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

Cianos

jerry2623 wrote: »

I know some of you feel my words pathetic and sad are out of place but
that is what life is going to be for this family and all the other families of people who kill themselves this Christmas.

You're rejigging your usage of the words now. The meaning you implied firstly and the meaning you're implying here as quoted are totally different.

Acid_Violet

I've been almost been compulsively following this since I first read Peter Murtagh's article. A few friends of mine were very close with Kate and the events of the last week or so has made the grieving process infinitely more awful.

Whilst Kate's article and Murtagh's initially set out to instigate discussion about suicide and the understanding of employers towards their mentally ill staff, recent actions have attempted to completely stifle the latter and as a result have inhibited the former. I think we can all agree that these events show that we need to have a discussion about the power and influence of particular individuals on the media and in the public sphere. As someone who always admired Terry Prone up until now, it is evident that the actions of her company, by trying to quash discussion, betrayed guilt. For a PR company to be doing this kind of "damage control" instead of "spin", there can't have been anything positive to spin.

As someone who has had people close to me have to put up with bullying in the workplace, both sexual harassment and abuse of employment terms, these recent events do illustrate why employees under duress from their superiors find themselves in an impossible position that forbids them from taking the action to defend themselves that legislation permits, particularly people who were ill like Kate. I am in no way blaming Kate's employers for her death but the power wielded by her employers to "protect" their good name demonstrates what many employees find themselves up against and, despite their being employment laws, effectively leaves them with no recourse. Hopefully we've seen the end of the cover-ups and this very necessary discussion will be triggered.

All that said, the more and more I read the more I wish there were laws against libeling the dead.

The Sweeper

jerry2623 wrote: »

At the end of the day It was KATE who decided to bring so much pain and hurt to her family and friends not the Irish Times or The communications clinic.
Kate decided to not stand up for her seriously damaging allegation.
People including her family now giving out about the IT altering her last statement to the world seem to ignore that one fact.
At the end it was She herself decided to kill herself and people around her should not be blamed for that

The fact that she appeares to have written the article less then 4 hours before doing this act speaks for itself about her state of mind .

I actually find the contributions of poster jerry2623 to be so devoid of empathy they are bordering on the sociopathic. jerry2623, I think you have little understanding of either the environment of a PR agency or the intricacies of depression.

A supportive, open and understanding workplace could have been the difference between Kate Fitzgerald's suicide and her decision to live. When you are depressed, your thinking wobbles off its tracks somewhat. You find it difficult to be objective and thinking laterally is nearly impossible. It can be like a sort of tunnel vision: your focus dwindles down to a pinpoint, you can only see the bad, and the bad is so breath-stealingly overwhelming that you genuinely cannot see any way out of the pit you feel you're in.

The PR industry in Ireland revolves around image, what people think, competition and high pressure deadlines. The stakes are high and unfortunately that means that some senior PR people conduct themselves, frankly, obnoxiously.

Nobody should ever be screamed at in their workplace.
Nobody should ever be marginalised in their workplace.
Nobody should ever be bullied in their workplace.

The implication that being unable to cope with a PR environment is somehow a sign of weakness and she 'didn't have to work there' is extremely limited thinking. The public relations industry is an interesting and fast paced environment in which many people enjoy thriving careers. Some of those people braved being roared at like a tinker's dog during their advance. Others didn't have to.

But it boils down to basic human interaction - if you have to scream at someone to convey urgency, if you have to reduce staff to tears to make your point, if you have to manage a team that lives in fear of your mood swings, that doesn't make you good at your job. That means you have extremely poor human interaction skills and aren't a very nice person.

Sometimes I think staff in high pressure companies like PR companies need to take a breath, get some perspective and remember that if they don't get the front page of the Indo, nobody will die. But if they don't get the front page of the Indo and they take their subsequent rage out on another staff member, the sad fact is somebody might.

Podge_irl

gozunda wrote: »

You work in HR by any chance?...

No, I'm a physicist.

