I think that there are many people out there who have a taste for cruel humour and celebrity gossip. There must be, because then the radio stations, the 'practical joke' segments and the newspaper and magazine articles that regularly invade people's privacy would not exist.
The humiliation of being the victim of this sort of prank would be awful and to be caught up in this stupid prank was a tragedy for the nurse, her family and everyone that cared for her.
I didn't see the interview with the announcers, but if those directly involved did not take full responsibility for their own actions, then they seriously need to reconsider that standpoint. But if the radio announcers are 'dogs' and have 'blood on their hands' then do the people who listen in (and buy the celebrity rags) and the 'family brands' who advertise share some responsibility? I'm not sure about other countries, but it seems here that we are so often falling over each other to point the finger of accusation, without ever looking at our own consumer behaviour...we seem to think indirect responsibility is no responsibility at all, but bullies are nothing without bystanders.
Jack Remillard wrote:I accept that as two relatively thick skinned people from a culture where pranks are (apparently) considered normal, they might not have been able to understand how that kind of prank could hurt somebody, but that really was a failing on their part.
One small concern that I do have, is that people might consider that this behaviour is normal for Australian society. Yes, we have yobs who listen to this drivel and that is what keeps them in business, but we are not a culture entirely made up of of sociopaths.