Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Major faux pas for FM104

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    cdeb wrote: »
    Ok - and my apologies to Faugheen.

    The other question I had for you from a few posts back - have you actually heard the clip in question?
    No, I'm basing my view on the fact that they have attempted a pretty weak apology, and that the mother's summary of events hasn't been contested by anyone.


  • Options
    #123
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    cdeb wrote: »
    It's reasonable to ask people who have strong views on the matter in this thread - such as Tyrant - if they've heard the clip, because otherwise they're speculating based on rumour really.

    Your last two points aren't full sentences and I'm not entirely sure what you mean - are you suggesting that we can't decide if there should be a BAI investigation without hearing the clip? That doesn't necessarily add up. A complaint has been made to the BAI (by the kid's mother). What would releasing the clip add to the BAI case at this stage?

    If the BAI reject the complaint, then it would appear that certain people have been completely over-reacting by calling on the guys to be sacked. (Shock as people over-react on the internet). If the BAI uphold the complaint, then due process will presumably be observed, though that doesn't legitimise those who have been speculating without actually hearing what was said.

    Sorry was on a phone, i meant to say that there were those on the thread who think they don't even have a case to answer with from the BAI and if that's the case i meant release it and show it.

    This is the internet, you can see people on this thread completely over-reacting in the opposite direction because of the mothers political beliefs. I assume we have no bigots here and if there was any bigotry we would want them to be held accountable but also exonerated if there is none.


  • Options
    #124
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    No, I'm basing my view on the fact that they have attempted a pretty weak apology, and that the mother's summary of events hasn't been contested by anyone.

    OK - but apologies are two a penny these days, and their value has diminished a lot in the social media age. I don't think you're outraged, but you are prejudging FM104 here, and that's all part of the overall machine that pressures people to apologise for anything.

    The mother's events haven't been contested, true. They haven't been verified either. In fact, no-one on here heard the segment at all it seems.

    Count Hairyfoot has, however, raised the point as to whether this is a regular segment where kids ring in and slagging ensues. I don't think that question has been answered yet. If it is the case then (a) it sounds like a pretty stupid segment and I'm not sure who'd let their kids ring in and (b) this kid's disability has nothing to do with it; any kid would have been treated similarly.

    The problem I have with your posts is that you've started off saying "I don't know the context and it's very difficult to glean that -- even from Twitter -- without listening to the broadcast" (entirely reasonable) to "Imagine growing up and learning that you were mocked on national radio because of some disability you have, and grown adults were laughing at you. That would feel a bit ****" (ridiculous and unhelpful speculation)
    Calhoun wrote: »
    Sorry was on a phone, i meant to say that there were those on the thread who think they don't even have a case to answer with from the BAI and if that's the case i meant release it and show it.
    OK - but again, the BAI will decide if there's a case to be answered, not the people on this thread.

    Another issue with releasing the audio is the potential for it to be slightly edited, circulated on social media and generally misrepreseted. Once it's online, it's near impossible to get rid of it, and if there is anything in the complaint, that would probably be worse for the kid concerned.


  • Options
    #125
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,640 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    So basically no one heard the segment at all.

    The two apologised and the mother keeps rolling on the story for days.


    What is it she wants now , specifically.....

    I'm lost.


  • Options
    #126
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    cdeb wrote: »

    OK - but again, the BAI will decide if there's a case to be answered, not the people on this thread.

    Another issue with releasing the audio is the potential for it to be slightly edited, circulated on social media and generally misrepreseted. Once it's online, it's near impossible to get rid of it, and if there is anything in the complaint, that would probably be worse for the kid concerned.

    Indeed i am not arguing that the BAI are the ones to answer the case. There is still public opinion and if FM104 feel they can weather the storm of negative PR then let them on.

    I assuming having the original audio would not be protection enough for them ? Why would somebody want to alter it? How would it damage the four year old having it online considering it was already broadcast on air?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    VW 1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,491 ✭✭✭VW 1


    If anyone heard the show yesterday morning, instead of the usual segment, they skipped it and dedicated the segment to an explanation and apology.

    Anyone who listens to it regularly (a school run must for my little ones) you will know they often interject over the audio while it is playing (they aren't interacting with the kids, only speaking over the audio and often the comment is a "joke for the parent") and always make a point of telling the kids not to shout from the back with a phone on speaker, but to talk into the phone directly.

    Their explanation was that they found the child hard to hear, and made a comment on the child in question needing to speak up or some other comment. Obviously had no knowledge of the child's additional needs and remarked how unintended it was to cause hurt or distress, that they'd never do that as both of them are dad's to young kids.