I don't know the ins and outs of this situation. However, I would think that had Kate mentioned her company name (or likely even her own real name) in the original article it wouldn't have been published in the first place. A newspaper isn't going to publish allegations such as were in the article about a named company without researching it and giving the company a right of reply. Once he name and the company became known they had obvious legal issues with the article. The handled it poorly, and because the company in question appears to be generally disliked (I have never heard of them before), people assume that there is a lot of skullduggery going on. The laws governing this though, are the same laws that stop the IT just making up stories for the hell of it or purposefully libelling people they don't like.

Podge_irl

The Sweeper wrote: »

A supportive, open and understanding workplace could have been the difference between Kate Fitzgerald's suicide and her decision to live. When you are depressed, your thinking wobbles off its tracks somewhat.

I don't want to go too far down this route, but I've only recently recovered from a fairly serious depressive episode. I had to drop out of college, developed a reasonably serious alcohol problem and was teetering on the edge quite frankly. Looking back on it now though, during the worst of it I thought plenty of people treated me poorly when it reality they were doing their best and in some cases were being quite helpful. I'm not saying the same happened to Kate, and by all accounts her workplace was less then ideal, but I genuinely think people are attacking the IT without knowing enough about the situation.

Dudess

I agree Podge - but not with people who say the employers are being blamed for her death, or with the frankly horrible stuff being said by jerry.

beks101

jerry2623 wrote: »

People need to also understand it is practically impossible for people with mental illness to get decent paid employment .

Oh yes, because none of the mentally ill people in the country work at all, they're all locked up and strapped to beds in strait jackets for fear they might find gainful employment and corrupt an entire work place with their laziness and unreliability.

What absolute tripe. It's attitudes like yours that make mental illness the taboo that it is in Ireland, because people who suffer with them are wrongly conceived to be useless, hopeless cases, 'sad and pathetic' in your own fine words.

Have you ever sunk into a black hole in your own mind so deep and so overwhelming and so isolating that the only way out you can see is to take your own life? Thought not, and long may it continue for you sir. I've had depressive episodes like most of us, fortunately I too have never reached that stage but I have nothing but sympathy, empathy and unwavering compassion for the people who sink that far, who lose hope to the point where they're living in their own hell on earth.

It breaks my heart to even try to imagine that level of pain, but it's an Irish epidemic and one that's not likely to disappear by sighing at it like it's some sort of character defect, like these people are simply refusing to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and deal with life's bullsh1t like the rest of us. Jesus Christ. A bit of cop-on and respect wouldn't go astray.

And for the record, someone with a mental illness is no more of a risk in their job than someone with a broken leg. Except for extreme cases, most people learn to cope and compartmentalise their disease.

ciarafem

It seems to me that Kate’s article showed contradictory attitudes towards her employer http://3menmakeatiger.blogspot.com/ .

She said that “It is important to note that I love my job and, crucially, I love my employers like a family” in the first half of her anonymous article.

Then she refers to what it was like when she came back after her stay in a hospital for her illness:

“However, when I returned to my office things became different.”

“I did not, however, expect that I would be met with casual hostility, with passive-aggressive references to my mental incapacity for my profession,”

“I expected to be accepted back as the hard-working employee I have always been”

Clearly she was very much affected by the change from a family-like environment to one that she found to be hostile.

She goes on to say that “clearly they had no idea what to do” and “but it cannot be managed without the help and encouragement of those I work for”. Crucially she also said “I do not blame my employer”.

Her anonymous article seems to me to have been written to highlight the plight of those who occasionally suffer from a severe bout of illness due to depression. She made this general statement in the article “Every day a company loses a valuable employee, and every day a family loses one they loved”.

It seems to me that what happened since her death reflects badly on both The Communications Clinic and the Irish Times. To have managed the situation from a PR point of view TCC could have read her article carefully and made a statement something like “we regret the tragic death of Kate. She was a highly valued employee and will be difficult to replace. Her article was not critical of TCC – she loved her employers like a family. If anything her death shows the need for better awareness in society of depression as an illness”.

