Irish property investors to sue journalists

oceanclub

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-false-estate-did-property-journalists-mislead-investors-2058639.html

Irish investors who claim they were misinformed may sue journalists, says Matthew Bell
[...]
Now a hate figure has emerged in the form of the property journalist. Although a case has yet to be lodged, a number of aggrieved investors are said to be consulting Dublin lawyers about launching a case against certain journalists who, they believe, were responsible for misleading them into investing in developments that failed to deliver promised returns.

On the one hand, I don't think this has a leg to stand on.

On the other, such a case would be great fun to read about in the papers, so I'm willing to chip in a fiver.


P.

mike65

Thats beyond stupid, like me complaining about a football preview column when I loose a bet.

mikemac

The court case would be entertaining for sure, I'd look forward to reading about it.

If they want to waste their money on lawyers then go ahead.

I'll be sueing that tipster in Racing Post for their poor predictions also

oceanclub

It would be interesting to know more details behind this. I mean, are they referring to property articles? Or, were property journalists double-jobbing as advisors? If the latter, and they actually told untruths, then perhaps there is a case.

P.

dan_d

That is quite interesting.

I hate the rational behind it - the "blame someone else for my problems" thinking....but I do the think the media have a lot to answer for in general, and played a massive part in encouraging the boom to ridiculous proportions, while vilifying anyone who tried to call a halt.

mike65

They might as well sue Channel 4 for Location, Location, Location and A place in the Sun.

The_Conductor

For entertainment value- count me in for a fiver as well.......

flutered

i am in for a fiver as well, go on make it a tenner.

The_Conductor

Now all we have to do is figure out who these idiots are, and pass the hat around.......

hmmm

Is it too much to hope that both sides lose?

Plebs

Dying wasps...

There's plenty of legal types around only too willing to accommodate them.

rightwingdub

Does anyone believe in personal responsibility anymore?

Those idiots threatening to sue didn't have a gun put to their heads, typical Irish story, what a nation of stupid paddies we've become.

amacca

rightwingdub wrote: »

Does anyone believe in personal responsibility anymore?

An ever decreasing number it would seem................when something goes wrong (in any area of life) the witch hunt starts...

seems to be a natural behaviour whereas taking responsibility for your own actions seems to be more of the learned variety a mature responsible adult indulges in, our society (at all levels) hasn't been emphasizing personal responsibility much lately imo

bring back consequences for being reckless, lazy, greedy etc and this will change..............but there will be a lot of solicitors, social workers, spokespeople, agencies, hse flunkies etc out of work.........could you stomach that terrible vista?

rightwingdub wrote: »

Those idiots threatening to sue didn't have a gun put to their heads, typical Irish story, what a nation of stupid paddies we've become.

Indeed....but sure it wasn't their fault...sure didn't someone tell them it was the right time to pay way over the odds for that hotel/apartment complex/commercial park.

what a nation of stupid paddies we allowed our self to become......if were into personal responsibility then most of us shoulder at least some (small portion) of the blame

stevedublin

rightwingdub wrote: »

what a nation of stupid paddies we've become.

you mean we weren't always?

D3PO

mike65 wrote: »

Thats beyond stupid, like me complaining about a football preview column when I loose a bet.

nail on the head here. No wonder these "investors" have lost their shirts they have no cop on at all. :rolleyes:

LittleBook

Agreed that this is absurd and will probably never happen.

However, this part speaks volumes and is a reason why I never have/will trust property "journalism":

Property journalism has exploded over the past decade in line with the boom. But it has always been fraught with questions of independence, as developers use offers of lavish trips abroad to entice journalists to write about their projects.

"There are a huge number of freebies," says journalist Graham Norwood. "One top agent offered me cash to write a nice piece about aproperty. But part of the problem with international property is that the only way we can see a development is if the trip is paid for. Newspapers can't afford to send us, and we can't afford to send ourselves."

Because of this, it is rare to find developments getting a negative press. "If we don't like a development or property, we don't run an article," says one editor. This approach has led to certain supplements earning reputations for only running good-news stories, which investors might argue is misleading.

But, says Norwood: "Developers can be aggressive about coverage. They have threatened to sue newspapers if they publish negative editorial."

If you want to be journalists, write honestly and objectively about what you see ... otherwise call it advertising and be done with it.

RATM

LittleBook wrote: »

Agreed that this is absurd and will probably never happen.

However, this part speaks volumes and is a reason why I never have/will trust property "journalism":



If you want to be journalists, write honestly and objectively about what you see ... otherwise call it advertising and be done with it.

Although I totally agree with the personal responsibility aspect of things these guys might still have a case and that statement by the property journalist could be used as evidence.

