Broadsheet.ie & IT deleting articles relating to Kate's death

Dionysus

tbh wrote: »

Kate never said that her job contributed to her depression.

At least be clear of your facts before making such claims:The original unedited article by Kate Fitzgerald (9 September 2011)

The bits The Irish Times, in its incomprehensible cowardice, removed on 28 November 2011: splitrmx's post

Now, here's a very relevant extract:

'Mine was not a work-related illness. "At least not before I entered the hospital. However, when I was released and when I returned to my office, things became different. I knew it would be difficult to explain to my employer, and I knew it would be difficult for them to understand an illness with no visible symptoms. I did not, however, expect that I would be met with casual hostility, with passive-aggressive references to my mental incapacity for my profession, and my apparently perceived “plan” to leave the company entirely in the lurch."

By my understanding of the phrase "contributed to her depression", the above extract shows incontrovertibly that The Communications Clinic most definitely did "contribute to her depression" according to Kate Fitzgerald herself.

Given the choice of accepting the word of a person who wrote this article anonymously, did not mention her employer, and was fair enough to be clear that her (then anonymous) employer did not cause the initial illness, or the word of arguably the most infamous spindoctor in Irish society, I think I'll side with the former.

How ironic that in denying claims of bullying, Prone and company's reaction to this story has all the hallmarks of people who are rather accomplished in that particular field. It's like they treated this as another political character assassination with all the innuendo and leaks which are the contemptible tools of their ignominious sycophantic little trade which feeds off professional politicians. Merciless and dirty.

And The Irish Times sold truth and principal out to them because the dead cannot be defamed and it was therefore cheaper to defame a dead woman than to stand for that woman's truth against The Communications Clinic.

temply

rovert wrote: »

Yup after the banking scandals THIS was the tipping point. :eek:

Seeing as this incident actually puts a face to someone, rather than the faceless robbers that have ruined this country, yes, thats my tipping point.

rovert

temply wrote: »

Seeing as this incident actually puts a face to someone, rather than the faceless robbers that have ruined this country, yes, thats my tipping point.

k

Dionysus

tbh wrote: »

What a literal way to illustrate my point. Thank you.

Your point was your point; your claim that The Communications Clinic "did not contribute to her depression" is entirely your point. Kate Fitzgerald said the opposite, so I don't think you should be assuming you're speaking for her when you abnegate that company's responsibility for her situation.

Because you have misunderstood the fundamental importance of The Communications Clinic to the way she was treated, you are downgrading its importance. You may not be intentionally dishonest in representing this story the way you're doing, but it is a dishonest representation of what happened nevertheless.

temply

rovert wrote: »

k

plenty more are responsible

rovert

temply wrote: »

plenty more are responsible

All I know is that this will be forgotten in a year and I will still be buying the Times on Friday to see Donald Clarke rip into ****ty films/figure out what to see in the cinema.

#tisdamejiacycle

Dionysus

Elsa Chilly Treachery wrote: »

I think you may have missed his point.

I got his point fully; I also got his comment that The Communications Clinic did not "contribute to her depression", when she made clear that it very much did.

As such, trying to move the focus away from the actions of that company is based on an idea that it is innocent of blame, when this is patently not the reality as testified to by Kate Fitzgerald (particularly in the parts mentioned above which The Irish Times censored at the request of The Communications Clinic).

Dudess

She did not blame the company for her illness. I find its behaviour sickening too, but let's not scapegoat. There is sometimes much too much of a need for blame.
They main concern here is this merciless illness, still so misunderstood, has led to the loss of yet another young life.
The media stuff is merely a side story. Most important of all is that there is a way to go yet in terms of attitudes towards depression and those who are suicidal.

Darragho

I hope Kate is now at peace.

I found the interview of her family very moving tonight, May she rest in peace.

rovert

Dudess wrote: »

She did not blame the company for her illness. I find its behaviour sickening too, but let's not scapegoat. There is sometimes much too much of a need for blame.
They main concern here is this merciless illness, still so misunderstood, has led to the loss of yet another young life.
The media stuff is merely a side story. Most important of all is that there is a way to go yet in terms of attitudes towards depression and those who are suicidal.