There are no words to describe the Irish Times attempts at revisionism and accusing Kate of lying when she is not in a position to defend herself.

rugbug86

I can't speak for Kate but if that was me I would be upset too. To go from a work situation where it feels like family, to a hostile environment because people don't know how to deal with somebody having a mental illness must be very tough to deal with.

It's no different to any "visible" illness.

tbh

Broadsheet, in an unprecedented step, have gone quiet ahead of what seems to be a major revelation in about 20 minutes.

From the site earlier today:

We apologise for the sporadic posting on Broadsheet.ie yesterday afternoon and this morning.

We are currently working on aspects of the Kate Fitzgerald story that are quite complicated. We hope to share some of that work with you.

Below is a post we had written up on Monday night in an effort to explain the unusual apology by the Irish Times to The Communications Clinic, but held off publishing until we had discussed it with Kate’s parents, which we did in person at their home in Cork yesterday. The story has moved on significantly since we wrote this and further details have emerged which we will try to bring to you.

We have disabled comments on this post because we need to stay within the facts as we know them until a fuller picture emerges. We are very sorry.

.
The Irish Times apology to The Communications Clinic on Saturday referred to “significant assertions” within the original piece that were “not factual”. The Irish Times editor Kevin O’Sullivan on Monday wrote: “After publication of the piece on Kate’s life some further details of her final months emerged. This led to an Irish Times decision to edit the initial piece and to publish a clarification in Saturday’s editions.”
We have discovered one inconsistency between assertions made in the Irish Times article of November 26 and Kate’s anonymous article of September 9.

In the anonymous article of September 9 it is stated: “Some months ago I [Kate] attempted to take my own life. When I failed I was encouraged to check into a hospital – they said they no longer could take care of me.” The November 29 article states that Kate checked into the hospital on July 18 and this date was confirmed by Kate’s parents to Brendan O’Connor on The Saturday Night Show on RTE One.

This would make the date of Kate’s hospital admission only a month before she submitted her article for publicationa and not the ‘some months’ stated in her article. No effort is made to explain this inconsistency in the November 26 article.

A discrepancy also appreared to arise when Kate’s parents spoke on the Saturday Night Show, with Brendan O’Connor. They said their daughter checked herself into St Patrick’s Hospital for four days, from July 18 to 22. The anonymous article on September 9 states: “When I [Kate] returned from my two-week stint in mental health limbo, where doctors and nurses admonished me for my apparent need for need for control, my definition of myself through the value of my trade, I expected to be accepted back as the hard-working employee I have always been.” Kate may have possibly been referring to a different admission to another psychiatric hospital but the paragraphs that follow this would suggest this was the most recent time she sought medical help.
She wrote: “When I could not get a firm answer as to when they would let me leave the hospital, I checked myself out, against medical advice, left in a taxi at midnight with my clothes packed in plastic bags. All because, I told myself and later my director, I wanted to go back to work. More than the urge not to live at all, I didn’t want to live without my work.”
Also the following would indicate, she was only in hospital for psychiatric help one time. She said: “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 things became different.”

personally, I think the differences between the sequence of events as remembered by the family and described in the article could be down to a number of innocent things, in my mind most probable is Kate trying to protect her identity, but it's certainly interesting times.

samrulz

Sounds like a 'Savage' company to work for! but in all seriousness where The Sweeper states this:

"But it boils down to basic human interaction - if you have to scream at someone to convey urgency, if you have to reduce staff to tears to make your point, if you have to manage a team that lives in fear of your mood swings, that doesn't make you good at your job. That means you have extremely poor human interaction skills and aren't a very nice person."

Totally agree as this isnt the first time this ' Communications' co has hit the headlines re 'mismanagement' (for want of a better word) of staff (think back to Karagh Fox/Ms Hickey) --also Ms Prone expressing her opinion on national televison with a 4 letter expletive (can be viewed via YouTube, Vincent O'Brien) is somewhat bizarre given that she is representing her company & furthermore as its Chairman!--- it begs the question, does this woman REALLY give advice to the nation's so called crem de la crem of society?