If a developer pays a journalist any form of cash or favours for an uncritical article then it is no longer an article in the strictest sense, i.e. objective. But if it is presented as an article and NOT an advertorial then the legal team can claim that the newspaper was complicit in distorting market information. Markets and investors depend on unbiased information and if the media were presenting biased information but dressing it up as an unbiased articles they may have a case.

Its a shaky case though to say the least. I mean papers depend on advertising and its well known that if you have a few full page ads from the like of oil companies then the chances of critical coverage will vanish over night. Even the 'Paper of Record', the Irish Times was guilty of this during the Shell to Sea dispute- a few 40,000 euro full page ads soon ensured the editor called off the hounds.

Anyway I vote for a class action and I'm up for chipping in a fiver too. I don't even own property but I'll gladly pay the fiver to see how this pans out. If everyone in negative equity chips in a fiver we'll soon have a legal warchest big enough to drag the Sindo and their gutter journalists through the court. Win or lose the only true losers would be the media and that's no bad thing.

Morlar

When I heard that I thought - no way. Now I think it might actually do some long term good & encourage more accountability & independence among our media. Realistically it is not going to happen though the more I think of it the more I think it should.

deandean

CAVEAT EMPTOR.

Anyone who invests on the basis of articles from property journalists deserves to lose his shirt.

I remember all those articles in the Property Supplements during the boom times. You would practically never ever see a bad word spoken about the whole property market. Look where that "Think happy thoughts" attitude led the Nation!

There are similarities with those who dabbled, and lost, in the Stock Market on the basis of newspaper articles.

jmayo

oceanclub wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-false-estate-did-property-journalists-mislead-investors-2058639.html



On the one hand, I don't think this has a leg to stand on.

On the other, such a case would be great fun to read about in the papers, so I'm willing to chip in a fiver.


P.

If the journalist (using term loosely here) in question was someone particularly odious and a total spoofer like brendan o'connor i reckon the plaintiff might have a chance.
Hell if it was by jury and with enough of us non bubble hypers on it we could have him committed for life.

Seriously though why have we, much like some other nations, turned into a people that now refuses to take responsibility for anything we do ?
It is time to grow up and stop acting like spoilt kids who are always looking for someone else to blame for our misadventures.

I think this has soemhtign to do with the way we have become so litigious of late, not to mention how we see people in positions of responsibilty always failing to take any. :mad:

Gekko

I find it hard to imagine what articles were written, who wrote them and what they wrote about that would give an investor a case to sue.

Most property articles just describe the properties in as flowery language as possible. I don't recall any of them recommending that readers go out and buy them immediately. It's a bit far fetched really, you'd have to be desperate to try and bring a case.

Perhaps there was a lack of critical coverage questioning the quality of some properties or some schemes but that may have involved getting into the realm of commenting rather than reporting.

I remember in 2007 or 2008 a journalist telling me they'd been flown to Dubai all expenses paid to write about a development there.

I was flown to London and back and put up in a swanky hotel to write about a development there that's now in Nama, but in no way was that encouraging people to invest or anything. It was just a straight news report about their masterplan.

alb

When they inevitably lose their cases are they then going to try to sue the law professionals that advised them to proceed with legal action for giving them bad advice that led to them wasting more money?

jmayo

Gekko wrote: »

I find it hard to imagine what articles were written, who wrote them and what they wrote about that would give an investor a case to sue.

I don't think anyone has a case.

Gekko wrote: »

Most property articles just describe the properties in as flowery language as possible. I don't recall any of them recommending that readers go out and buy them immediately. It's a bit far fetched really, you'd have to be desperate to try and bring a case.

I would disagree as some of the articles were claiming what great value and what a wonderful opportunity it was, so less of the "journalists were only using flowery language" shi*e.

Gekko wrote: »

Perhaps there was a lack of critical coverage questioning the quality of some properties or some schemes but that may have involved getting into the realm of commenting rather than reporting.

Perhaps ?
You don't say. :rolleyes:
That is a huge understatement.
You didn't report, you didn't comment, you only f**king often parrotted what the developers and agents wanted to say.
Half of the "reports" read like sales brochures and PR statements.

I know developments that were talked up to the hilt and on close inspection the list of flaws were incredible.
Yet reading about them in newspapers and property magazines you would swear they were of the same solid build quality as the pyramids.

Gekko wrote: »

I remember in 2007 or 2008 a journalist telling me they'd been flown to Dubai all expenses paid to write about a development there.

And you think he was flown all the way to Dubai to give a negative or even true critic of the development.
The journalist knew damm well that if he bad mouthed the developer or development he wouldn't get any more junkets.

