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

Dionysus

There have been some very good responses over on Hugh Lenihan's 'Mechanical Turk' blog in the past couple of days. In particular, Ruth Cannon has made some very good points about the legal claims which The Irish Times is making about how they could supposedly be liable for Kate's comments:

The irishtimes.com archive and Kate Fitzgerald

'I appreciate your efforts to clarify this matter but – as has been the case with each successive statement of the Irish Times on this issue so far – your post raises more questions than it resolves.

You appear to be saying that the editing and excision of Kate’s article was carried out in response to legal concerns.

However this is entirely belied by the terms of the initial apology of 1st December 2011 which specifically states – and I quote – “[n]o legal representation was made to us on this matter.”

To date the excuses put forward by the Irish Times for its actions have been vague and unsatisfactory. Now it appears that they are also contradictory.

The initial apology justified the editing by reference to the fact that “significant assertions” in Kate’s original article were “non-factual”. The term “non-factual” was not explained nor were the assertions identified.
In his subsequent piece of 3rd December 2011, Irish Times editor Kevin O’Sullivan stated that further information had come to light about the last weeks of Kate’s life which necessitated removal of the article on the grounds of “fairness”. No details of this further information were provided to readers or indeed, it seems, to Kate’s parents.

Last Saturday the Irish Times published an article by Carl O’Brien in which Mr O’Sullivan again justified the removal of Kate’s article by reference to “fairness”. No explanation of what was meant by fairness was given. Mr O’Sullivan also indicated that the removal of the article had been prompted by the concerns of readers. The comments on the Irish Times facebook page to date would indicate that the concerns of readers are entirely otherwise.

Now it appears that a further excuse – a legal one – is being put forward, despite the fact that legal considerations were specifically ruled out by the terms of the initial apology. It seems that we have come full circle on this and that the Irish Times is simply chasing its tail at this point.

It should be noted that Kate’s original article was not in any way defamatory. Her employer was not identifiable, and in fact only became identifiable by reason of the subsequent disclosure of Kate’s identity in the Peter Murtagh article. Yet it was Kate’s article, rather than this subsequent article, which the Irish Times chose to excise.

Under Irish law, an author has moral rights in their publications and it is an interesting question as to whether or not civil law considerations arising from the subsequent conduct of someone other than the author provide satisfactory grounds for limiting these rights.

I appreciate the constraints that defamation law may impose on newspapers but the way in which the Irish Times has handled this matter is entirely unsatisfactory. There must be some calling to account (in more than one sense) here if the Irish Times is to maintain any credibility as a newspaper of record. If this is not done, I greatly fear that there will be irreparable damage to the professional reputation of the Irish Times, its editorial staff and columnists.

In this dangerous and uncertain climate, we need a free, open and transparent media more than ever. The Irish Times has stood for many years as a shining light of honesty and transparency in the Irish media. The light is now flickering. Don’t let it go out, please, for want of an explanation here.

Comment by Ruth Cannon'

---

2.

Hugh,

I appreciate your thoughtful reply to my comment and your explanation of Irish Times policy on legal matters.

I fully understand any concerns regarding defamation, but the apology in this case went beyond what one would expect in a defamation situation by describing specific portions of the original article as non-factual without giving details. This is most unusual – I can’t think of any other Irish Times apology I’ve ever seen in those terms.

So far I’ve read 4000 words or so from the Irish Times responding to readers’ concerns about the editing decision, but I’m none the wiser as to why this was done, and done in the way it was. It might be legal, or it might not, whatever it was, it was done in accordance with fairness, but we’re asked to take the Irish Times word for this.

In the Irish Times’ responses we’re told at length about the problems of suicide, depression and the legal constraints on newspapers, anything but the answer to the question – what exactly prompted the IT decision to edit – and the more we see this question being avoided, the more we ask – why? Legal reasons don’t preclude discussion of the decision to edit, surely.

Why not just say what happened?

Comment by Ruth Cannon

---

The Sparrow

Spot on Dionysus. Those comments that you pulled out almost entirely represent my viewpoint on this matter.

The Irish Times have said so much on this subject and yet they have still refused point blank to address the substantive issue of why they suggested that some of what Kate Fitzgerald wrote was false.

DeVore

"we did what we did cos we did it."


There, saved you all a read.

DeV.

ruth cannon

Got a bit of a shock to follow the link to this page and see my comments up here :-).