Also it was only a few weeks back Ms Prone appeared on national television/RTE's Saturday Night Show where she was discussing her 'shyness' -- at the time I found it hilarious that the host/interviewer was saying she was more socially awkward than shy & was trying to tell her she had a problem with people! He intimated this several times... am I the only one that remembers this and also am I the only one who finds it somewhat ironic the title of the company?!!

On a different level! I'm often surprised (when she's had surgical intervention that she openly refers to) that she hasn't gone for the trout pout, i.e., fixing her top lip to match her bottom lip - is it me that just finds her bottom lip abnornally large in relation to her top one, it makes her look comedic/cartoon-esque IMO - I always feel with that bottom lip overhanging so much that she's about to burst into tears/throw her teddy out of the pram!. Also am I the only one that finds her hubby a bit wimpish/wet. To me he always comes across like her sub!

AnonoBoy

Interesting article here on how the message that we should be talking about has been lost in all this name-calling.

The Sparrow

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Interesting article here on how the message that we should be talking about has been lost in all this name-calling.

Interesting but off the mark imo. The author suggests that people who have a problem with the Irish Times over this incident must be the same people who as she puts it "have considered marching on RTE, carrying pitchforks and burning torches, following its horrible libel of Fr. Kevin Reynolds. Evidently, some feel entitled to pick and choose who is defamed in this country and, while a parish priest gets our sympathy, a PR company gets it in the neck." She goes on to say that if you are unhappy with The Irish Times, then you have no understanding of libel. Nonsense, on both counts.

I have a perfectly fine understanding of libel after completing a dissertation on the subject and this case cannot be compared with what happened to Fr. Kevin Reynolds. He was able to defend his name and force RTE to apologise and pay a large sum in compensation. Kate Fitzgerald, on the other hand, cannot defend her name and that is exactly the point that the author missed and the reason that many people are so angry. She is the victim here, not The Communications Clinic as the author rather amazingly suggests.

And for the life of me, I cannot understand the argument that discussing the implications of how The Irish Times have handled this somehow takes away from the discussion of suicide on depression. It doesn't. Both are valid talking points arising from this tragedy.

Anyway, Broadsheet.ie will apparently be back at 8am tomorrow.

Podge_irl

The Sparrow wrote: »

I have a perfectly fine understanding of libel after completing a dissertation on the subject and this case cannot be compared with what happened to Fr. Kevin Reynolds. He was able to defend his name and force RTE to apologise and pay a large sum in compensation. Kate Fitzgerald, on the other hand, cannot defend her name and that is exactly the point that the author missed and the reason that many people are so angry. She is the victim here, not The Communications Clinic as the author rather amazingly suggests.

Kate Fitzgerald is not the one who was being potentially libelled, TCC were.

The only thing said about Kate is that there were "factual inaccuracies" in her article. Which has the benefit of being seemingly true, at least to some degree.

I don't get this witchhunt.

ciarafem

Just to unpack what has happened:

• Anonymous article by Kate Fitzgerald which was very well received. The article was anonymous; she did not identify either her employer or her profession. 5 Stars awarded.
• Following her death Peter Murtagh’s well written article identified Kate Fitzgerald, mentioned her profession, but did not identify her employer. 4 Stars.

The original article was not intended to defame Kate Fitzgerald’s employer – so how could it have been libellous. There was a complete absence of intent to libel or defame.

• Apology published by the IT following non-legal representations from Kate Fitzgerald’s employer and in house legal advice. 1 Star.
• Retrospective editing of Kate’s original article. 1 Star
• PR handling of the affair has resulted, it seems, in a ‘Streisand Effect’. 0 Stars

What was initially a very welcomed public examination of aspects of the illness of depression, has now become mired in accusation and counteraccusation. If 3), 4) and 5) hadn’t occurred I don’t believe that the credibility of the IT or Kate’s employer would have become salient in the public discourse on suicide or depression.

