Much
has already been written on this topic and the latest consolidation from a
reliable news source appears to be this one :-
Given
this background, there seems to be no doubt that the call was pre-recorded and
did not go live to air. While it can be argued that the DJs should not
have proceeded with the prank, they referred it management for approval to
broadcast. Had the approval not been given, nobody would've been any the
wiser, there would be no furore from the other side of the world, no hate-mail
to the station and DJs, no withdrawal of advertising from the station – and,
importantly, no evidence of a recording that may have been made illegally.
As
is now clear, however, approval was given for the broadcast and some are now
saying that 2Day FM has broken New South Wales law relating to recording of
conversations. Be that as it may, where lies the real blame in this whole
saga? Is it the exclusive domain of the radio station, or was there
complicity due to negligence on the part of the hospital itself?
It
beggars belief that a high profile hospital such as King Edward VII Hospital
does not employ "Caller ID" on the telephones, to ensure that those
who call them are genuine callers. If the hospital is genuine about its duty of
care for the privacy of their patients, I'd have thought that such a measure
would be the logical first step.
Some
are saying that the death of nurse Jacintha Saldanha resulted from the hoax
call. How could that possibly be the case if, as the Hospital itself
claims, they held her blameless and treated her with every courtesy and
consideration. It can only be hoped that the Police investigation will
uncover the truth in the issue.
Either
the suicide was the result of personal issues that had nothing to do with the
hospital and her employment, or the hospital actually did blame her. Let the
truth prevail, without any whitewashing of the facts.
Regardless
of this, the management of radio station 2Day FM needs to be concerned because
it was they – and they alone – who created this situation. Two of their
DJs are off-air and undoubtedly scarred for life by the reckless action of responsible managers. Is it possible that the station is "protecting" the 2 young DJs to delay testimony against the station's management? Yet again, we must hope that the truth will prevail without any whitewashing of facts...
or feeding the DJs to the lions.
