirror site now. They do name the pal/close friend so my initial doubts about the Mirror were wrong (for once).

[snowychap]

Article on the case

That 'article' seemed to start badly and go downhill from there.

[peterms]

It's on the Mirror site now. They do name the pal/close friend so my initial doubts about the Mirror were wrong (for once).

Very unclear on what complaint they have against the hospital. The first headline suggested much more, but the story doesn't bear it out.

[peterms]

That 'article' seemed to start badly and go downhill from there.

I tried to spare you that by quoting only the salient part, but you wouldn't leave it there, would you?

[leviramsey]

I can tell that there's a reason those two are stuck in a backwater like Sydney.

Compare:

[snowychap]

I tried to spare you that by quoting only the salient part, but you wouldn't leave it there, would you?

There was a 'salient' part?

[peterms]

There was a 'salient' part?

Indeed there was. What I quoted illustrated the tone of previous notable points in their coverage, and by implication gives some insight into their views on what is acceptable.

[peterms]

I can tell that there's a reason those two are stuck in a backwater like Sydney.

Compare:

I really think that whatever the BBC ever has done wrong or ever will do wrong, it will stand tall compared to that appalling shite. I managed to listen to about seven minutes, before getting urges to drill my head with a power tool. I cut off in time, you'll be glad to hear.

[snowychap]

Indeed there was.

My disagreement with your opinion above will probably have come as even less of a surprise to you than Ms Saldhana's death apparently did to the author of that article.