If my points grading above makes me a member of what some posters on blogs on this topic regard as the ‘chattering class’, then I am proud to be a member of this class!

Dudess

I agree things should be examined further rather than just accepted for how they seem, but if she says her employers were unsupportive, I believe her. The company's history in this regard only adds weight to her claim. Maybe the employer took issue with her saying some stuff done by work was illegal though, which is perhaps understandable.

A young woman took her life - that's ultimately the biggest horror of all, but discussing this tragic related story, in a reasonable manner, doesn't mitigate that.

Dermighty

Who is kate? a bit presumptuous putting just her first name down!?

Dudess

ciarafem wrote: »

Just to unpack what has happened:

• Anonymous article by Kate Fitzgerald which was very well received. The article was anonymous; she did not identify either her employer or her profession. 5 Stars awarded.
• Following her death Peter Murtagh’s well written article identified Kate Fitzgerald, mentioned her profession, but did not identify her employer. 4 Stars.

The original article was not intended to defame Kate Fitzgerald’s employer – so how could it have been libellous. There was a complete absence of intent to libel or defame.

• Apology published by the IT following non-legal representations from Kate Fitzgerald’s employer and in house legal advice. 1 Star.
• Retrospective editing of Kate’s original article. 1 Star
• PR handling of the affair has resulted, it seems, in a ‘Streisand Effect’. 0 Stars

What was initially a very welcomed public examination of aspects of the illness of depression, has now become mired in accusation and counteraccusation. If 3), 4) and 5) hadn’t occurred I don’t believe that the credibility of the IT or Kate’s employer would have become salient in the public discourse on suicide or depression.

If my points grading above makes me a member of what some posters on blogs on this topic regard as the ‘chattering class’, then I am proud to be a member of this class!

Well said.

"Chattering classes" :rolleyes: - intellectual snobbery ****. I think things through critically and the CC and Times' handling of this stinks!

I think something can be defamatory without that being the intention though, Ciara.

Dudess

Dermighty wrote: »

Who is kate? a bit presumptuous putting just her first name down!?

You know who Kate was.

What does it presume?

The Sparrow

Podge_irl wrote: »

Kate Fitzgerald is not the one who was being potentially libelled, TCC were.

No they weren't. To prove that they were defamed, TCC would have to prove that their reputation was harmed amongst the majority of right thinking ppl who read the article as a result of factual inaccuracies within the article. This would be impossible considering that they were never named in the article.

And even if they somehow managed to to convince a jury that the majority of people who read the article did know who the employer was, they would have to prove that the allegations were false and that their reputation suffered as a result.

Considering that the allegations were mostly the opinion of a former employee who has know passed away, it would be pretty impossible to prove that they were false. And as the author made a point of saying that she considered her work as a family and that she didn't blame them, it would be equally difficult to prove that the reputation of TCC suffered.

So can we please put the myth that The Communications Clinic were defamed to bed as they were not in any shape or form.

ciarafem

Dudess wrote: »

I think something can be defamatory without that being the intention though, Ciara.

I think that her primary intention in writing the article was to give the reader insight into depression as an illness. She tried to balance her comments about her employer with positive comments as well as criticism.

But in saying this I'm trying to interpret what she said. Only she could have answer this question.

It really is a shame that the initial positive impact of both her and Peter Murtagh's article has been blunted.

Has the role of legal advice distorted the lenses we use in responding to human affairs in Ireland, I wonder?

Dudess

The Sparrow wrote: »

Podge_irl wrote: »

Kate Fitzgerald is not the one who was being potentially libelled, TCC were.

No they weren't. To prove that they were defamed, TCC would have to prove that their reputation was harmed amongst the majority of right thinking ppl who read the article as a result of factual inaccuracies within the article. This would be impossible considering that they were never named in the article.

And even if they somehow managed to to convince a jury that the majority of people who read the article did know who the employer was, they would have to prove that the allegations were false and that their reputation suffered as a result.