Agreed people here are ascribing rational thought to really profound mental illness. Not saying her employers were saints but this is sadly inevitable regardless of intervention.

temply

rovert wrote: »

All I know is that this will be forgotten in a year and I will still be buying the Times on Friday to see Donald Clarke rip into ****ty films/figure out what to see in the cinema.

#tisdamejiacycle

I hope someone you loved isn't, and anything they wrote, and wanted to say isn't changed without their say so.

tbh

Dionysus wrote: »

Elsa Chilly Treachery wrote: »

I think you may have missed his point.

I got his point fully; I also got his comment that The Communications Clinic did not "contribute to her depression", when she made clear that it very much did.

As such, trying to move the focus away from the actions of that company is based on an idea that it is innocent of blame, when this is patently not the reality as testified to by Kate Fitzgerald (particularly in the parts mentioned above which The Irish Times censored at the request of The Communications Clinic).

She flat out said that it wasn't a work related illness. She said she was treated badly on her return from her suicide attempt but she said that work had nothing to do with her depression - those are the facts. You seem to be more concerned with ensuring that the blame for her suicide is laid squarely at the feet of Terry Prone and Anon Savage, but that wasn't the main theme of her article and shouldn't be the theme of this thread.

Kimia

Dudess, I agree with you to a point. It's awful that this girl felt so depressed and at the end of her tether that she chose her life and hopefully her tragedy will go towards removing the stigma of depression.

But let's be honest about what this thread is. People are outraged that the irish media can be manipulated and are pretty much happy to be held hostage by the likes of a PR firm like the Communications Clinic.

It's corruption and the fact that Kate's suicide has highlighted it leads people to believe - it has completely removed any vestiges of credibility that the Irish Times may once have had and begs the question - what else has been squashed or hidden because of shady connections?

Tbh - it's not about blaming the Communications Clinic for her depression. It's about the fact that the Communications Clinic has the power & the influence to be able to kill stories in the Irish Times.

rovert

temply wrote: »

I hope someone you loved isn't, and anything they wrote, and wanted to say changed without their say so.

No ****

I am obviously talking in terms of a current affairs context. In AH this will be replaced by a your first **** thread or something.

Kimia wrote: »

Dudess, I agree with you to a point. It's awful that this girl felt so depressed and at the end of her tether that she chose her life and hopefully her tragedy will go towards removing the stigma of depression.

But let's be honest about what this thread is. People are outraged that the irish media can be manipulated and are pretty much happy to be held hostage by the likes of a PR firm like the Communications Clinic.

It's corruption and the fact that Kate's suicide has highlighted it leads people to believe - it has completely removed any vestiges of credibility that the Irish Times may once have had and begs the question - what else has been squashed or hidden because of shady connections?

The words perceived is missing between the words of and credibility here.

Dionysus

Dudess wrote: »

She did not blame the company for her illness.

You've just intentionally changed the goalposts by raising that strawman. TBH claimed the company did not "contribute to her depression". It did, and as shown above she made that clear. Are you using the posthumously edited version of her September article as your source for her views?

Dudess

Dionysus, nobody is trying to divert attention away from her employer and the Irish Times, just appealing for people not to get too caught up in the scandal stuff and not to forget the most horrible thing of all is that a young woman was so desperate for the pain to end that she took her life...

temply

tbh wrote: »

She flat out said that it wasn't a work related illness. She said she was treated badly on her return from her suicide attempt but she said that work had nothing to do with her depression - those are the facts. You seem to be more concerned with ensuring that the blame for her suicide is laid squarely at the feet of Terry Prone and Anon Savage, but that wasn't the main theme of her article and shouldn't be the theme of this thread.

I agree with everything you have said

However, do you not find the lengths that CC will go to, to cover themselves ott?

Thats what I find sickening to be honest

billybudd

As unsaviory as the IT and Tcc are they are a side show to the fundamental issue here.

This womans last message to the world was that if you can see a bone sticking out from an ankle then you can see how painful it is, where as depression is unseen and misunderstood, we should examine the contents of this article and not the side show.

We can see how people have behaved in life and in death to this person and we can judge them from those actions, but for once lets just see the bigger picture and try and understand the black cloud that can follow many people.

