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

The Sparrow

expectationlost wrote: »

it still tuned anonymous allegations into ones about a specific company

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

Dudess

expectationlost wrote: »

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

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

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

expectationlost

The Sparrow wrote: »

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

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

expectationlost

Dudess wrote: »

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

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

strandroad

expectationlost wrote: »

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

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

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

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

The Sparrow

expectationlost wrote: »

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

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

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

expectationlost

The Sparrow wrote: »

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

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

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

The Sparrow

expectationlost wrote: »

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

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

expectationlost

The Sparrow wrote: »

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

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

The Sparrow

expectationlost wrote: »

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

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

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

Hersheys

They should have printed a reply from TCC rather than edit the original article.

Or at least given proper justification to removing the letter.

dayshah

The Sparrow wrote: »

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

It would also have to be shown that the original allegation was unlikely to be true (on balance of probabilities).

I think this is really a terrible situation for the family, and it must be really difficult for them when up against far more powerful people.

The Irish Times shouldn't have butchered the letter. If they were unhappy with it they should have just taken it all down, and said it was ALL removed on legal advice.

dayshah

The Sparrow wrote: »

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

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

Also, broadsheet.ie linked the story with a case being taken against the employer by a different person for bullying.

I have to say, I really admire broadsheet.ie taking a principled stand on this.

strandroad

dayshah wrote: »

The Irish Times shouldn't have butchered the letter. If they were unhappy with it they should have just taken it all down, and said it was ALL removed on legal advice.

If they took the whole letter down having received some real legal warnings from TCC I don't think the controversy would be nearly as big, or there would be none at all.

However, both IT and TCC keep shooting themselves in their collective foot. Is this what they call crisis management? If IT delivers on their promise and follows up on this it will only get more people interested in the whole affair and informed about its roots thanks to the miracle of the interwebs. I can't see IT getting any new readers (or TCC getting new customers) over this, but they can lose many.

expectationlost

irish times said the acted on its own legal advise nobody else's legal move

jerry2623

Brenda Power has an excellent piece on the whole topic on today's Sunday Times.
People need to be very careful about turning people who commit Suicide into either Victims or Heroes Neither of which they are

Cianos

jerry2623 wrote: »

Brenda Power has an excellent piece on the whole topic on today's Sunday Times.
People need to be very careful about turning people who commit Suicide into either Victims or Heroes Neither of which they are

Is there a copy of this online anywhere?

jerry2623

Cianos wrote: »

Is there a copy of this online anywhere?

The Times works on a pay per view System so not sure if you can get it for free online

Dionysus

Not a single letter is published in this morning's Irish Times about Kate Fitzgerald. In this case, openness, transparency and democratic debate seems to be something The Irish Times advocates for other organisations.

The editor of The Irish Times has, however, written an article in this morning's paper:


Seeking answers but not retribution on subject of suicide
KEVIN O'SULLIVAN, Irish Times Editor

THE IRISH Times’s purpose in featuring the story of Kate Fitzgerald’s life was to help people get a better understanding of suicide and depression.

We have a long-standing policy of encouraging a more open approach within society to the reality of suicide and of providing a forum for debate about it and related issues.

We have sought to be supportive of Tom and Sally Fitzgerald after the tragic death of their daughter earlier this year. Our shared objective has been to tell her story and to highlight the need for people who are depressed to talk about it and to seek support.

Kate Fitzgerald wrote a personal opinion piece in The Irish Times (September 9th) outlining her efforts to deal with depression; to find the answer on mental illness, “if you ask the right question”. The piece, published anonymously with a note at the bottom saying that the identity of the author was known to the editor, was also a plea for the right kind of supports for people like her, whether among friends, in the workplace or in greater society.

Tom Fitzgerald subsequently rang the newspaper and confirmed the author of the piece was in all probability his daughter and that she had taken her own life between it having been submitted and published.

Then Opinion editor and now foreign editor, Peter Murtagh, who had been in communication with Kate prior to its publication, felt the Fitzgeralds’ terrible turmoil when he met them: “A cascade of raw emotion, love, memories, loss and some anger followed. But with all of those, there was also a feeling that Kate’s life story, and her many achievements, should not be swamped by bewilderment at her death, the manner of it, and that her plea for greater understanding of depression should be heard”.