Considering that the allegations were mostly the opinion of a former employee who has know passed away, it would be pretty impossible to prove that they were false. And as the author made a point of saying that she considered her work as a family and that she didn't blame them, it would be equally difficult to prove that the reputation of TCC suffered.

So can we please put the myth that The Communications Clinic were defamed to bed as they were not in any shape or form.

And given its history, I wonder would fair comment apply?

That Colette Browne one probably thinks she's so above the plebs who are angered by the CC/Times, and I'll be honest, I thought a lynch mob might form also, but it's actually the "plebs" who are putting the most thought in.

geeky

Bloody Hell. After the drama of yesterday, broadsheet.ie acts like nothing happened.... seriously confused.

The Sparrow

geeky wrote: »

Bloody Hell. After the drama of yesterday, broadsheet.ie acts like nothing happened.... seriously confused.

Very bizarre all right.

secrecy_ie

They have taken down the most commented story on this case and disabled comments elsewhere on it. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if they are doing this for a good reason, if not I'm ashamed of them - they say that they will fight for the truth etc but it appears that they have been scared off. As someone who understands a lot of what Kate was going through, I can't help but feel extremely saddened that a case like this, one which has the potential to finally highlight the injustices done to those with mental health problems in Ireland seems to have been shoved under the carpet.

tbh

secrecy_ie wrote: »

they say that they will fight for the truth etc .

that depends on what the truth is. There could be a number of reasons that story isn't up there yet.
One of them could be that they are still checking with lawyers and will publish something eventually

one of them could be that TCC threatened to sue them out of existence

One of them could be that TCC proved that the story Kate wrote was inaccurate.

We don't know Kate, none of us have worked in TCC, none of us know the truth of this story. A lot of people are presuming a certain sequence of events, or a certain set of facts, none - or, in fairness all - of which may turn out to be true, and people are judging the parties involved based on what *they* think happened. Some people may think that TCC bullied the girl to such an extent that she committed suicide, and so believe that TCC are pulling strings to suppress the truth. Some people may think that Kate was mentally ill and saw things that weren't there, and so believe that TCC are only defending themselves and their actions.

But the point is - none of us know for sure what the truth is.

secrecy_ie

tbh wrote: »

that depends on what the truth is. There could be a number of reasons that story isn't up there yet.
One of them could be that they are still checking with lawyers and will publish something eventually

one of them could be that TCC threatened to sue them out of existence

One of them could be that TCC proved that the story Kate wrote was inaccurate.

We don't know Kate, none of us have worked in TCC, none of us know the truth of this story. A lot of people are presuming a certain sequence of events, or a certain set of facts, none - or, in fairness all - of which may turn out to be true, and people are judging the parties involved based on what *they* think happened. Some people may think that TCC bullied the girl to such an extent that she committed suicide, and so believe that TCC are pulling strings to suppress the truth. Some people may think that Kate was mentally ill and saw things that weren't there, and so believe that TCC are only defending themselves and their actions.

But the point is - none of us know for sure what the truth is.

Fair point, I agree. I just hope that whatever happens, it is the right thing.

crushproof

geeky wrote: »

Bloody Hell. After the drama of yesterday, broadsheet.ie acts like nothing happened.... seriously confused.

What exactly happened yesterday?!

tbh

crushproof wrote: »

What exactly happened yesterday?!

Broadsheet said something along the lines of "we're working on this story, and we'll have news for you later on today".

At 2pm they posted a link to say "We're going quiet for an hour"/

No updates till about 10pm last night, when the text was changed to "We'll be back at 8am"

Then this morning, the "holding post" was deleted and there's been no mention of it or the story ever since.

AnonoBoy

After all their crusading and finger pointing it will be quite ironic if it turns out that Broadsheet themselves are doing what they berated the Irish Times for.

tbh

looks like this is the case. Reading between the lines, it would appear broadsheet have been comprehensively shut up. Superinjunction style.

The Sparrow

tbh wrote: »

looks like this is the case. Reading between the lines, it would appear broadsheet have been comprehensively shut up. Superinjunction style.