In view of the further link put in above, I feel it is necessary for me to point out that my comments on Hugh's blog were made in my personal capacity and not as a lawyer or lecturer. The reason that I put in the comment to Hugh's blog under my full name was because I felt that anonymous comments tend to be dismissed more readily and I wanted to make sure as a long-time Irish Times reader that the IT knew that at least one of its readers had real and genuine concerns to which they were prepared to put their name.

I should also say that I'm not (thankfully) an expert on drafting apologies in defamation cases - I am sure that this must be a very tricky business. And of course a comment should stand or fall on its own merits irrespective of the identity of the commenter - the whole point of this sorry business, after all, is that it shouldn't matter who you are.

That aside, I don't have anything further to add, except for one thing which I should clarify because it may not have been clear from my comments extracted above, and that is that my concern relates not so much to the terms of the apology itself but to the subsequent clarification three days later, in which it was stated that 'additional information' had come to light regarding the last few weeks of Kate's life.

Whatever about the use of 'non-factual' in the earlier apology, I find it difficult (and I hasten to add that I am not saying this as a defamation expert) to see how the subsequent and separate reference to further information could have been necessitated by defamation concerns. It may be that there is someone out there with greater expertise on this area who can explain it - if so it would be very interesting to hear from them.

ciarafem

I see that Terry Prone and Tom Savage of the Communications Clinic are in the headlines once again:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/elaine-byrne-time-to-sharpen-canines-on-media-conflicts-of-interest-3126356.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/philip-ryan-tom-savage-needs-to-tell-us-why-this-is-not-a-conflict-of-interests-3126445.html
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/03/the-non-communications-clinic/#comment-192489

There are on-going serious questions that need to be answered about The Communications Clinic and the role of its owners and their connections:
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2528

gozunda

ciarafem wrote: »

I see that Terry Prone and Tom Savage of the Communications Clinic are in the headlines once again:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/elaine-byrne-time-to-sharpen-canines-on-media-conflicts-of-interest-3126356.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/philip-ryan-tom-savage-needs-to-tell-us-why-this-is-not-a-conflict-of-interests-3126445.html
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/03/the-non-communications-clinic/#comment-192489

There are on-going serious questions that need to be answered about The Communications Clinic and the role of its owners and their connections:
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2528

Somewhat out of context, but from the first link

And this is exactly what is wrong with Ireland.....

...its the constant stink of corruption
...its the asolute abuse of power
...its the old boys and girls clubs that still remain going strong
...its the fact that bullying a person is not seen as doing anything wrong even where it is repeated again and again
...It is when such behaviour is repeatedly swept under the carpet

I have said it before but the sooner that bullying is classified along with other forms of abuse the sooner the powers that be can start on the road to a more open and fair treatment of its citizens

ciarafem

gozunda wrote: »

Somewhat out of context, but from the first link

...its the constant stink of corruption
...its the asolute abuse of power
...its the old boys and girls clubs that still remain going strong
...its the fact that bullying a person is not seen as doing anything wrong even where it is repeated again and again
...It is when such behaviour is repeatedly swept under the carpet

I have said it before but the sooner that bullying is classified along with other forms of abuse the sooner the powers that be can start on the road to a more open and fair treatment of its citizens

I came across an article on another bulletin board that Terry Prone wrote for the Examiner about people with cancer:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/terry-prone/when-it-comes-to-the-task-of-dying-ordinary-people-get-the-better-deal-95091.html

She was rightly attached by another newspaper and by cancer patients for what she had to say:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dont-crush-hope-with-callous-and-cruel-words-1818156.html
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/deeply-upsetting-remarks-on-cancer-care-95349.html

What is very disturbing about this – particularly her comments about women cancer sufferers who wear head scarves as a result of chemotherapy – is that Prone is currently being paid by our Minister for Health for her PR advice.

Nodin

ciarafem wrote: »

I came across an article on another bulletin board that Terry Prone wrote for the Examiner about people with cancer:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/terry-prone/when-it-comes-to-the-task-of-dying-ordinary-people-get-the-better-deal-95091.html

She was rightly attached by another newspaper and by cancer patients for what she had to say:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dont-crush-hope-with-callous-and-cruel-words-1818156.html
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/deeply-upsetting-remarks-on-cancer-care-95349.html

What is very disturbing about this – particularly her comments about women cancer sufferers who wear head scarves as a result of chemotherapy – is that Prone is currently being paid by our Minister for Health for her PR advice.

It's clearly evident that in weighing the equations people with terminal cancer have to face - quality of life vs longevity etc - Ms Prone brought the same level of professional acumen to bear that gave us the candidacy of Mr Gay Mitchel.