    Hard to hear the apology and not think it was genuine, impossible for them to know it was a kid with additional needs, and the mother needs to accept the apology and move on tbh. Point made, lesson learned, apology offered, end of saga.


  • Options
    #128
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Calhoun wrote: »
    There is still public opinion and if FM104 feel they can weather the storm of negative PR then let them on.
    Can the public not base its opinion on the BAI verdict?
    Calhoun wrote: »
    Why would somebody want to alter it?
    Have you seen the crap people do on the internet? It could be turned into a meme mocking his speech for example.
    Calhoun wrote: »
    How would it damage the four year old having it online considering it was already broadcast on air?
    It can surely only do more harm to have it up there forever than the current situation where it's lost and forgotten about?


  • Options
    #129
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    VW 1 wrote: »
    If anyone heard the show yesterday morning, instead of the usual segment, they skipped it and dedicated the segment to an explanation and apology.

    Anyone who listens to it regularly (a school run must for my little ones) you will know they often interject over the audio while it is playing (they aren't interacting with the kids, only speaking over the audio and often the comment is a "joke for the parent") and always make a point of telling the kids not to shout from the back with a phone on speaker, but to talk into the phone directly.

    Their explanation was that they found the child hard to hear, and made a comment on the child in question needing to speak up or some other comment. Obviously had no knowledge of the child's additional needs and remarked how unintended it was to cause hurt or distress, that they'd never do that as both of them are dad's to young kids.

    Hard to hear the apology and not think it was genuine, impossible for them to know it was a kid with additional needs, and the mother needs to accept the apology and move on tbh. Point made, lesson learned, apology offered, end of saga.

    Yes but the truth is getting in the way of an excuse for total outrage - we can’t let that happen- delete this post, we can’t be having the truth in this thread :P


  • Options
    #130
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    cdeb wrote: »
    Can the public not base its opinion on the BAI verdict?


    Have you seen the crap people do on the internet? It could be turned into a meme mocking his speech for example.


    It can surely only do more harm to have it up there forever than the current situation where it's lost and forgotten about?

    They should but you know they wont, especially in 2021 when the approach is to use online as a mechanism to broadcast inequalities so to speak.

    I have seen allot of the crap people do on the internet yes, i wasn't sure what you meant as others have used the mothers political belief as a stick to discredit her without having heard anything. I am not so sure people would turn it into a meme unless they were purposely trying to be provocative but if they did make sure they are dox proof.

    If they have nothing to answer for then I still don't see how it could do harm to a child showing them naturally speaking on a radio station. What about all the other kids in the car programs? You can find old versions of the program going back a few years online.


  • Options
    #131
    Count Hairyfoot
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Count Hairyfoot


    They're right not to release the audio. There's absolutely no upside for anyone. What will happen is someone will seize on what's probably a 60 second clip and put it online with a caption like "Outrageous - Listen to these DJs mock a disabled child and get away with it" without any additional context.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Exactly - both on the downside and the complete lack of an upside.


  • Options
    #133
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Who might do it? if its as innocent as it came across then why would it be an issue?

    Either way, this wont got away any time soon and like it or not the twitter crowd will make hay with it because of my above questions.


  • Options
    #134
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Pricks on the internet. There are literally millions of them.


  • Options
    #135
    bonzothedog
    Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭bonzothedog


    I have a child with dyspraxia, he's up late most nights , can't get the fecker to sleep!! - suffice to say he is a bit of a mumbler in the mornings - actually so is his sister who doesn't have dyspraxia!


  • Options
    #136
    Heart Break Kid
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭Heart Break Kid


    Coming from someone that has visual Dyspraxia, Its not a condition that effects speech.

    At its worst, the show might of been making fun of a kid, something it has been doing for nearly 15 years if not more?

    They made a light joke about the kid and the mother seems to have forgotten shes been laughing at other kids for years now and is annoyed someone made a comment about her kid of which would have no correlation to the kids condition.


  • Options
    #137
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    cdeb wrote: »
    The problem I have with your posts is that you've started off saying "I don't know the context and it's very difficult to glean that -- even from Twitter -- without listening to the broadcast" (entirely reasonable) to "Imagine growing up and learning that you were mocked on national radio because of some disability you have, and grown adults were laughing at you. That would feel a bit ****"
    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.


  • Options
    #138
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    It's interesting though that you accused some posters of "replying to arguments that they have invented" when you've effectively invented your own argument based on reasonably little - basically a presumption based on a course of action taken which could mean a number of things.