Gekko wrote: »

I was flown to London and back and put up in a swanky hotel to write about a development there that's now in Nama, but in no way was that encouraging people to invest or anything. It was just a straight news report about their masterplan.

Yeah right, a straight news report.
Was the same developer also advertising in the same publication that was publishing your "report" ?

Either way you like the guy above were beholden to the developer.
Did it ever cross your mind that if you were nice to the developer you might get invites to stay in more swanky hotels ?
Of course not property journalists are above all that. :rolleyes:

I have read some self congratulatory sh**e in my time, but your post is trying to condone or belittle the fact that the standard of journalism relating to property during the bubble was chronically abmissal and akin to advertising copywriting.

dudara

These people were suckered by property developers and now they're being suckered again by solicitors. Some people never learn.

The_Conductor

dudara wrote: »

These people were suckered by property developers and now they're being suckered again by solicitors. Some people never learn.

They may never learn- but ultimately unless people are willing to logically research any business proposal, or action that has a big impact on their life/financial wellbeing/health- how can anyone have any sympathy for them? It used to be the case that if people made a mistake, they put their hand, said 'mea culpa', accepted the consequences and moved on. Irish culture (not uniquely, but to an extreme level) now seems to be saying that someone else always has to be to blame/at fault- if something goes wrong. It can reach ridiculous levels- the driver who drove into the back of me on the M50 tried to blame me for braking (I hadn't done- I was actually fully stopped for almost 3 minutes at the time on the Blanchardstown slip, with the car on the handbrake), their proximity sensors for not saying I was in front of them (apparently they only have rear proximity sensors- but hey, why not), their local garage because their brake pads were wearing out (despite thier last having serviced the car almost 2 years previous- etc etc etc............)

Someone else always has to be to blame for any bad decisions that people make- or any unexpected situations they had not made a contingency towards........?

The issue is a childish lack of willingness to take responsibility for ones own actions/inactions.......

silverharp

i lol'd, imagine the court scene

Defense barrister to witness: I am led to believe you took financial advice from a daily newspaper

witness: that is correct

Defense barrister: I rest my case m'lud

Blackjack

smccarrick wrote: »

They may never learn- but ultimately unless people are willing to logically research any business proposal, or action that has a big impact on their life/financial wellbeing/health- how can anyone have any sympathy for them? It used to be the case that if people made a mistake, they put their hand, said 'mea culpa', accepted the consequences and moved on. Irish culture (not uniquely, but to an extreme level) now seems to be saying that someone else always has to be to blame/at fault- if something goes wrong. It can reach ridiculous levels- the driver who drove into the back of me on the M50 tried to blame me for braking (I hadn't done- I was actually fully stopped for almost 3 minutes at the time on the Blanchardstown slip, with the car on the handbrake), their proximity sensors for not saying I was in front of them (apparently they only have rear proximity sensors- but hey, why not), their local garage because their brake pads were wearing out (despite thier last having serviced the car almost 2 years previous- etc etc etc............)

Someone else always has to be to blame for any bad decisions that people make- or any unexpected situations they had not made a contingency towards........?

The issue is a childish lack of willingness to take responsibility for ones own actions/inactions.......

Spot on - it seems people only want others to take responsibility for their actions. It's very disappointing that we've come to this.

Milk & Honey

alb wrote: »

When they inevitably lose their cases are they then going to try to sue the law professionals that advised them to proceed with legal action for giving them bad advice that led to them wasting more money?

There hasn't even been a case started yet. All that is reported is that they are consulting lawyers. The lawyers will tell them how much a case will cost them and what their chances of success are.
I would be very surprised if the initial consultation lasts longer than 2 hours and if a summons ever issues.

Gekko

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah right, a straight news report.
Was the same developer also advertising in the same publication that was publishing your "report" ?

Either way you like the guy above were beholden to the developer.
Did it ever cross your mind that if you were nice to the developer you might get invites to stay in more swanky hotels ?

It was not my decision as to whether my news report was published or not. It was my editor's decision. So I disagree that I was beholden to the developer.

The developer's PR company wasted their €1,000 on my flights and hotel because the newspaper didn't publish the story.

jmayo wrote: »

I have read some self congratulatory sh**e in my time, but your post is trying to condone or belittle the fact that the standard of journalism relating to property during the bubble was chronically abmissal and akin to advertising copywriting.

It depends on the type of journalism. A property supplement is naturally going to be selective about what it says and it doesn't say about a new development.

What was lacking was deeper investigation and critical analysis in the main news and features section of the newspapers of what developers were doing and how their relationships with the banks were evolving.

While property journalists may be in part responsible for that, I do not believe they can solely be to blame.

