A Complaint To TV3

Mayoegian

I think that everybody here can agree that the way TV3 handled Brian Lenihan's cancer diagnosis was sick, wrong and immoral. In my opinion, it was downright pathetic and a desperate attempt to get attention. They didn't care what damage they did to the Lenihan family and I believe they should be complained about.

I wrote this letter and e-mailed it to the station as I believe that they should be taken up on the matter. Some of you might want to send this off too, edit it or write your own. The e-mail address is info@tv3.ie . Even better, to e-mail info@bai.ie..
Hopefully, if they get enough of these complaints, they'll be forced to apologise. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Dear sir/madam,

I would like to make an official complaint against TV3 for its handling of Brian Lenihan's cancer diagnosis.

I am by no means a supporter of Brian Lenihan as a politician. Why? Because he's a Fianna Fáiler. He made some harsh decisions in the last Budget, some which I believed were unfair - but somebody had to make them. After all, he's merely doing his job. Outside of working hours, he is just a normal citizen, leading an everyday life. For that reason, my dislike of him, as a Fianna Fáil man, ends there. I do however, respect him as a person, like I do everybody else. I therefore respect his right to privacy - and the privacy of his family.

Everybody knows someone who has cancer. I have friends, family and neighbours who have either suffered from this disease or died from it. Two people close to me are currently undergoing treatment. They had no control over it, they didn't see it coming - it just happened. In those circumstances, all they have control over is how they break the awful news to their loved ones. It is their right, and your television station violated this right. Mr. Lenihan is a father, son, husband, brother and friend - then a politician. Family always comes first and in this situation, when he pleaded with the media to keep the terrible news of his cancer until the New Year, his family was what was on his mind. He wished to spend the Christmas season enjoying it with his family before he had to face the grim reality of his cancer. That was his Christmas wish, and your television station had the obligation to respect this wish, but in your merciless quest to get in there first, you denied this man a peaceful Christmas with his family.

Pancreatic cancer is considered the worst cancer of all. There is only a 5% survival rate after five years. It is not a news item, it is an unfortunate private matter to the person who has contracted it and to their family. It is hard enough to know of the long and painful road ahead that you and your family face, but nobody should have their misfortune splashed all over the television like idle gossip. You should have recognised his fundamental right as a person to privacy and respected his wish to keep his sickness secret until the New Year.

The way in which your station has handled this affair is, in my opinion, completely wrong and immoral. You ignored all compassion and sympathy for a man with a terrible illness and the privacy and suffering of his wife and children. For that reason, I and everybody I know will no longer switch on TV3 again knowing the kind of values and principles your television station holds. I hope you can find it in your hearts to apologise to a man and his family you have so deeply hurt.

Yours sincerely,
( name ).

sharky86

+1

Kimbot

Lads, is there not enough threads about this at this stage??

enviro

Well said

SV

:rolleyes:
TV3 did nothing wrong.

Ciaran500

Mayoegian wrote: »

I think that everybody here can agree that the way TV3 handled Brian Lenihan's cancer diagnosis was sick, wrong and immoral.

You obviously haven't read any of the threads about it so.

ateam

Mayoegian wrote: »

Everybody knows someone who has cancer. I have friends, family and neighbours who have either suffered from this disease or died from it. Two people close to me are currently undergoing treatment. They had no control over it, they didn't see it coming - it just happened. In those circumstances, all they have control over is how they break the awful news to their loved ones. It is their right, and your television station violated this right.

Isn't this the problem though, everyone in Ireland knows someone who died from cancer or knows someone who is living with it. Therefore this story will evoke emotions. Don't take it out on TV3. They are a media organisation that found out about a story and reported it. The obituary was insensitive, but apart from that, I felt TV3 dealt with the story in a sensitive manner.

Feeky Magee

Mayoegian wrote: »

I think that everybody here can agree that the way TV3 handled Brian Lenihan's cancer diagnosis was sick, wrong and immoral.

Wrong. Don't be so presumptious.

Sharpshooter

Moved from After Hours.

Trine

Mayoegian wrote: »

I think that everybody here can agree that the way TV3 handled Brian Lenihan's cancer diagnosis was sick, wrong and immoral.

You think wrong.

