What is the ethical way to handle a serious mistake for which you are completely responsible?
Hint: it isn’t what the radio station’s employee did in this fiasco.
Yesterday, the British Office of Communications (Ofcom) issued its report on an incident in May that was not covered very thoroughly in the former Colonies across the pond. The U.K. radio station Radio Caroline had aired three pre-recorded statements during “The Barry Marsh Show” announcing that King Charles had died. He hadn’t died. Nevertheless, the third statement said “news media” had confirmed that the King was dead. “God Save the King” was then played, the announcement was repeated, and there were 16 minutes of dead air. When regular programming resumed, Barry, whoever he is, apologized to listeners.
“I’ve just been informed that we’ve played in error some information a little earlier, I didn’t hear this myself, but it is incorrect, it’s a technical issue, and of course we apologize,” the host said. To the station’s audience, King Charles had been “dead” for about a half an hour.
How did this happen, you well may ask. Here’s how: Radio Caroline, which plays music from the 1960s to today, was streaming from a remote location. A staffer was performing maintenance on a studio computer and found the three files prepared for King Charles’ death.
Although the files “are accompanied with a set of strict instructions to presenters and managers to follow before being aired,” the staffer played the files “out of curiosity.” This stopped the stream from the presenter’s remote location, and broadcast the pre-recorded announcement on the air. Barry was on a call and didn’t immediately notice that his show was telling people that the King had died.
And the staffer responsible for this mess? He or she (the sources say “they,” which is stupid and useless…but woke!) panicked…and ran away, leaving the office.
Brilliant.
Radio Caroline says it “took the matter very seriously, and much activity was taking place during those 30 minutes leading up to the apology.” Yet the station says that the staffer responsible was “reprimanded” and has “apologized.” That is not taking the matter seriously.
A staffer who has otherwise performed well in a job can legitimately and ethically be given a second chance after a major error like this, but the staffer’s reaction is not pardonable. The individual lacks the character, composure, judgment and sense of responsibility to justify a second chance. “They” cannot be trusted.
It is workplace management like Radio Caroline’s that is creating an epidemic of incompetence across the United States, including in national, state and local governments, and apparently worldwide. Falsely telling the British public that the King is dead is a minor inconvenience compared to all the expense, inefficiency, frustration and damage this kinder, gentler approach to management causes.
____________________
Pointer: Young Bill
Ethics Alarms 
Claim you were pulling an Orson Welles.
Bonus points.
Agreed, the staffer should be released, not for the error, but for the reaction. When one makes a mistake, let superiors know the mistake was made, do everything possible to fix it, and accept any resulting consequences with humility. Running away is no solution at all. In this case, it’s not as though no one knows that person was working that shift.
One possible benefit from this incident is that King Charles could think – for a short while – he was dead before the climate change he fears so much actually killed him.
Released?
I believe the proper term is “sacked.”
-Jut
Executed at high noon in the town square might be appropriate.
jvb
A better clip for this post would’ve been the “Bring Out Your Dead” scene.
I was thinking the same thing. Here it is.
Not necessarily on point, but a bit amusing like this story. (I do hope King Charles had the good sense to issue a statement to the effect of “rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.” That would diffuse the whole affair.)
And, now to the story:
In the early 2000s, when courts were beginning to use technology, I was in a docket call in federal bankruptcy court. Now, the case before the court involved an IRS tolling/collectability issue of federal income taxes. The debtor’s lawyer wanted to show his techno skills by pulling up an IRS regulation that addressed the issue. So, he fired up his laptop, connected it to the court’s audio-visual system, and began his search.
Well, as luck would have it, he searched “IRS.com” and not “IRS.GOV.” What appeared on his computer screen, broadcasting before the entire courtroom, was not an IRS regulation, but a repeater site displaying people in their ecstatic glory engaging in all sorts of unmentionable and lacivious actions. Mind you, the debtor’s attorney was a very religious Pentecostal guy who tried, as he might, to get out of the predicament. Everytime he hit the close “x” on the site, more and more pages popped up with more and more graphic depictions of . . . you get the idea . . .
The judge, a bit bemused, simply asked him what he thought the Reg. said. He told her. Meanwhile, she had her case manager walk around to the podium, close the laptop, and disconnected it from the video monitors, handing the sad little machine to the lawyer.
The attorney, simply horrified, wanted to crawl into a hole and die. He turned beat red, losing all of his composure. We in the Peanut Gallery simply chuckled to ourselves and let it go. Mistakes happen, right?
Later, he and I talked about it. He told me that when he got back to his office, he took a hammer to the laptop.
jvb
”I am not a cat.”
-Jut