His piece (Weekend Review, November 26th) on the life of Kate Fitzgerald was immensely empowering in that it gave a great many of our readers a message of hope out of terrible adversity – and unquestionably provided an invaluable insight into how so many wrestle with depression and suicidal thoughts. Above all, the searing honesty, bravery in wishing to speak out about suicide and love of Kate, articulated by the Fitzgeralds, shone out from the page; a seeking of answers without the seeking of retribution.

The benefit is reinforced by the view of psychologist Tony Bates, director of Headstrong – the National Centre for Youth Mental Health, who believes we have to develop the language for talking about suicide and depression, the most common mental health problem worldwide. “And the evidence seems to indicate that it is on the rise globally. It has something to teach all of us about the way we live our lives and relate to one another,” he noted in The Irish Times HEALTHPlus supplement on the issue of “facing up to distress”.

The Irish Times sets high ethical standards for itself with a commitment to fairness. Sometimes they are not met, as some have contended in our coverage of this case. These are demanding requirements. Sometimes it’s a delicate weighing of often conflicting facts and details, when the full picture has yet to emerge.

That is what we attempted to do in this case. Suicide is such a difficult, complex subject; when someone chooses to take their own life with devastating consequences for their family, friends and colleagues. Coverage of suicide issues frequently provokes intense emotions and contention.

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. In my view, this was necessary in the context of fairness and it does not undermine in any way Kate’s life and the story told by her family, including her brother William.

As is standard practice, an edit note was appended to the revised online version of the article. Following some queries from readers, this note was further clarified to indicate the date of the revision and the reason it had been carried out.

Last year, The Irish Times published a major “Stories of Suicide” series by Carl O’Brien. His opening sentences encapsulated how “suicide is a convergence of troubled strands . . . where there are always unanswered, or unanswerable, questions. Could the death have been avoided? Were there sufficient warning signs that a person was going to take his or her own life? What could possibly drive a person to feel life is so unbearable that they would want to leave it?”

The series helped set free so many voices on the issue of depression and suicide across all strands of Irish society; notably of those with depression – who succumbed to it on a once-off basis or face it in a recurring way. Their families too were grateful for being part of the conversation, including some grieving after the loss of a loved one. I hope that coverage by The Irish Times of Kate Fitzgerald’s life and premature death will have a similar beneficial effect.

---

Incredible. Head. Sand. Delusional. Insincere vacuous waffle. These are words which came to me while reading that piece. The lack of published letters in today's paper, despite widespread condemnation of the actions of The Irish Times, says much about how quickly it wants its editorial behaviour in this issue to be brushed under the carpet. Let's not oblige them. For the record: The Irish Times called Kate Fitzgerald a liar.

Stovepipe

Hi there
Who was she and why did she deserve more attention than any other suicide victim?

regards
Stovepipe

genuine question; I've no idea who she was but have seen a lot of ink spilt about her

Dionysus

Cianos wrote: »

Is there a copy of this online anywhere?

jerry2623 wrote: »

The Times works on a pay per view System so not sure if you can get it for free online

Sunday Times article. This is one article on Kate's death in today's Sunday Times (compliments of Broadsheet.ie).

Biggins subscribes to The Sunday Times and is usually very obliging when asked nicely for a copy of an article.

He may even paste it all into this thread if the mods promise not to ban him (he likes it here!).

strobe

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi there
Who was she and why did she deserve more attention than any other suicide victim?

regards
Stovepipe

genuine question; I've no idea who she was but have seen a lot of ink spilt about her

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=kate+fitzgerald

======

Unless, of course, it wasn't a genuine question (heaven forbid) and you have some point you were clumsily trying to make?

Regards,
A painfully obvious and tiresome person.

The Sparrow

Have just seen the explanation from The Irish Times. Sounds like a whitewash to me. No explanation of any concrete reasons that led them to amend the original article and I am also not very comfortable with these lines:

Above all, the searing honesty, bravery in wishing to speak out about suicide and love of Kate, articulated by the Fitzgeralds, shone out from the page; a seeking of answers without the seeking of retribution.... In my view, [the amendment] was necessary in the context of fairness and it does not undermine in any way Kate’s life and the story told by her family, including her brother William.