The Sparrow

ciarafem wrote: »

I came across an article on another bulletin board that Terry Prone wrote for the Examiner about people with cancer:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/terry-prone/when-it-comes-to-the-task-of-dying-ordinary-people-get-the-better-deal-95091.html

What a ludicrous article. She seems to be suggesting that cancer sufferers should just lay down and die.

For a supposed communications expert, she really does come across as a callous and horrible individual. I can't imaging hiring somebody to improve my image if they can't even project a positive image of themselves.

ciarafem

The Sparrow wrote: »

What a ludicrous article. She seems to be suggesting that cancer sufferers should just lay down and die.

For a supposed communications expert, she really does come across as a callous and horrible individual. I can't imaging hiring somebody to improve my image if they can't even project a positive image of themselves.

Do you want to know what Terry prone thinks of cosmetic surgery:

I think it's fun," she laughs (referring to both the title and the pastime), "and it makes no sense not to be a bit addicted to something that can make such a simple and cost-effective difference.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/why-plastic-is-fantastic-644505.html

Quite a contrast to her views on women wearing headscarves after chemotherapy! I wonder what is her attitude towards those who tragically died by suicide, or victims of bullying?

There is a good critique of her attitude to those with cancer on another bulletin board that is well worth reading. http://www.politics.ie/forum/media/189905-prone-savage-conflict-interest-rte-6.html#post5417635

ciarafem

A very interesting development in the Kate Fitzgerald story. According to the Sunday Independent the gardai have opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kates-injury-inconsistent-with-suicide-3133751.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/maeve-sheehan-tragic-kates-story-not-yet-finished-3133620.html

Kate's parents became aware of the post-mortem results and raised them with the Garda Ombudsman. According to garda sources, Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan felt there were sufficient grounds to open a fresh investigation and appointed a detective superintendent at Pearse Street garda station to lead it.

copacetic

Haven't seen it posted that during the week the press ombudsman upheld a complaint against the irish times regarding their handling of the whole affair


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0606/1224317369870.html

Finding on Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald and The Irish Times

THE PRESS Ombudsman has decided that a statement published by The Irish Times on 3 December 2011, was in breach of Principle 5.3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines because it failed to take sufficiently into account the feelings of Tom and Sally Fitzgerald, who were grieving over the death by suicide of their daughter Kate.

There is no evidence that the newspaper acted otherwise than in good faith in publishing the statement complained of because of legal issues that had arisen following the identification of the author of the original article, or that its concern for those who die by suicide and their families is not genuine. However, the newspaper failed to take the feelings of Kate Fitzgerald’s grieving family sufficiently into account in publishing what it did and, following publication, failed to take sufficient remedial action to resolve their complaint. In these circumstances the complaint is upheld.

April 11th, 2012

The Complainant and the Newspaper both appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.

Decision of the Press Council

The appeals were dealt with by the Press Council at its meeting on 28 May 2012.

The Complainants appealed against the Press Ombudsmans decision not to investigate the truth and accuracy of certain statements in the article complained of. The Council noted that the Press Ombudsman’s decision was made on the grounds that these statements could not be investigated by him without reference to an earlier article which was out of time. This was an administrative decision by him. The Council decided there is no appeal from an administrative decision made by the Press Ombudsman.

The Council considered the appeal from the Newspaper and decided not to allow the appeal and to affirm the decision of the Press Ombudsman.

May 28th, 2012

Dissapointing to see that the press ombudsman used an 'administrative decisons' to whitewash a large part of the affair and the press council decided on appeal at it couldn't listen to an appeal about an 'administrative decision'.

Makes a laughing stock of it being any kind of real oversight.

The Irish Times claiming the online editor was making a statement on their behalf when he clearly said it was a personal statement only is less than truthful also. Surely directly and clearly giving false submissions to the ombudsman should have been handled more strongly?

Saying the acted in good faith when they clearly didn't in their submission is wrong headed.

The Online Editors blog accepted that the newspaper had made some mistakes over the previous few weeks, that it would have to learn from these, and that there were things that could or should have been done differently. It acknowledged the hurt and anger felt by the family following the publication of the statement complained of, and apologised for the newspaper’s part in contributing to it. The newspaper, in its response to the Office of the Press Ombudsman, said that this acknowledgement had been published on its behalf. However, this was far from clear from the blog itself, as the final paragraphs of the blog, which contained the elements cited above, were prefaced by a statement from the Online Editor that he was expressing his personal view.

