Major faux pas for FM104

cdeb

Calhoun wrote: »

Not ignored but reason's i don't believe have any real merit considering the accusations at play.

But you've been given very logical reasons why the audio shouldn't be released, you've given no real reasons yourself in return (that haven't been addressed) - so why do you continue to hold your view when it's been challenged so much? That doesn't make sense.

[Deleted User]

cdeb wrote: »

... for you to ignore all those and link it instead with bigotry is remarkably, unbelievably crass.

Don't be calling other users crass.

People are just exchanging ideas. Nobody is crass.

Calhoun

cdeb wrote: »

But you've been given very logical reasons why the audio shouldn't be released, you've given no real reasons yourself in return (that haven't been addressed) - so why do you continue to hold your view when it's been challenged so much? That doesn't make sense.

They are logical in your mind, in my mind they are very Helen Lovejoy (think of the children) and comes off as disingenuous.

The arguments have gone something like:

Woman is unhappy and makes complaint>some people support her or support the principle of not slagging disabled children> some people don't support her because of her politics and others because "why can't we say that anymore"> the argument then got boiled down to those against it saying you cannot comment if you haven't heard it.

Thats where this breaks down, as those who are saying the above want the discussion shut down.

cdeb

Why are my comments "very Helen Lovejoy"?

I don't think it's been established the kid was slagged because he was disabled.

I don't think anyone has said "Why can't we slag off disabled kids any more?"

Nobody has said you can't comment if you haven't heard the clip, but you certainly can't make the sort of judgements seen in this thread if you haven't heard it. How can you judge something you haven't heard?

EmmetSpiceland

I think it’s fair to say that the station has acknowledged they messed up. Until we hear the audio we have to assume it was unintentional.

The mother is taking the matter to the BAI, as is her right, but people saying this is all just some “crusade” to gain Twitter popularity or that she’s looking to build some multimillion euro lawsuit against FM104 is simply risible.

Calhoun

Its the wont somebody think of the children defense, its pretty much her catchphrase.

It hasn't been established people are talking about how the story has been reported and the mothers account from it.

Some of the very early posts were very much the "you cannot say anything anymore".

You guys are dog piling hard on posters who have been discussing it asking them have they actually heard it.

While every comment people make must be careful as we don't know who is guilty right now we can still speculate on the mothers response and the response from the station which.

There is a logical way of doing things and then there is a societal way, no matter what happens with this people were going to comment on it once that post went up on twitter.

end of the road

cdeb wrote: »

And she's perfectly entitled to make her complaint to the BAI.

But you can't side with her purely because of who she is, which is what you seem to be doing

agreed, but you also can't side against her because of who she is, which lets face it, a couple of posters in the thread have done so.
realistically none of us have heard the clip, so all we can do is work with what information we do have available until more comes to light, and yes, i'm afraid that will bring some speculation for better or worse.

cdeb

Yep, no problems with that. I came into this to challenge Tyrant's bias, which was against the presenters despite, as we've seen, not actually having heard the clip. I don't want that to be seen as me taking the opposite side (is against the mother) as a result. There's unhelpful idle speculation on both sides about something no-one actually seems to know anything about.

Welcome to boards, I guess.

end of the road

cdeb wrote: »

Yep, no problems with that. I came into this to challenge Tyrant's bias, which was against the presenters despite, as we've seen, not actually having heard the clip. I don't want that to be seen as me taking the opposite side (is against the mother) as a result. There's unhelpful idle speculation on both sides about something no-one actually seems to know anything about.

Welcome to boards, I guess.

i don't think it's bias, but rather a viewpoint held on the basis of the view that the appology given out by the station was quite week.
now personally i find most appologies in relation to incidents are more or less said for the sake of it, so the quality of such generally doesn't make much difference to me, but i can certainly see as to why for others, the strength of the appology and weather one believes it is meant or not, will play a part in their view in relation to what may have happened, where we only have a small amount of information, for better or worse.

cdeb

Well we haven't heard the apology either, so we don't know what exactly they were apologising for, which makes it hard to use it as a means for forming an opinion.

VW 1

cdeb wrote: »

Well we haven't heard the apology either, so we don't know what exactly they were apologising for, which makes it hard to use it as a means for forming an opinion.

It's from FM104 themselves, so not unbiased, but it is a direct quote and fair representation of what they said the next day. It's really not hard, took 5s of googling.

https://www.fm104.ie/news/fm104-news/statement-fm104-issues-statement-on-kids-in-the-car/

They admit a faux pas that they couldn't possibly have been aware of at the time. Mother well within her rights to go to the BAI with the complaint, but given she has the extremely public and direct apology already I'm really not sure what she hopes to achieve from pressing on with this in the public eye. Woke-ism at its finest (or worst, depending on how you view it).