Kimia

Dudess wrote: »

Dionysus, nobody is trying to divert attention away from her employer and the Irish Times, just appealing for people not to get too caught up in the scandal stuff and not to forget the most horrible thing of all is that a young woman was so desperate for the pain to end that she took her life...

I think people should get caught up in the scandal tbh as it's appalling. The scandal and Kate's death shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive.

catser6767

Irish Times should be ashamed of themselves. However over the last couple of years , articles appear to be written by politicans not journalists.
The cozy cartel of politicans, PR and media is getting stronger every week.
If Kate had mentioned her employer by name in her article,I can see how the employeer as a PR company would resort to damage limitation. However she didnt, and for her employeer, a PR company in a cozy cartel with the media to represent Kate as a liar, is a new low. Terry Prone should be very ashamed .

Dionysus

tbh wrote: »

She flat out said that it wasn't a work related illness.

Why are you being so selective? Let's do this again, shall we?



'Mine was not a work-related illness. "At least not before I entered the hospital.'

OK. Now, your "flat out" it's not a work-related illness has just been qualified by the sentence immediately following it. Why are you ignoring it? "at least not before I entered the hospital" implies to most speakers of English that after she returned from hospital her illness very much became a "work-related illness". How else can you honestly interpret that sentence?


The rest of the underlined part above elaborates on the areas in which The Communications Clinic contributed to her depression.

tbh

temply wrote: »

tbh wrote: »

She flat out said that it wasn't a work related illness. She said she was treated badly on her return from her suicide attempt but she said that work had nothing to do with her depression - those are the facts. You seem to be more concerned with ensuring that the blame for her suicide is laid squarely at the feet of Terry Prone and Anon Savage, but that wasn't the main theme of her article and shouldn't be the theme of this thread.

I agree with everything you have said

However, do you not find the lengths that CC will go to, to cover themselves ott?

Thats what I find sickening to be honest

I'm disappointed that the IT would make such a hatchet job.of editing the original piece. However, two points. one is rest TCC say that she never discussed the issue with them and they never discussed it with her. They also deny her claim that they acted illegally after her return. I think any reasonable company or person would seek to make those clarifications if they felt that to be the case. Secondly, the Irish times say that it was their in-house legal team who advised them to make the retraction and no legal threats were made by TCC.

There are too many unknowns for me to make a judgement on how they acted in this case, however the details I read about the other case led me to believe that they acted very shoddily on that occasion.

Kimia

rovert wrote: »

The words perceived is missing between the words of and credibility here.

No point, all credibility is perceived.

tbh

Dionysus wrote: »

tbh wrote: »

She flat out said that it wasn't a work related illness.

Why are you being so selective? Let's do this again, shall we?

Lets not.

temply

billybudd wrote: »

As unsaviory as the IT and Tcc are they are a side show to the fundamental issue here.

This womans last message to the world was that if you can see a bone sticking out from an ankle then you can see how painful it is, where as depression is unseen and misunderstood, we should examine the contents of this article and not the side show.

We can see how people have behaved in life and in death to this person and we can judge them from those actions, but for once lets just see the bigger picture and try and understand the black cloud that can follow many people.

But can you ignore what she stated in her anonymous column?

Dionysus

Dudess wrote: »

Dionysus, nobody is trying to divert attention away from her employer and the Irish Times, just appealing for people not to get too caught up in the scandal stuff and not to forget the most horrible thing of all is that a young woman was so desperate for the pain to end that she took her life...

I take it as a given that everybody feels for Kate Fitzgerald's plight, even if most people cannot truly understand how dark it gets. I'd imagine there are few people who are not connected with somebody who has clinical depression. I'd rather, however, not dwell on that, just as others would rather focus on that aspect of this case.

For me, what makes this an issue of public importance is the fact that The Irish Times, the so-called paper of record, is going around editing an old article to posthumously edit the record of this lady's testimony to her truth. That it was done under pressure from the employer whom that lady did not name, and that The Irish Times issued at statement at that employer's behest which in effect called Kate Fitzgerald a liar all make for an exhibition of an old boys' network in operation in the Irish media.

If people want to focus on Kate Fitzgerald's death as just a personal tragedy that is fine, but if people want change in how things are done in this state, change that could prevent another person being treated as Kate Fitzgerald was, then highlighting what has happened in this case is a very, very good way to start in my view.