Anyone who takes a newspaper article as an endorsement of a property or any other investment or type of product worth hundreds of thousands of pounds and bases a decision solely on it is very foolish in the first place, as I think others have suggested here. "Buyer beware" goes for anything.

You do due diligence and looked for potential flaws, flood risks, investment risks, potential future financial/economic risks etc.

The trouble was that from a consumer point of view there wasn't enough of this at the time. Did surveyors miss any of these or were their interests vested in giving homebuyers a good survey, for example?

Bank staff made commissions on mortgages so they had a vested interest in getting as many mortgages as possible out the door.

Estate agents and auctioneers, the same.

There was so much hype at the time with people queuing to buy up new developments that in many cases rational thinking went out the door as fast as the mortgages and house sales did.

jmayo

Gekko wrote: »

It was not my decision as to whether my news report was published or not. It was my editor's decision. So I disagree that I was beholden to the developer.

The developer's PR company wasted their €1,000 on my flights and hotel because the newspaper didn't publish the story.

True newspaper editors had a lot to answer, but then again one can claim that it is the owners who are dictating direction.

No one is ever to blame I guess and it's always the fault of someone above.
Sound familar

Gekko wrote: »

It depends on the type of journalism. A property supplement is naturally going to be selective about what it says and it doesn't say about a new development.

Property supplements were all just glorified advertisements, soft focus pieces, PR company generated releases rather than what would be termed journalism or reporting.

Gekko wrote: »

What was lacking was deeper investigation and critical analysis in the main news and features section of the newspapers of what developers were doing and how their relationships with the banks were evolving.

While property journalists may be in part responsible for that, I do not believe they can solely be to blame.

Did I say they ever were solely to blame ?
But they were part of the cheerleading mob, along with their editors and publication owners.

Gekko wrote: »

Anyone who takes a newspaper article as an endorsement of a property or any other investment or type of product worth hundreds of thousands of pounds and bases a decision solely on it is very foolish in the first place, as I think others have suggested here. "Buyer beware" goes for anything.

You do due diligence and looked for potential flaws, flood risks, investment risks, potential future financial/economic risks etc.

And that is exactly why I said in the first line of my post that investors haven't a leg to stand on if they sue journalists.

Gekko wrote: »

Bank staff made commissions on mortgages so they had a vested interest in getting as many mortgages as possible out the door.

Estate agents and auctioneers, the same.

There was so much hype at the time with people queuing to buy up new developments that in many cases rational thinking went out the door as fast as the mortgages and house sales did.

And how did the hype make it into the media but through compliant journalists and media managers, correct ?
Newspapers, property supplements and the reporting journalists added to the hype.

oceanclub

It's not an exaggeration to say that Irish journalism has become utterly corrupted by its virtual ownership by the property industry. An estimated 70% of the Irish Times' total revenue during the bubble came from the property market. The industry had the power to have senior editors sacked for making minor wisecracks about the inability of estate agents to sell their houses (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54381138).

Even the newspaper itself got involved in the property market with its purchase of myhome.ie; how on earth could it be objective about an industry it was involved in itself? Even someone like Fintan O'Toole when interviewed about this couldn't even bring himself to condemn it.

I'm a video game fan, and find it ironic how much soul-searching there is among video game journalists about the editorial dangers of adverts and sponsorship and the need to be objective. They don't merely use the line "oh, you shouldn't just take _our_ advice" as an excuse for being bought. I've never seen a single Irish property "journalist" (I can barely use that term in association with what they do) question anything about their job in print.

P.

jmayo

oceanclub wrote: »

It's not an exaggeration to say that Irish journalism has become utterly corrupted by its virtual ownership by the property industry. An estimated 70% of the Irish Times' total revenue during the bubble came from the property market. The industry had the power to have senior editors sacked for making minor wisecracks about the inability of estate agents to sell their houses (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54381138).

Even the newspaper itself got involved in the property market with its purchase of myhome.ie; how on earth could it be objective about an industry it was involved in itself? Even someone like Fintan O'Toole when interviewed about this couldn't even bring himself to condemn it.

Seen as you mention Myhome I should remind you their primary competitor Daft is a stakeholder in boards.ie.

At least they haven't tried to stifle debate here yet, but I hear there was talk of getting brendan burgess to mod on this forum

oceanclub

jmayo wrote: »

At least they haven't tried to stifle debate here yet, but I hear there was talk of getting brendan burgess to mod on this forum

Oh, I imagine he's too busy moderating the Skeptics forum!

P.

The_Honeybadger

The story looks to be nothing more than heresay, "some investors are said to be looking into a case", I don't believe for a second anybody could be stupid enough to think they may have a case here. I would agree that some people that got burned are desperate for a scapegoat, but this is just ridiculous, they should sue the banks for giving them the money also if there is a case here.