News1 min ago
Australian Dj's
Is this an appropriate / proportianate action by the Broadcaster ?
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/en tertain ment-ar ts-2122 8017
Or do you think further action should have been taken by them against the two DJ's concerned
http://
Or do you think further action should have been taken by them against the two DJ's concerned
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.True about the station em
they won't want the djs to take any heat because it immediately implicates them.
Anyway, precisely which serious offence did they commit?
They breached the rules on getting permission to broadcast
But legally, they have rightly argued that they had no way of reasonably expecting their silly prank to cause damage or harm to anyone
they won't want the djs to take any heat because it immediately implicates them.
Anyway, precisely which serious offence did they commit?
They breached the rules on getting permission to broadcast
But legally, they have rightly argued that they had no way of reasonably expecting their silly prank to cause damage or harm to anyone
what happened was a worst-case scenario, but that's sort of the point: you play silly buggers on air and don't know what will happen, you take the credit if something goes well but you have to take responsibility when it goes wrong. I think this is fair enough. They haven't been sacked but maybe the station will be more wary of prank calls in future.
I think it hypocritical for radio stations (or TV) to encourage hoax calls for entertainment and then blame the hosts when one goes seriously wrong. All hoax calls have that potential but no one anticipates it. As such I think the treatment of the hosts is fair enough, they already have to live with knowledge of the consequences of their stunt. The real question is what action the stations and their controllers going to apply to themselves.
I think the action of withdrawing the show is appropriate.
Prank call shows are nasty, snide, humiliating, and deeply unpleasant, especially when anyone who objects is uniformly accused of having no sense of humour.
The two DJ's could not have reasonably forseen such a tragedy - it was and remains a juxtapostion of circumstances that no-one could have anticipated, and as such, they should not shoulder any legal responsibility - i am sure they already carry more than enough moral responsibility.
The station is drawing a line and ,oving on, which is appropriate in my view.
Prank call shows are nasty, snide, humiliating, and deeply unpleasant, especially when anyone who objects is uniformly accused of having no sense of humour.
The two DJ's could not have reasonably forseen such a tragedy - it was and remains a juxtapostion of circumstances that no-one could have anticipated, and as such, they should not shoulder any legal responsibility - i am sure they already carry more than enough moral responsibility.
The station is drawing a line and ,oving on, which is appropriate in my view.
The prank call is pretty much a standard way for crappy radio shows to fill ten minutes airtime these days em.
Someone phones up some poor sap that's minding their own business and just trying to do their job and attempts to make a fool of them on the air, by putting on a stupid voice and saying something like 'Hello my name is Hugh Jorgan. I'd like to buy some brown corduroy trousers'
It's absolutely hilarious, if you're an emotionally retarded twelve year old. To the rest of us it's a bit tedious.
Someone phones up some poor sap that's minding their own business and just trying to do their job and attempts to make a fool of them on the air, by putting on a stupid voice and saying something like 'Hello my name is Hugh Jorgan. I'd like to buy some brown corduroy trousers'
It's absolutely hilarious, if you're an emotionally retarded twelve year old. To the rest of us it's a bit tedious.