Sounds a bit rich to me considering the Fitzgerald family have been quoted saying that The Irish Times 'butchered' the article and in The Sunday Times her father said 'Given that it was her last statement to the world, it shouldn't have been abused or edited as it has been. She said what she said, and had every right to say it.'

And that is without even mentioning the accusation that The Irish Times made yesterday that Kate had lied. No evidence whatsoever has been presented to support that and the accusation is not even mentioned by the editor in this piece. Perhaps another piece would be in order on the morals of branding deceased people who cannot defend themselves as liars.

Podge_irl

The situation is exceptionally complicated. However, I can't help but feel people are rushing to blame the IT a bit too quickly. They've handled the whole thing poorly, but I think the attacks on them are a bit much. The complaints about their apology are misguided. Perhaps, in this situation, the Irish Times are actually right and there were factual errors in the original letter. The IT don't generally publish anonymous articles for this reason (amongst others). People are also jumping to conclusions because they don't like the company involved. The fact that the girl is dead is a tragedy, but it doesn't automatically mean her words are indisputable fact either.

The Sparrow

Podge_irl wrote: »

The complaints about their apology are misguided. Perhaps, in this situation, the Irish Times are actually right and there were factual errors in the original letter. The IT don't generally publish anonymous articles for this reason (amongst others). People are also jumping to conclusions because they don't like the company involved. The fact that the girl is dead is a tragedy, but it doesn't automatically mean her words are indisputable fact either.

But how could they possibly prove that there were factual errors in the original piece in the paragraphs that they crudely amended? It is a case of one person's word against another's and unfortunately one the people is no longer with us.

So if they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that what Kate said was false, then why would they decide to first amend her words and secondly apologise to the other party and insinuate that she was a liar?

That is the problem that so many people have with the whole episode.

Podge_irl

The Sparrow wrote: »

But how could they possibly prove that there were factual errors in the original piece in the paragraphs that they crudely amended? It is a case of one person's word against another's and unfortunately one the people is no longer with us.

So if they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that what Kate said was false, then why would they decide to first amend her words and secondly apologise to the other party and insinuate that she was a liar?

That is the problem that so many people have with the whole episode.

I have no idea. I'm not claiming they're right, just that it's a possibility that I think people are dismissing a bit quickly.

Unfortunately, not being able to prove it's false isn't really a high enough standard to print something though. Once it became clear who the writer was and what company she worked for then they had to do something with the piece. They handled it poorly and crudely, but something said anonymously about an unnamed company is a very different thing from something about a specific company printed unverified in a national newspaper.

As regards the "apology", I really don't know enough about the situation. Though I doubt most people here do either. Maybe she made a formal complaint that was investigated and not held up? Maybe none of the other employees in the company corroborated her story (which is certainly not indicative of her lying, but it puts the IT in a difficult position).

I'm not denying that there is a distinct possibility that TCC acted poorly and are now acting the bollox and threatening legal action to cover that up or that the IT and media in general in the country are a bit of a cess pit. But a situation such as this simply can't be cast in simple black and white terms.

expectationlost

people always talk of the high standards just when they've shown not to have them

jerry2623

The Sparrow wrote: »

But how could they possibly prove that there were factual errors in the original piece in the paragraphs that they crudely amended? It is a case of one person's word against another's and unfortunately one the people is no longer with us.

So if they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that what Kate said was false, then why would they decide to first amend her words and secondly apologise to the other party and insinuate that she was a liar?

That is the problem that so many people have with the whole episode.

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 .

billybudd

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 .

Or you could look at it as a rare insight into someomes state of mind just before they end their life.

rugbug86

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 .

How can it be a seriously damaging allegation if a) it was anonymous and b) the company weren't mentioned?

And she didn't write it 4 hours before she killed herself - she sent it into the IT on the Friday, PM rang her on the Monday, she died sometime between Monday night/Tuesday morning.

I think the whole situation is just messed up. I think that it was a courageous thing for Kate to write, and as a friend of hers, the follow-up publication in the IT, while difficult to read, gave some sort of closure. To have things changed and have to hear her name essentially being dragged through the mud is hurtful, and it makes it seem like the grieving process is starting all over again.

And I know it's her decision not to be here to defend herself, but that doesn't make it any easier. I think a bit of transparency wouldn't go astray with how the media are dealing with the situation.