VW 1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yeah, I changed my mind when FM104 offered its half-apology, and clearly weren't contesting the mother's version of events. The story had credence then. So obviously that's when I started having an opinion.

It's not a particularly strong opinion, certainly not anger. I'll just leave it at that, I think.

Out of interest, what was it that made the apology a half apology? It involved taking out a full light hearted segment and replacing it with a genuine heartfelt apology and explanation of what happened. Not a half apology or token apology by any view.

Could you also explain how you have an opinion based on a tweet or two without listening to any of the clips? If I have any opinion, I try my best to back it up, but you seem to be having an opinion for opinions sake.

cdeb

VW 1 wrote: »

It's from FM104 themselves, so not unbiased, but it is a direct quote and fair representation of what they said the next day. It's really not hard, took 5s of googling.

https://www.fm104.ie/news/fm104-news/statement-fm104-issues-statement-on-kids-in-the-car/

They admit a faux pas that they couldn't possibly have been aware of at the time. Mother well within her rights to go to the BAI with the complaint, but given she has the extremely public and direct apology already I'm really not sure what she hopes to achieve from pressing on with this in the public eye. Woke-ism at its finest (or worst, depending on how you view it).

Ok, fair enough. I hadn't seen that; I knew the mother had received a "sorry not sorry" (her words) WhatsApp voicemail apology which we haven't seen.

But even that press release doesn't really give enough info to jump to the conclusions on this thread (for example that they were making fun of the kid's disability). In fact, it denies they did, and then has some vague standard wording about reviewing processes.

So we still don't really know the context of what went on.

[Deleted User]

I’m surprised the degree to which some posters have taken the mothers version of what happened at face value- we clearly have her interpretation, the radio stations response explanation and apology which is obviously at odds with her interpretation, and that’s it.

It just shows how one unverified tweet can send some people into perpetual outrage orgasm- are there people out there who just spend their day waiting for the flimsiest of an excuse to get outraged over something? They really need to get out more

California Dreamer

cdeb wrote: »

Yep, no problems with that. I came into this to challenge Tyrant's bias

Welcome to boards, I guess.

Not the first time I have seen that.

TheLonelyOne

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Unless I read it wrong the station did ring to apologise, sure what more does she want?

Sounds like she is just trying to be on her soapbox for as long as possible before the Twitter mob turn their attention to the next person who they think deserves their wrath.

So, just to clarify, if it was your child they have mocked, you would feel content with a half arsed apology? It is not about any mob mentality, political status (which I find highly amusing given some of the comments on here) but a mother who seems to be genuinely p!seed off for the way these two grown men flagged off her child.

And would the fact they they are failing to release the audio not be some admission of guilt on their part.

Let's call a spade a spade here. The 'apology' they gave was as weak as dish water.

The question to ask yourself "how would you feel if it was your child"

frozenfrozen

Next person to suggest not releasing the audio is an admission of guilt is being shot into the sea by a catapult

cdeb

TheLonelyOne wrote: »

So, just to clarify, if it was your child they have mocked, you would feel content with a half arsed apology?

The question to ask yourself "how would you feel if it was your child"

The suggestion - which I don't think anyone has challenged yet - is that this is known to be what happens on that segment.

If you let your child ring into a segment where this sort of stuff happens, you can't really complain afterwards when the sort of stuff that happens, happens. You certainly can't pull the a surprise disability card either. (And as I've said before, it sounds like a stupid segment too)

Again, I don't know if this is the nature of the segment. I've never heard it. But the suggestion is there that it is and hasn't been challenged so far as I can see.

Former Former Former

TheLonelyOne wrote: »

And would the fact they they are failing to release the audio not be some admission of guilt on their part.

TheLonelyOne wrote: »

The question to ask yourself "how would you feel if it was your child"

If it was my kid, the absolute last thing I would want is the audio of my child (allegedly) being mocked circulating on the internet for all and sundry to listen to.

Like, if FM104 did release the audio, the outrage would be magnified to infinite dimensions by people saying that they're using the audio of a child with additional needs to get themselves off the hook.

I'm sure whatever was said was crass and clumsy, I'm sure any offence was unintentional - but let the BAI handle it, random internetters do not need to hear it.

EmmetSpiceland

Former Former Former wrote: »

If it was my kid, the absolute last thing I would want is the audio of my child (allegedly) being mocked circulating on the internet for all and sundry to listen to.