Sangre

Pancreatic cancer is considered the worst cancer of all. There is only a 5% survival rate after five years. It is not a news item

It isn't a news item that our Minister of Finance, during our worst recession ever, has been diagnosed with a potentially fatal illness?

I haven't seen how TV3 handled the reporting but I completely disagree it isn't a news item.

Also why are you emailing the BAI if you want an apology from TV3?

rovert

Stephen Fry should start a twitter campaign about this :rolleyes:

amdublin

I am wondering how TV3 journalists would feel if someone deemed for them that two days was adequete time to tell their family and prepare them for the fact that they had a potentially lifethreatening disease?

If it it was affecting his decision making fine, but at the moment there is nothing going on in relation to same.

I am emailing TV3 now and would ask anyone else who agrees to do same.

OP cop on, TV3 did their job and reported a news story which was of interest to the Irish people.

We're going to get to a stage in which there is a button that views can press every time they are offended by something on TV.

Utopia Parkway

I did like the way TV3 spun it in the papers today. They almost made out they were doing Brian Lenihan a big favour.

Reganio 2

I am by no means a supporter of Brian Lenihan as a politician. Why? Because he's a Fianna Fáiler.

I stopped reading there and I reckon they will too.

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

OP cop on, TV3 did their job and reported a news story which was of interest to the Irish people.

We're going to get to a stage in which there is a button that views can press every time they are offended by something on TV.

And another button for people who are stealiing from Charlie Brooker

rovert

rovert wrote: »

And another button for people who are stealiing from Charlie Brooker

Hardly stealing if it's the next logical step in the evolution of television. Brooker wasn't the first person to suggest it either. Hell I think Sky News have all ready implemented it.

EKRIUQ

We should have a march about it.

rovert

EKRIUQ wrote: »

We should have a march about it.

Release a single?

King of Kings

SV wrote: »

:rolleyes:
TV3 did nothing wrong.

they sure did. Announcing somebody's health condition is an invasion of privacy.
But also the drivel they continually show is a moral wrong too but that's another day

Feeky Magee

King of Kings wrote: »

they sure did. Announcing somebody's health condition is an invasion of privacy.
But also the drivel they continually show is a moral wrong too but that's another day

So by your logic, you cannot report on anybody's health condition until complete recovery or death?

So nobody should have reported Pope John Paul's illness.
Nobody should have reported on Michael Jackson's heart attack until it was certain he had died.
Etc.

hornyfemale

Of course the fact that our finance minister has cancer is news. The issue I have and alot of people have is the way it was handled by TV3. They say they gave Brian 2 days before they broadcast so he could tell his nearest and dearest. Who wants to break this news to their family over Christmas? They are acting like they did him some sort of favour.

hornyfemale

hornyfemale wrote: »

Of course the fact that our finance minister has cancer is news. The issue I have and alot of people have is the way it was handled by TV3. They say they gave Brian 2 days before they broadcast so he could tell his nearest and dearest. Who wants to break this news to their family over Christmas? They are acting like they did him some sort of favour.

What should they have done? Sat on a major scoop for a few more days while another news source beat them to the punch?

adamski8

hornyfemale wrote: »

Of course the fact that our finance minister has cancer is news. The issue I have and alot of people have is the way it was handled by TV3. They say they gave Brian 2 days before they broadcast so he could tell his nearest and dearest. Who wants to break this news to their family over Christmas? They are acting like they did him some sort of favour.

You'd really not tell your family about having a terrible illness just because of christmas??
So if someone told you something like that on christmas day you'd say "ffs you could have waited until i stuffed myself with turkey and opened my presents before you told me!" (because they are the important in life :rolleyes:)

copacetic

Deleted User wrote: »

What should they have done? Sat on a major scoop for a few more days while another news source beat them to the punch?

Obviously you didn't you read any of the papers, listen to the radio or watch the TV over the weekend? This wasn't a 'scoop'. It was reasonably well known across the media and in political circles.

copacetic

copacetic wrote: »

Obviously you didn't you read any of the papers, listen to the radio or watch the TV over the weekend? This wasn't a 'scoop'. It was reasonably well known across the media and in political circles.

So then what's the problem? People are complaining because TV3 didn't give him sufficient time to tell his family but if other news sources were all ready reporting the matter what's was the harm?