The relevant section is here, as posted earlier on the thread,nicely hidden away in a blog posting
http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/mechanicalturk/2011/12/20/the-irishtimes-com-archive-and-kate-fitzgerald/

In my own personal view, as an organisation we can be legitimately criticised for not engaging more openly and immediately with public concerns about our actions. And people are entitled to their opinions about the rights or wrongs of those actions. We are to some degree constrained in what we can write about the details of this case, so it’s understandable if some readers believe we’re being self-serving or narrowly legalistic in responding (or not responding) to questions. Are there things that could or should have been done differently over the past few weeks? Yes. We need to learn from those to make sure we don’t make the same mistakes again.

However, unfortunate and painful though these events have been, we as professional journalists and publishers took what we believed to be the best action from an ethical and legal perspective. We believe that to have acted otherwise would not have been brave, but irresponsible. We acknowledge the hurt, bewilderment and anger felt by the friends and family of Kate Fitzgerald over what has happened, and apologise for our part in contributing to that.

Hugh Linehan is online editor of The Irish Times

LizT

ciarafem wrote: »

A very interesting development in the Kate Fitzgerald story. According to the Sunday Independent the gardai have opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kates-injury-inconsistent-with-suicide-3133751.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/maeve-sheehan-tragic-kates-story-not-yet-finished-3133620.html

It must be so tough for her family.

ciarafem

Tom Fitzgerald has today posted a letter in Broadsheet.ie http://www.broadsheet.ie/ which is reproduced in full below :

Dear Broadsheet readers,
Thank you so much for the support you have shown over the past months during the controversy surrounding Kate’s death. I’ve been very impressed by the intelligent, and thoughtful tone of the discussion.
Unfortunately, this is very far from over.
As you can understand, I’m not in a position to discuss the Garda investigation. However, I would like to spark a wider discussion on the role of the Press Ombudsman.
I have limited legal training, but a lot of writing experience. I cannot find a legal or logical reason as to why the Press Ombudsman threw out 7 of the 8 items in our complaint, because they allegedly fell outside of his time limit of 90 days.
He [press ombudsman] claimed that he would have to refer back to the September article by Kate, and that this article was outside the time limit.
First, we made no complaint about the September article. The total complaint (text here) was about the December 3 apology to The Communications Clinic..
Second, the September article was still on the IT website up until November 27.
Third, the September article was modified on the website on the 28th of November, which I believe brought it back into the mix as a newly published article and thus back into the 90 day time-frame.
I understand from reading some of the input that there are a number of people on Broadsheet with legal expertise. Can you please provide some feedback on the validity, or lack thereof, of throwing out 7 or the 8 elements of our complaint to the Press Ombudsman.
The Irish Times behaviour on this has caused great pain to our family, as it publicly dishonoured Kate’s memory and cast a deep shadow on her last words .
To this day, Kevin O’Sullivan [Irish Times editor] has told us what Kate said that was “not factual”.
In fact, after discovering the identity of one of the the alleged sources of the Irish Times’ information [that stated Kate had no problems working at The Communications Clinic for instance], we provided the IT with absolute proof, that this same source had stated the opposite in a formal statement.
The Press Ombudsman was also made aware of this.
Thank you,
Tom Fitzgerald
Bantry, Cork. June 11.

ciarafem

There appears to be more to the Fitzgerald story than is currently in the public domain as this comment from Tom Fitzpatrick seems to suggest.

There seems to be an awful lot of corruption, cronyism, and generally accepted ineptitude and unless we fight battles along the way, it can only get worse. We have been exposed to a huge amount around Kate’s death. I can’t go into it yet. There is much more information to come on the Kate story and it has been extremely painful for Sally and me to have to hold back because of Garda investigation. However, after months of pushing for a proper investigation, we are grateful that the Gardaí have finally decided to look into Kate’s death, so we will be patient for a while longer.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/11/some-legal-opinion-required/#comment-200206

Maybe some day we will live in a country where there is real transparency and accountability.

Poster Boy

There's a major article by Mr. Fitzgerald in today's Sunday Independent, saying they "can't accept suicide as only explanation" -

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/we-cant-accept-suicide-as-the-only-explanation-of-kates-death-3230135.html

As it happens - Peter Murtagh is on RTE Radio 1 Marian Finucane's news review show right now - what a great opportunity for her to ask his opinion... I wonder will she...