Like, if FM104 did release the audio, the outrage would be magnified to infinite dimensions by people saying that they're using the audio of a child with additional needs to get themselves off the hook.

I'm sure whatever was said was crass and clumsy, I'm sure any offence was unintentional - but let the BAI handle it, random internetters do not need to hear it.

There’s definitely a ‘Streisand Effect’ to all of this but I’m not sure a parent is thinking of that when they complain about a perceived transgression against their kid.

I, personally, would never listen to FM104. I’m not sure what their ratings are, or what they are for that particular show, but going so public with your “complaint” is always lead to curiosity from those who never listen seeking the clip out.

Calhoun

The danger of the public complaint is right now all people have to go on are what the mother is saying and it has a very real impact if station as advertiser's start pulling away.

Former Former Former

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

There’s definitely a ‘Streisand Effect’ to all of this but I’m not sure a parent is thinking of that when they complain about a perceived transgression against their kid.

No, of course not, but this isn't about the validity of the initial complaint, this is about putting the offending material out there for ever after the fact. That doesn't help anyone except nosy internet posters.

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I, personally, would never listen to FM104. I’m not sure what their ratings are, or what they are for that particular show, but going so public with your “complaint” is always lead to curiosity from those who never listen seeking the clip out.

Yeah, absolutely - but saying that not releasing the audio is an admission of guilt is bananas. Releasing it would make the situation ten times worse.

cdeb

Calhoun wrote: »

The danger of the public complaint is right now all people have to go on are what the mother is saying and it has a very real impact if station as advertiser's start pulling away.

The solution is for people to stop gossiping about and judging stuff they haven't heard first-hand so. Not for media to be released that could potentially be used to make the case worse.

EmmetSpiceland

Former Former Former wrote: »

Yeah, absolutely - but saying that not releasing the audio is an admission of guilt is bananas. Releasing it would make the situation ten times worse.

Do we know what their usual method of podcasting, or “listen back”, is? It won’t look good if they are updating things around that particular “slot” but they could easily say it’s out of respect for the mother and child.

Someone on here was recently complains because Newstalk are lagging behind on getting Pat Kenny content up, maybe 104 are suffering the same “delay” and that’s all there is to it.

Still, it doesn’t look great.

SAMTALK

There are few times I'm happy to be in my 50's.

Getting the vaccine is one

Not having to rear my kids in this day and age when every word, jester and look seems to offend so many people

TheLonelyOne

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Someone on here was recently complains because Newstalk are lagging behind on getting Pat Kenny content up, maybe 104 are suffering the same “delay” and that’s all there is to it.

Still, it doesn’t look great.

That is just down to utter laziness, not uploading or updating show audio to the relevant platform's.

[Deleted User]

TheLonelyOne wrote: »

So, just to clarify, if it was your child they have mocked, you would feel content with a half arsed apology? It is not about any mob mentality, political status (which I find highly amusing given some of the comments on here) but a mother who seems to be genuinely p!seed off for the way these two grown men flagged off her child.

And would the fact they they are failing to release the audio not be some admission of guilt on their part.

Let's call a spade a spade here. The 'apology' they gave was as weak as dish water.

The question to ask yourself "how would you feel if it was your child"

You’re starting your argument on a false premise- there is absolutely no proof to date that the child was “mocked” - and to the contrary we have a reply from the station stating that they were not referring to the child when making comments about the WhatsApp call - so why are you continuing to state as fact that the child was “mocked”?

[Deleted User]

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Next person to suggest not releasing the audio is an admission of guilt is being shot into the sea by a catapult

Sounds like fun- where can you buy these catapults?

end of the road

PlentyOhToole wrote: »

You’re starting your argument on a false premise- there is absolutely no proof to date that the child was “mocked” - and to the contrary we have a reply from the station stating that they were not referring to the child when making comments about the WhatsApp call - so why are you continuing to state as fact that the child was “mocked”?

there is no proof the child wasn't mocked either, to be fair, as the station's statement is just their version of events, and if one shouldn't simply take the mother's versiion of events at face value then they shouldn't take the station's version of events at face value either.
the truth is nobody knows as nobody heard the clip, so all anyone is doing is speculating, and therefore if it is okay for one to speculate that the child wasn't mocked, it is okay for other posters to speculate otherwise.

Grolschevik

PlentyOhToole wrote: »

are there people out there who just spend their day waiting for the flimsiest of an excuse to get outraged over something? They really need to get out more

That's funny, because Boards and this forum in particular.