That's brilliant!

uvox

Can we expect a Letters Page in the Irish Times tomorrow full of outraged Irish Times readers saying how they will never read Broadsheet again, attack on freedom of speech, disgrace, shame, disrespect, (contd. page 94)?

Probably not.

Suddenly John Ryan's zeal for published of "in the public interest" appears to have waned. I wonder why?

oceanclub

uvox wrote: »

Can we expect a Letters Page in the Irish Times tomorrow full of outraged Irish Times readers saying how they will never read Broadsheet again, attack on freedom of speech, disgrace, shame, disrespect, (contd. page 94)?

Probably not.

Suddenly John Ryan's zeal for published of "in the public interest" appears to have waned. I wonder why?

To be fair, we should hold a national broadsheet newspaper allegedly "of record", which itself claimed it was never approached in a legal manner, to a higher standard than a comedy website which - presumably - has had some kind of legal action taken out against it.

P.

Dudess

Yeah I'd be more inclined to direct my ire at whomever has coerced Broadsheet into zipping it. Instead of leaping to play the blame game, maybe the people who have posted comments to the site should consider how little power Broadsheet has, and how much power those it's up against have. It obviously had no choice - why are some so quick to attack it when they don't even know the full story? It's as if they need to be cynical or something. No thinking it through - just petulant teenage foot-stamping. Like, does Broadsheet have loads of money for solicitor fees?

I think Broadsheet spoke out as best it could...

The Sparrow

Plus I doubt this is the last we have heard of it. I would give Broadsheet the benefit of the doubt. Better to try and fail then not try at all.

hada

The Sparrow wrote: »

Plus I doubt this is the last we have heard of it. I would give Broadsheet the benefit of the doubt. Better to try and fail then not try at all.

Completely agree. Just watched last week's Saturday Show with Kate's parents and brother on RTE Player - absolutely heart breaking. Terry Prone et al will get their rewards; in this life or the next.

Toby Take a Bow

hada wrote: »

Completely agree. Just watched last week's Saturday Show with Kate's parents and brother on RTE Player - absolutely heart breaking. Terry Prone et al will get their rewards; in this life or the next.

Probably not in the next life, though.

And if they have enough money to silence any media, they'll probably be okay in this life too.

Callipo

Word is that the poor lass had such an affliction with drink that it made most of the position of others null and void

hada

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Probably not in the next life, though.

And if they have enough money to silence any media, they'll probably be okay in this life too.

I'd rather be poor than what is alleged on my conscious.

Toby Take a Bow

hada wrote: »

I'd rather be poor than what is alleged on my conscious.

That's great, but I doubt Prone does.

tbh

hada wrote: »

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Probably not in the next life, though.

And if they have enough money to silence any media, they'll probably be okay in this life too.

I'd rather be poor than what is alleged on my conscious.

You don't even know what is alleged.(alleged by whom by the way, because its.not by Kate) let alone what is true

Its just Fecking lazy to assume that because TCC have worked in politics that they are automatically guilty of vague and unspeakable horribility (tm tbh 2011).

Once more. WE. DON'T. KNOW. ANYTHING. ABOUT. WHAT. HAPPENED.

if broadsheet are guilty of anything, its of accusing the IT of cowardice before establishing the facts.

I'm not saying something dodgy didot happen. But i think its important to never pre-judge a story and Im not goin.g to start with this one.

uvox

Broadsheet should explain where their deleted posts concerning this story have gone. The Irish Times modified their articles for sure, and explained belatedly. However, the evidence is there to see. Deleting content, on the other hand, is how Stalinists behave.

Frankly, the initial allegations should never have been published by the Irish Times whether anonymous or not. I doubt any legal representations were made, but they were clearly very damaging, unproven, and remain so.

As Broadsheet have found out it is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating (Oscar Wilde). The site doesn't even have a data protection or privacy policy statement. It's wide open for commenters on that site to be pursued for comments while the owner/operator disappears.

Irish online media hasn't come of age at all.