Callipo

The fact the mainstream media avoid mentioning alcohol abuse...as a factor in her death is more worrying than ....


Oh wait....

Dudess

What do mean it's a factor in her death?

temply

Callipo wrote: »

The fact the mainstream media avoid mentioning alcohol abuse...as a factor in her death is more worrying than ....


Oh wait....[/QUOTE

not seen the interview, did her parents imply that?

tbh

Dionysus wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Dionysus, nobody is trying to divert attention away from her employer and the Irish Times, just appealing for people not to get too caught up in the scandal stuff and not to forget the most horrible thing of all is that a young woman was so desperate for the pain to end tha- t she took her life...

I take it as a given that everybody feels for Kate Fitzgerald's plight, even if most people cannot truly understand how dark it gets. I'd imagine there are few people who are not connected with somebody who has clinical depression. I'd rather, however, not dwell on that, just as others would rather focus on that aspect of this case.

For me, what makes this an issue of public importance is the fact that The Irish Times, the so-called paper of record, is going around editing an old article to posthumously edit the record of this lady's testimony to her truth. That it was done under pressure from the employer whom that lady did not name, and that The Irish Times issued at statement at that employer's behest which in effect called Kate Fitzgerald a liar all make for an exhibition of an old boys' network in operation in the Irish media.

If people want to focus on Kate Fitzgerald's death as just a personal tragedy that is fine, but if people want change in how things are done in this state, change that could prevent another person being treated as Kate Fitzgerald was, then highlighting what has happened in this case is a very, very good way to start in my view.

I do agree that the way it was handled.by the IT was terrible. of course TCC have right of reply but I can't understand ~ or maybe I can - why that wasn't implemented as a statement from them at tho bottom of the article refuting her claims.

The Sparrow

Two different things going on here as far as I can see and they may be served best by different threads. Of course the issue of suicide and depression should not be ignored as it is fundamental to this whole sad story.

But as the title of this thread suggests, it is not about that. Instead it is about another unfortunate aspect of the story, notably the Irish Times 'butchering' (Kate's mother's words) her article and subsequently apologising to The Communications Clinic and implying that Kate had lied in the article she wrote.

I 100% agree that the suicide and depression aspect is genuinely important and it should never be overlooked by anyone. But instead of posters coming into this thread to constantly remind us of that, I would respectfully suggest that they start other threads to raise that issue and keep it front and centre.

Clearly, there is an issue with how The Irish Times handled this whole thing. You only have to look at the outrage here and on Twitter/ Facebook to know that. So I believe that it is legitimate to discuss it here whilst not losing sight of the fact that there are other important issues that this case raises.

Finally, I just watched the Brendan O'Connor piece... God her parents and brother were so brave. It really is a tragic story. Which only makes me angrier at The Irish Times. They talked about how Kate was a great debater but yet The Irish Times have branded her as a liar with no right of reply or evidence presented.

Dionysus

Things are getting more interesting over on that Bully for Them article. Hugh Linehan, the online editor of The Irish Times, has responded in the past 90 minutes:

---

Rob on December 3, 2011 at 11:29 pm said:
Comment from Irish Times Editor
Hugh Linehan

As one commenter here has pointed out, I’ve already responded to queries directed to me on Twitter in my capacity as online editor by committing to publishing a blogpost on http://irishtimes.com in the near future on the newspaper’s policy re amending material in our digital archive. We recognise that this is only one element (albeit an important one) of the concerns raised by readers. We will also engage with the detail of some of the criticisms directed at us here and on other platforms in the days to come. In doing so, however, we must be mindful of constraints imposed on us by legitimate legal and ethical considerations. Given the highly sensitive nature of this story for the people involved, and for the many other people who have been affected by suicide, it is imperative that any further comments from the Irish Times should be measured and be published at the right time.
http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/hlinehan/~dRKNL

---

Somebody over there has also pasted tomorrow's Sunday Times article on this story here

temply

Dionysus wrote: »

Things are getting more interesting over on that Bully for Them article. Hugh Linehan, the online editor of The Irish Times, has responded in the past 90 minutes:

