Creative humor or a problem?

[DeletedUser34]

The situation with the DJ's in Sidney and the nurse over the prank call gone bad has gotten me thinking. So I was just wondering what everyone else thought about the situation?

We all remember the water poisoning that happened during one of the contest years ago. If you don't, the contestants had to keep their hands on the car the longest, the last one won the car. They did this in the middle of the day, and ultimately one of the contestants died of water intoxication.

Also, the latest thing that was going around was to eat a spoonful of cinnamon We promote rock jocks like Howard Stern, and many morning radio DJ's are all about shock value because it brings ratings. Even Jimmy Kimmel (whom I love!) has a youtube campaign every holiday. What if 3 years from now a kid takes it serious and goes in their room and harms them self? Is Jimmy at fault for something tragic that happens because of his "joke"? Are we for finding it funny and participating? When is it going to far?

So here we have two DJ's who did nothing out of the ordinary, and a tragedy resulted. Suddenly they are getting hate mail. They are off the air, and their lives are all but in the dumps because "they have blood on their hands".

Here is my question. Should we as a society get mad at our celebrities for doing what we expect them to do, and in essence pay them to do, or did they really cross a line? Are they really responsible for the death of this nurse? Is society as a whole basically responsible for this mess?

 

[DeletedUser]

Hehe, I can tell you now, the hosts are being paid to stir controversy. The station involved, 2Day FM, hires a bucketload of controversial characters like Kyle Sandilands for free headlines. I highly doubt they were expecting the dosage they got, but it's little surprise the station refuses to dump them, they succeeded in their job description.

It wasn't too long ago there was a similar incident with host Alan Jones (with a different station), equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, after he stated the Australian Prime Minister's late father "died of shame" as his daughter was a liar. The informed raged on twitter, the advertisers fled for the hills, but the next day the ignorant rang in to support him. Once the storm passed the advertisers came back and the whole incident was forgotten. I expect a similar pattern.

In this instance I think it was more a case of free advertising than appealing to the lowest common denominator. Harassing the British royals was bound to cause a kerfuffle in the UK, hence make it back to the Australian press. All a clever strategy in theory, no doubt brought about by the station, that backfired in practise once the suicide reports became public. Piling on the progressive government is the flavour of the month if you're appealing to the njubles, not involving yourself with gossip about the British monarch.

 

[DeletedUser34]

well it brings about my question then, how can society get mad if they perpetuate it? Is it wrong for us as a people to continue to foster this kind of behavior? Someone compared it to Princess Diana being killed by media, and yet, can we blame the photographers when we pay for it?

 

[DeletedUser]

where is the blame for those who harassed the nurse for falling for it. seems to me they had more to do with the suicide than the original prank.

 

[DeletedUser]

well it brings about my question then, how can society get mad if they perpetuate it? Is it wrong for us as a people to continue to foster this kind of behavior? Someone compared it to Princess Diana being killed by media, and yet, can we blame the photographers when we pay for it?

In this instance, society didn't perpetuate it, unless you count corporate stinginess. 2Day FM thought it would be cheaper to spark a news story than pay tv stations for thirty seconds of advertising, the plan went wrong when the nurse committed suicide. Nevertheless prior to that development there was indeed far too much sensationalism, typical of the modern media, and brought about by the lowest common denominator that demand it. Same reason why current affairs shows exist, gossip magazines turn profits, twitter hasn't flopped in the face of facebook, etc.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Ok so then is the corporation really at fault at all, in any little bit for something the public has demanded? If that is the case, why the comments FROM the public?

 

[DeletedUser1084]

I think the problem with the question is that you are assuming that society is a well-thought, level headed individual that has all the facts before uttering a word. When in fact most act on little to no information and very irrationally.

If you were to take each person that spoke out against these events, the ones that trashed the DJs or what not... Sat them down and talked to them level headedlly.. you may see their ideas change. may not, as well...

But too, I feel these DJs and others like them are put there to stir controversy but there usually is, and/or should be, people behind them thinking of what the consequences are for the things these ppl say. When they have an event you would hope that it would be thought out and safety precaution would be taken.. so i think if fault is needed to be assigned it would go there.

Again though.. most that cry out and call for a hangin' are not thinking of the whole picture and usually have little facts to go with it.

~DA