I also can't understand that people fell TV3 lack tact in their reporting, ffs it's TV3, the television news equivalent of the Sun. No one watches TV3 or 3E news for anything other than the odd bit of sensationalism.

Flicking through the channels one day, I found 3E news were showing clips of people nearly killing themselves with stupid stunts before which they announced "Kids don't try this at home but if you do record it and put it online."

copacetic

Deleted User wrote: »

So then what's the problem? People are complaining because TV3 didn't give him sufficient time to tell his family but if other news sources were all ready reporting the matter what's was the harm?

They weren't reporting it. TV3 broke ranks to try to make a 'scoop' out of something that was widely known, but not being reported out of respect. They even rang around all the newspapers touting the 'big story' they would be running, which was a shock to the rest of the media. Which in our media cricles is really saying something, it's a new low. Although the Sindos self righteous anger was laughable, with TV3 only replacing them on the lowest rung, nothing more.

copacetic

copacetic wrote: »

They weren't reporting it. TV3 broke ranks to try to make a 'scoop' out of something that was widely known, but not being reported out of respect.

So what people want is their news channels to not report news worthy items till every party whom may be affected is informed? TV3 were fully entitled to report on the matter. Was it Brad Pitt not Brian Lenihan would everyone be so offended by what TV3 did?

copacetic

Deleted User wrote: »

So what people want is their news channels to not report news worthy items till every party whom may be affected is informed? TV3 were fully entitled to report on the matter. Was it Brad Pitt not Brian Lenihan would everyone be so offended by what TV3 did?

It's standard practise to not report names of accident victims, murder victims etc until they are officially released for that very reason. Usually the same respect is given to people going through illness, divorce etc. By your way of thinking everything should be reported straight away no matter what because you think you have a 'right to know'. Which you don't.

copacetic

copacetic wrote: »

It's standard practise to not report names of accident victims, murder victims etc until they are officially released for that very reason. Usually the same respect is given to people going through illness, divorce etc. By your way of thinking everything should be reported straight away no matter what because you think you have a 'right to know'. Which you don't.

I'm not saying that news involving families should instantly be reported. TV3 could have reported the news when they first found out but they didn't. They gave him sufficient time to tell those close to him. Does anyone know when Lenihan first found out? I don't believe I have a right to know anyone's private business but once you take a position in the public eye you have to accept that anything news worthy which befalls you will be reported. This isn't some joe soap but rather an elected member of state and one whom has perhaps the most impact on the Irish public's daily lives. This news will affect them and as such are they not entitled to know the full extent as to what is going on?

amdublin

Deleted User wrote: »

So what people want is their news channels to not report news worthy items till every party whom may be affected is informed? TV3 were fully entitled to report on the matter. Was it Brad Pitt not Brian Lenihan would everyone be so offended by what TV3 did?

Brad Pitt/Brian Lenihan/Barack Obama. It does not matter who it was. That TV3 deemed 48hours was an adequete time to tell his family and digest the news over Christmas is a new low.

Would you like 48hours to prepare your teenage children?

Government is in recess and the stock market was closed at the time so I would argue that it was NOT newsworthy and that the man's right to privacy was more important.

I think the Broadcasting Association of Ireland would agree and I am in the process of making a formal complaint to them. (www.bai.ie) See 48(1)(c) below.

Under Section 48(1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, any viewer or listener may refer a complaint to the BAI if they are unhappy about programme content on an Irish licensed broadcasting service, both radio and television, under the following categories:
48(1)(a) objectivity & impartiality in news;
48(1)(a) fairness, objectivity & impartiality in current affairs;
48(1)(b) harm & offence(Code of Programme Standards);
48(1)(b) law & order;
48(1)(c) privacy of an individual.

If you agree I would urge you to make a complaint to them too.

(Ps. For the record, I am not a FF supporter, just a supporter of morals/common sense/fairness/decency)

amdublin

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't some joe soap but rather an elected member of state and one whom has perhaps the most impact on the Irish public's daily lives.

Has anything happened in your daily life/Ireland since this "scoop broke"?

Has the sky fallen down on top of you?