Poster Boy

Well that was remarkable. Not mentioned even once :eek:

How is that Marian Finucane manage to have a key player in this controversy in studio for a full half hour on a day when theres a major article in the main Sunday broadsheet - and yet not ask him even one question about it? Remarkable.

Marian Fiuncane claims shes worth the circa €400,000 from RTE per annum for the approx 4 hours per week broadcasting; really?

As most already know, RTE is chaired by Tom Savage who separately has a stake in the Communications Clinic, primarily run by his wife Terry Prone.

As followers of this controversy (and this tread) will be aware, the Communications Clinic was the workplace of Kate Fitzgerald before she died.

Anyone already uncomfortable with the awkward optics of a state broadcaster being chaired by a PR adviser, such as Tom Savage, is unlikely to be reassured by todays weird (non) discussion.

ejmaztec

Poster Boy wrote: »

Well that was remarkable. Not mentioned even once :eek:

How is that Marian Finucane manage to have a key player in this controversy in studio for a full half hour on a day when theres a major article in the main Sunday broadsheet - and yet not ask him even one question about it? Remarkable.

Marian Fiuncane claims shes worth the circa €400,000 from RTE per annum for the approx 4 hours per week broadcasting; really?

As most already know, RTE is chaired by Tom Savage who separately has a stake in the Communications Clinic, primarily run by his wife Terry Prone.

As followers of this controversy (and this tread) will be aware, the Communications Clinic was the workplace of Kate Fitzgerald before she died.

Anyone already uncomfortable with the awkward optics of a state broadcaster being chaired by a PR adviser, such as Tom Savage, is unlikely to be reassured by todays weird (non) discussion.

Isn't there an ongoing investigation that would be compromised by an in-depth discussion?

Matt_Trakker

ejmaztec wrote: »

Isn't there an ongoing investigation that would be compromised by an in-depth discussion?

You can quite legally speak about the investigation being reopened. Cowardly that she didn't mention it. Doubtlessly because she would not like to upset a media colleague.

Poster Boy

ejmaztec wrote: »

Isn't there an ongoing investigation that would be compromised by an in-depth discussion?

Sure there is, just like there has been for the past 5 years for macro insider trading that has crashed the country - and look where thats got us :rolleyes:

All cynicism aside, on a point of law, if the Gardai have a suspect in mind they have neither arrested that party nor said any utterances on the same, hence the matter is not sub judice. Obviously with regards to civil law, commentators should exercise normal responsibility for statements - and ensure they are not in breach of libel.

Ultimately however, the facts of this case to date would indicate that if there had not been discussion at online venues such as here, broadsheet,ie, and politics.ie, it is unlikely the case would have attracted sufficient attention to be reopened.

Therefore it seems reasonable to me that responsible discussion has been, and continues to be, a critical aid rather than a compromise to this case.

mhigh86

[/QUOTE]All cynicism aside, on a point of law, if the Gardai have a suspect in mind they have neither arrested that party nor said any utterances on the same, hence the matter is not sub judice. Obviously with regards to civil law, commentators should exercise normal responsibility for statements - and ensure they are not in breach of libel.

Ultimately however, the facts of this case to date would indicate that if there had not been discussion at online venues such as here, broadsheet,ie, and politics.ie, it is unlikely the case would have attracted sufficient attention to be reopened.

Therefore it seems reasonable to me that responsible discussion has been, and continues to be, a critical aid rather than a compromise to this case.[/QUOTE]

If you read today's papers, you will see the reopening of the investigation came about from evidence in the autopsy report which Kate's father brought to the attention of the Garda Ombudsman.

Defiler Of The Coffin

What a terrible ordeal for the family. It looks as though the investigation will be hampered from the beginning. Why did it take such arm-twisting for the Garda to re-open the case?

Nodin

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

What a terrible ordeal for the family. It looks as though the investigation will be hampered from the beginning. Why did it take such arm-twisting for the Garda to re-open the case?

.....once a body has decided something, its often a tortuous process for it to be reversed. For one thing, they don't give too much weight to the opinions of "amateurs"/outside elements, for another, theres not wanting to lose face by backtracking. They're lucky its only taken this long, tbh.

belinda502

What has happened with this matter? Is it all over now that the Press Complaints Commission has completed its whitewash ruling by throwing out 7 of the 8 complaints made by the Fitzgerald family? Are people not commenting anymore because a new investigation has been opened into Kate Fitzgerald’s death? The petition to ‘The Irish Time’s’ is still up on ‘The Broadsheet’ but there seems to have been a huge drop off in signatures.