Hotblack Desiato

uvox wrote: »

The site doesn't even have a data protection or privacy policy statement. It's wide open for commenters on that site to be pursued for comments while the owner/operator disappears.

Under Irish law, both commenters AND the site that publishes the comments can be pursued. Same as print media.

Irish online media hasn't come of age at all.

Does 'coming of age' mean the freedom to print anything without consequences?

raindog.promo

ninja900 wrote: »

Does 'coming of age' mean the freedom to print anything without consequences?

This leaves Ireland trailing behind other jurisdictions. Since 1996, the United States has given internet providers a defence in respect of material written by users. So have many EU countries, which went further than European law requires. Ireland, however, exposes internet intermediaries to a much greater business risk of being held liable for material they did not produce.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2010/02/28/irish-defamation-law-still-inadequate-for-internet/

Millicent

The post is still up on Broadsheet -- just renamed, I think.

Or is it another one being referred to?

Hotblack Desiato

raindog.promo wrote: »

This leaves Ireland trailing behind other jurisdictions. Since 1996, the United States has given internet providers a defence in respect of material written by users. So have many EU countries, which went further than European law requires. Ireland, however, exposes internet intermediaries to a much greater business risk of being held liable for material they did not produce.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2010/02/28/irish-defamation-law-still-inadequate-for-internet/

Writing all in bold is like writing all in caps - annoying... unless one is a mod, of course...

I would read that piece as referring to ISPs rather than website owners, and I'd agree as it's unreasonable to hold ISPs responsible. It's not unreasonable to hold website owners responsible for what they themselves 'publish'.

When a libel is printed, everyone involved can be sued, even the printer and the bookshop.

Dudess

uvox wrote: »

Broadsheet should explain where their deleted posts concerning this story have gone. The Irish Times modified their articles for sure, and explained belatedly. However, the evidence is there to see. Deleting content, on the other hand, is how Stalinists behave.

Or people who have the might of hot-shot lawyers on their case. Why oh why are people so desperate to paint Broadsheet as bad guys here?

As Broadsheet have found out it is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating (Oscar Wilde).

And I wouldn't blame them. Being a renegade and a rebel and so on is great to a point, especially to teenagers, but in the real world you have to protect yourself too.

It's wide open for commenters on that site to be pursued for comments while the owner/operator disappears.

Defamation doesn't work like that. If a caller to the Joe Duffy show said <insert public figure here> liked looking up child porn and it made it to air, RTE would be sued. This is one of the reasons there is a time lag of a few seconds to live phone-in shows.
If a caller to the Joe Duffy show said a doctor in Waterford named <insert common name here> liked groping women's boobidies when giving them non gynae medical examinations, all doctors in Waterford with that name could sue RTE.

The Sparrow

Dudess wrote: »

If a caller to the Joe Duffy show said a doctor in Waterford named <insert common name here> liked groping women's boobidies when giving them non gynae medical examinations, all doctors in Waterford with that name could sue RTE.

Exactly. That's why when a broadcaster mentions the name of somebody arrested or convicted of a crime, they always give their address so they cannot be confused with people who have the same name.

I didn't buy the Irish Times today for the first time in ages. Bought The Examiner too because I'm less than enamoured with Independent News and Media too.

Hotblack Desiato

Dudess wrote: »

If a caller to the Joe Duffy show said <insert public figure here> liked looking up child porn and it made it to air, RTE would be sued.

And even if the allegation is actually true, the person accused could well win their case anyway and only have the truth come out years later if ever.

Liberace won a libel case in the 1950s when a British newspaper implied he was gay!

Several journalists claimed, after the tribunals made it public knowledge, that they knew all about Charlie Haughey's dodgy finances but couldn't print anything about it. The Evening Press or Irish Press* printed a story in the late 70s about how CJH owed a very large loan, approx £1,000,000 to AIB. He got them to retract it and I think the journalist concerned left the paper. Of course it turned out that the story printed was correct.


* Rather ironic as of course the Irish Press group was founded by Eamon de Valera.