Would it have made any difference to allow BL make his own announcement in the new year?

amdublin

amdublin wrote: »

Brad Pitt/Brian Lenihan/Barack Obama. It does not matter who it was. That TV3 deemed 48hours was an adequete time to tell his family and digest the news over Christmas is a new low.

Would you like 48hours to prepare your teenage children?

Government is in recess and the stock market was closed at the time so I would argue that it was NOT newsworthy and that the man's right to privacy was more important.

How long then is sufficient time to tell people you have cancer? A week, two, a month?

As I understand it TV became aware of the story 2 days before they reported it meaning that Lenihan was probably aware of the news for some time before that.

amdublin

amdublin wrote: »

Has anything happened in your daily life/Ireland since this "scoop broke"?

Has the sky fallen down on top of you?

Would it have made any difference to allow BL make his own announcement in the new year?

I don't think my life thus far is news worthy. I didn't notice threads complaining about the manner in which Brittany Murphy's or Michael Jackson's death was reported. No one was wondering why news stations didn't hold off till an official announcement was made.

amdublin

Deleted User wrote: »

How long then is sufficient time to tell people you have cancer? A week, two, a month?

As I understand it TV became aware of the story 2 days before they reported it meaning that Lenihan was probably aware of the news for some time before that.

How long would you like? Quite arbitrary, we could argue specific lenghts of time forever.

I certainly wouldn't like to feel that I had gun held to my head by a TV station.

Put yourself in his shoes. How would you feel?

Poochie05

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying that news involving families should instantly be reported. TV3 could have reported the news when they first found out but they didn't. They gave him sufficient time to tell those close to him. Does anyone know when Lenihan first found out? I don't believe I have a right to know anyone's private business but once you take a position in the public eye you have to accept that anything news worthy which befalls you will be reported. This isn't some joe soap but rather an elected member of state and one whom has perhaps the most impact on the Irish public's daily lives. This news will affect them and as such are they not entitled to know the full extent as to what is going on?

If newspaper reports are correct, he found out on Wednesday, yes the day before Christmas Eve.
It was not for TV3 to decide that an arbitrary 2 days was sufficient time for him to tell his family, especially as any medical professional would tell you he was probably still in the denial phase himself. The choice should have been his how and when he told his family and that is what I have a problem with TV3 for, especially as they are justifying their 'allowing' him these 2 days as an act of compassion.

amdublin

amdublin wrote: »

How long would you like? Quite arbitrary, we could argue specific lenghts of time forever.

I certainly wouldn't like to feel that I had gun held to my head by a TV station.

Put yourself in his shoes. How would you feel?

I think that like most people if I discovered I had cancer I would tell the people I care about as soon as possible so as to ensure that what ever time I had with them could be cherished.

Poochie05

Poochie05 wrote: »

If newspaper reports are correct, he found out on Wednesday, yes the day before Christmas Eve.
It was not for TV3 to decide that an arbitrary 2 days was sufficient time for him to tell his family, especially as any medical professional would tell you he was probably still in the denial phase himself. The choice should have been his how and when he told his family and that is what I have a problem with TV3 for, especially as they are justifying their 'allowing' him these 2 days as an act of compassion.

I hate TV3 and the way they report the news but Jesus does anyone expect anything different from them? That they gave Lenihan 2 days is perhaps the most surprising aspect of all this.

His cancer is news and it's the sort of sensationalist news people lap up. Was it not TV3 then one of the rags would have reported it, rather than get so wound up over the way TV3 News does business do something worthwhile and simply don't watch it any more.

amdublin

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that like most people if I discovered I had cancer I would tell the people I care about as soon as possible so as to ensure that what ever time I had with them could be cherished.

It is not just about the telling. It is also about the digesting and the coming to terms with the news.

Unfortunately the human mind is complex and it is not just matter of a "telling" and there are many stages one (and others) must go through before finally understanding and accepting bad news.

But woo hoo! Don't worry, TV3 has deemed 48 hours is all it takes to go through these stages! Hallelujah! What a breakthrough!

efb

If they did it with any kind of decency and decorum maybe, on the 30th.

But the Sky "Breaking News" style banner and Urlsa Hannigan's bad delivery were beyond rude and insensitive.

amdublin

amdublin wrote: »

It is not just about the telling. It is also about the digesting and the coming to terms with the news.