---

Rob on December 3, 2011 at 11:29 pm said:
Comment from Irish Times Editor
Hugh Linehan

As one commenter here has pointed out, I’ve already responded to queries directed to me on Twitter in my capacity as online editor by committing to publishing a blogpost on http://irishtimes.com in the near future on the newspaper’s policy re amending material in our digital archive. We recognise that this is only one element (albeit an important one) of the concerns raised by readers. We will also engage with the detail of some of the criticisms directed at us here and on other platforms in the days to come. In doing so, however, we must be mindful of constraints imposed on us by legitimate legal and ethical considerations. Given the highly sensitive nature of this story for the people involved, and for the many other people who have been affected by suicide, it is imperative that any further comments from the Irish Times should be measured and be published at the right time.
http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/hlinehan/~dRKNL

---

Somebody over there has also pasted tomorrow's Sunday Times article on this story here

Its a pity they didn't think of this before now

billybudd

temply wrote: »

But can you ignore what she stated in her anonymous column?

No, but can you ignore the fact that she worked for high profile people and the IT connection and see that this happens in the majority of work places, from small shops to large corporations, if you have a mental issue then it is misunderstood to the point where it ends with someone taking their own life because the understanding mentality is not here and won’t be here till there is proper procedures in place to deal with mentally vulnerable people, blame the IT, blame prone, blame savage etc. but that won’t stop the next person from committing suicide, tolerance and understanding just might.

The Sparrow

Good article from The Sunday Independent:

Kate's great potential lost to society's intolerance for any sign of human frailty

The real tragedy is that it took Kate Fitzgerald's death to make us look at how we handle depression, writes Joanna Kiernan

By Joanna Kiernan

Sunday December 04 2011

I knew Kate Fitzgerald in a very casual sense. We studied for a BA in International Relations together in DCU some years ago.

We were friendly, but we were not friends, more acquaintances.

This was partly due to the fact that many of the different personalities of this small class simply did not gel, rather than anything else. Everyone was going in different directions most of the time.

It happens. I had never really given it much thought until recently, when I learned that Kate had taken her own life.

Again, I cannot claim to have been Kate's friend, but I knew her. She, unlike most of the rest of us, who were just keeping our heads above water during college, stood out.

She was the type of young woman you had to admire, partly because of her constantly well-groomed image, but even more so because she was intelligent, articulate, assertive and extremely passionate about politics.

Her soft American twang (she was born in California) also led me to develop a theory that whatever she said always sounded more authentic than what any of my other classmates had to say.

Kate was the type to turn up at class presentations in a suit, always tailored and feminine, while the remainder of the group stood around in hoodies.

You can never tell, but from my experience, in the few years we spent sitting in the same lecture halls, she always seemed like a happy, polite and content young women.

I wasn't surprised to see that Kate became chairwoman of the Irish branch of Democrats Abroad in 2007. Nor did it surprise me when I saw and heard her numerous television and radio appearances as a commentator during the Barack Obama-John McCain presidential election campaign in 2008, and during Obama's Irish visit earlier this year.

Kate, even to those who didn't know her very well, was bound for success.

It wasn't until last week that I learned of the circumstances around Kate's death; that Kate had written to the Irish Times newspaper anonymously before her death, detailing her struggle with depression and how her employers had reacted when she, having tried previously to take her own life, had checked herself into hospital.

"Mine was not a work-related illness," she wrote, "At least not before I entered the hospital. However, when I was released and when I returned to my office, things became different. I knew it would be difficult to explain to my employer, and I knew it would be difficult for them to understand an illness with no visible symptoms"

She added later, "I do not blame my employer. Ultimately those who have not suffered from the illness do not know how to approach it in others -- even those who have suffered from it may find it difficult."

The Irish Times published the article, anonymously, according to Kate's wishes, on Friday, September 9, the day before World Suicide Prevention day, but by the time it was published, Kate Fitzgerald was dead.

On Monday, August 22, Kate had taken her own life.

The day after the article appeared in print, Kate's father Tom Fitzgerald rang the newspaper to say that he was certain the author of this anonymous piece was his daughter Kate.

The pseudo name she had used to contact the paper, "Grace Ringwood," was later deciphered by Kate's heartbroken mother Sally as Kate's grandmother's maiden name and a first name which Sally had often told Kate she would have used, had she had a second daughter.