Unfortunately the human mind is complex and it is not just matter of a "telling" and there are many stages one (and others) must go through before finally understanding and accepting bad news.

But woo hoo! Don't worry, TV3 has deemed 48 hours is all it takes to go through these stages! Hallelujah! What a breakthrough!

Yes it takes time to digest news as grave as this but does it really make much difference if he and his family are digesting the news while the rest of the world find out. Again I fail to see why so many people are surprised by this. The media do it all the time, it's not like this is some isolated incident. I discovered that a family member of mine had been killed in an accident through the media less than an hour after the accident had occurred. Should the media have treated the accident differently and waited till the family issued a statement?

Yes TV3 could have given more time or better yet not even ran with the story but it's exactly the sort of news that TV3 viewers want.

dresden8

Mayoegian wrote: »

I think that everybody here can agree that the way TV3 handled Brian Lenihan's cancer diagnosis was sick, wrong and immoral.

Nope, a news orginasation deciding to censor news of national interest is sick, wrong and immoral.

copacetic wrote: »

Obviously you didn't you read any of the papers, listen to the radio or watch the TV over the weekend? This wasn't a 'scoop'. It was reasonably well known across the media and in political circles.

So, he told everybody, except his family? I think not.

efb

efb wrote: »

But the Sky "Breaking News" style banner and Urlsa Hannigan's bad delivery were beyond rude and insensitive.

It's TV3, lacking finesse is part of the package.

amdublin

Deleted User wrote: »

I discovered that a family member of mine had been killed in an accident through the media less than an hour after the accident had occurred. Should the media have treated the accident differently and waited till the family issued a statement?

I am sorry about your family member.

The media named them just an hour after the accident :eek: I would have had an issue with that tbh.

Any reports I've seen tend to mention a man/woman and the area and then the next day or day after they tend to have the name.

amdublin

amdublin wrote: »

I am sorry about your family member.

The media named them just an hour after the accident :eek: I would have had an issue with that tbh.

Any reports I've seen tend to mention a man/woman and the area and then the next day or day after they tend to have the name.

Thanks, it was quite a long time ago and while there were issues with the way it was done, everyone was too grief stricken to really give it much thought.

I know that in recent weeks another family member was killed in a car crash and while it was reported upon he wasn't named in the media till the next day.

copacetic

dresden8 wrote: »

So, he told everybody, except his family? I think not.

I didn't say that. I said it was well known before christmas, as reported today and yesterday by the independent, the tribune, today fm, rte, various FG, Labour and FF TDs.

However, if you 'think not' then I'm sure you know better. I give up, it appears no matter what the disgusting ill informed opinion, you can be sure that someone will hold it.

PCPhoto

I'm sure the minister knew before taking a job in politics that his life is in the public eye and any "news" stories and he will be thrown all over the papers and reported on TV (any of the stations)

as another poster said - if it was barrack obama/Brad Pitt - would people be "offended" at how fast it was reported ..... were people giving out about the speed of "celebrity" deaths.

amdublin

PCPhoto wrote: »

as another poster said - if it was barrack obama/Brad Pitt - would people be "offended" at how fast it was reported ..... were people giving out about the speed of "celebrity" deaths.

Umm, yes I said this. But I think we are making different points:

amdublin wrote: »

Brad Pitt/Brian Lenihan/Barack Obama. It does not matter who it was. That TV3 deemed 48hours was an adequete time to tell his family and digest the news over Christmas is a new low.

dresden8

copacetic wrote: »

However, if you 'think not' then I'm sure you know better. I give up, it appears no matter what the disgusting ill informed opinion, you can be sure that someone will hold it.

I would love to know how my opinion is "disgusting" and "ill informed" please.

_michelle_

i think tv3 were right to break this story. did you ever think the only reason rte didnt do the same was because they have so many ties to the present government :rolleyes:.
it is news as he is our finance minister & we are in a recession so therefor he holds one of the most important jobs & his health will affect how we come through this time so why not report it (wether it was a day or two before xmas or not it is still going to have the same effect on him)
finally id just like to say i really hope that he gets through this & nobody deserves cancer it is a horrific disease, but i still think it is newsworthy!