Kate's death would have been noted, perhaps, in my own mental history as just one of a list of those unexplainable tragedies that become all too common once you grow up and find yourself out in the real world, had it not been for a blog post last week.

The post highlighted Kate's story, revealing Kate's employers as The Communications Clinic, a media training company set up in 2008 by Terry Prone, her husband Tom Savage and their son Anton.

Last Monday, Kate's original article appeared on the Irish Times website in an altered form, with the three paragraphs mentioning her employers removed completely.

It later transpired that the paragraphs had been removed by the Irish Times under legal advice following a complaint by he Communications Clinic about the article.

Whatever the truth behind Kate's death and working conditions, I can say one thing categorically, when Kate Fitzgerald took her own life, the potential for something great died with her.

That is not an empty line I throw out lightly. That is not the loving memory of a dear friend; that is the dispassionate observation of a once very anti-social, quiet student, who saw something in Kate Fitzgerald, something strong and powerful, that could easily have taken her to the White House one day.

Perhaps for Kate, like many bright young Irish people currently working their hearts out in order to carve a career for themselves, the room to grow was just not there for her.

Ireland is not a very healthy place at the moment for the many young people out there whose pride and sometimes even self-worth is so often primarily invested in their careers.

If I know anything about Kate, it is that she was not someone happy to stand still.

The fact that from the depths of depression, and an obviously very pressurised working environment, she could emerge to write with such eloquence about her experience tells us all we need to know about Kate.

It's just so tragic that it took her death for us all to pay attention.

Amalgam

Dionysus wrote: »

Things are getting more interesting over on that Bully for Them article. Hugh Linehan, the online editor of The Irish Times, has responded in the past 90 minutes:

---

Rob on December 3, 2011 at 11:29 pm said:
Comment from Irish Times Editor
Hugh Linehan

As one commenter here has pointed out, I’ve already responded to queries directed to me on Twitter in my capacity as online editor by committing to publishing a blogpost on http://irishtimes.com in the near future on the newspaper’s policy re amending material in our digital archive. We recognise that this is only one element (albeit an important one) of the concerns raised by readers. We will also engage with the detail of some of the criticisms directed at us here and on other platforms in the days to come. In doing so, however, we must be mindful of constraints imposed on us by legitimate legal and ethical considerations. Given the highly sensitive nature of this story for the people involved, and for the many other people who have been affected by suicide, it is imperative that any further comments from the Irish Times should be measured and be published at the right time.
http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/hlinehan/~dRKNL

---

Somebody over there has also pasted tomorrow's Sunday Times article on this story here

That's a rather anaemic response, this part is rich:

In doing so, however, we must be mindful of constraints imposed on us by legitimate legal and ethical considerations. Given the highly sensitive nature of this story for the people involved, and for the many other people who have been affected by suicide, it is imperative that any further comments from the Irish Times should be measured and be published at the right time.

The apology by the Irish Times was entirely one sided and done without any legal threat. The contact and relationship with certain staff members, between the paper and 'that company' has been anything but clear and transparent.

Slugs.

expectationlost

Hersheys wrote: »

I don't think it was intentional on his part. He worked closely with Kates family to get the story across accurately and in a sensitive manner that ensured a lasting memory of Kate.

I think the pressure came from other sources for the article to be edited. Afterall, he said in the article that Kate gave him her real name before they published, and IIRC he said he cleared it with the editor. He also mentioned that there had been a previous professional relationship in that Kate would send him articles in a professional nature for publication. He knew (of) Kate, he knew where she worked.

I don't think any of Kates family & friends (or much of the general public for that matter) cared so much that last weeks article linked Kate to TCC - what it did was give a certain amount of closure to the tragedy. Nothing was said about the employers in any discussion I was involved in - it was all about how tragic the situation was. And how, as usual, Kate got the last word

Unfortunately the IT have turned what was a great "goodbye" into a farce and essentially called Kate a liar

peter murtagh caused the problem by printing the second article, he should have known it would cause problems.

kate's parents said she wanted her words heard about dealing with depression and work, well they were heard when he printed the letter, he should have left it then, naming her and outing the company in the second article was _the_ mistake Irish Times and its managing editor Peter Murtagh made.

strandroad

I don't think he named the company? It was just that with her real name printed it became possible to make the connection.

The Sparrow

expectationlost wrote: »

peter murtagh caused the problem by printing the second article, he should have known it would cause problems.

kate's parents said she wanted her words heard about dealing with depression and work, well they were heard when he printed the letter, he should have left it then, naming her and outing the company in the second article was _the_ mistake Irish Times and its managing editor Peter Murtagh made.

Yep as mhge said, the company wasn't named in the second article either.

expectationlost

The Sparrow wrote: »

Yep as mhge said, the company wasn't named in the second article either.

it still tuned anonymous allegations into ones about a specific company

The Sparrow

expectationlost wrote: »

it still tuned anonymous allegations into ones about a specific company

Yeah but you would need to either know her personally or do a fair bit of investigating. Which covers about 1% of the readership.

Dudess

expectationlost wrote: »

peter murtagh caused the problem by printing the second article, he should have known it would cause problems.

kate's parents said she wanted her words heard about dealing with depression and work, well they were heard when he printed the letter, he should have left it then, naming her and outing the company in the second article was _the_ mistake Irish Times and its managing editor Peter Murtagh made.

How do you know he had the final say in the publishing of the second item?

expectationlost

The Sparrow wrote: »

Yeah but you would need to either know her personally or do a fair bit of investigating. Which covers about 1% of the readership.

nope a quick google was all it took, I don't think the opportunity for anyone to do should have arisen it shouldn't have been printed.

expectationlost

Dudess wrote: »

How do you know he had the final say in the publishing of the second item?

i don't think he should have written it all, as I say i think he should have forseen the problem. if you don't think the managing editor of the irish times is capable of doing so?

strandroad

expectationlost wrote: »

i don't think he should have written it all, as I say i think he should have forseen the problem. if you don't think the managing editor of the irish times is capable of doing so?

This is a debatable issue but I think what is the most galling here is that even if IT/the journalist made a mistake they still made Kate Fitzgerald and her family pay for it by castrating her last letter and branding her a liar.

She mentioned the employer anonymously in the background to make her points on how depression is treated in the workplace and in the society. She has never named the employer in any paper and wouldn't have done had she lived.

They did it themselves. Yet they decided to blame it on her anyway.

The Sparrow

expectationlost wrote: »

nope a quick google was all it took, I don't think the opportunity for anyone to do should have arisen it shouldn't have been printed.

True, I suppose. But I still think that very few readers would have taken the time to do that. Although, I do take your point. The Irish Times should have handled the whole situation better including the printing of the article originally.

However, for there to be a problem with defamation, the company would have to prove that their reputation was harmed in the minds of the majority of right thinking people who read the article and I don't see that being possible since they were never named.

expectationlost

The Sparrow wrote: »

True, I suppose. But I still think that very few readers would have taken the time to do that. Although, I do take your point. The Irish Times should have handled the whole situation better including the printing of the article originally.

However, for there to be a problem with defamation, the company would have to prove that their reputation was harmed in the minds of the majority of right thinking people who read the article and I don't see that being possible since they were never named.

think of this way, would the irish times have printed the original letter if it had not been anonymous.

The Sparrow

expectationlost wrote: »

think of this way, would the irish times have printed the original letter if it had not been anonymous.

Well I can only assume they would have considering they later published it and named the author following her death.

expectationlost

The Sparrow wrote: »

Well I can only assume they would have considering they later published it and named the author following her death.

no they would not! you couldn't publish an article like that without getting the other side, and at that stage it probably wouldn't be something they could publish.

The Sparrow

expectationlost wrote: »

no they would not! you couldn't publish an article like that without getting the other side, and at that stage it probably wouldn't be something they could publish.

But they did publish it and they left it published in it's original state on their website even though the author had been clearly named in their follow up article. They obviously didn't think they needed to get the other side because they didn't think there was any threat of defamation because the company was not named.

Really what she said was not particularly bad and it was mostly her opinion. It was only when TCC contacted the IT that the problem started and as The Irish Times state that they did not change the article due to legal threats from TCC, we can only assume that some other reason caused them to change it.