    Still, I presume VW1's post (which actually is very similar to what Count Hairyfoot had been trying to suggest to you earlier) has at least put doubt back in your mind again.


  • Options
    #139
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Heart Break Kid wrote: »
    Coming from someone that has visual Dyspraxia, Its not a condition that effects speech.

    At its worst, the show might of been making fun of a kid, something it has been doing for nearly 15 years if not more?

    They made a light joke about the kid and the mother seems to have forgotten shes been laughing at other kids for years now and is annoyed someone made a comment about her kid of which would have no correlation to the kids condition.


    A five second google would contradict what your saying chief. Just a quick sample.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/our-son-charlie-is-five-but-he-cannot-say-his-name-1.3808530

    https://www.spectrumspeech.ie/dyspraxia-in-children


  • Options
    #140
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    cdeb wrote: »
    It's interesting though that you accused some posters of "replying to arguments that they have invented" when you've effectively invented your own argument based on reasonably little - basically a presumption based on a course of action taken which could mean a number of things.

    Still, I presume VW1's post (which actually is very similar to what Count Hairyfoot had been trying to suggest to you earlier) has at least put doubt back in your mind again.

    Check…mate! :P


  • Options
    #141
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    A quick look at the early parts of the thread and i think you see what hes getting at.

    It quickly went down a rabbit hole of wokism, people before profit and the suggestion that the mothers account be completely be discredited because she of her political beliefs.

    That's what the conversation boils down to now, its a game of politics.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    TheLonelyOne
    Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭TheLonelyOne


    cdeb wrote: »
    OK - but apologies are two a penny these days, and their value has diminished a lot in the social media age. I don't think you're outraged, but you are prejudging FM104 here, and that's all part of the overall machine that pressures people to apologise for anything.

    Tell me why you think they shouldn't apologise? And I don't mean that feeble excuse they issued. Is it really too hard for two grown men to admit they were wrong.


  • Options
    #143
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    I haven't said they shouldn't apologise. I haven't commented at all on that because I haven't heard the clip; I don't know what was said or what the context was. VW1's post - the only person who seems to have heard the show, albeit not the clip in question - does seem to indicate that they weren't mocking anyone's disabilities and that this is mountain out of a molehill stuff. But I'm happy for the BAI to check into it because that's what it's there for.

    Do you think they should apologise? If so, why?


  • Options
    #144
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    For some reason the mother herself feels there is still something to be answered for, despite VW1's post.

    https://twitter.com/KellieSocialist/status/1405194813910274051?s=20


  • Options
    #145
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    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


  • Options
    #146
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    I haven't said I sided with her, but it would seem either she is lying or it's a bigger issues than FM104 are making out.

    I am against bigotry and it's why I won't just discount her until I know more. As far too many bigots who are more than happy to gloss over it and say it's not a big deal but still wouldn't be for sharing the evidence that they readily have.


  • Options
    #147
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    You've been given lots of reasons why the audio doesn't have to be made public, and for you to ignore all those and link it instead with bigotry is remarkably, unbelievably crass.


  • Options
    #148
    Jerry Attrick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Jerry Attrick


    VW 1 wrote: »

    Hard to hear the apology and not think it was genuine, impossible for them to know it was a kid with additional needs, and the mother needs to accept the apology and move on tbh.

    But if she did that then her 15 minutes in the spotlight would be over and she'd return to well-deserved anonymnity.

    Surely you wouldn't want that to happen to her?


  • Options
    #149
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Always kick up, never down! Slagging people with additional or special needs is a uniquely pathetic form of kicking down.

    Thing is though, not to dress it up in any way, the kind of people that come out with this kind of comment are almost invariably a bit lacking in intelligence themselves (and not just in the EQ [sic] department). Some of the worst people for calling people with special needs 'stupid' (and worse) are other people with special needs. It's a cruel world.

    However, if one is outraged and hurt by such behaviour and starts reacting to people that make such comments, you end up, essentially, attacking a different group of people that are lower on the intelligence spectrum. This would be unethical.

    So, if we are to be kind to those with learning difficulties (and we should be, it costs nothing) this includes being kind to the DJs too and letting go of the hurt and outrage. Not worth it. :)


  • Options
    #150
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    cdeb wrote: »
    You've been given lots of reasons why the audio doesn't have to be made public, and for you to ignore all those and link it instead with bigotry is remarkably, unbelievably crass.

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

    I don't mean you directly in the bigotry remarks, but there is definitely that in that thread you just sing from the same sheet as them. Its like a cyclical loop of arguing and there is an answer for everything, all we can react to right now is the mother feels aggrieved and doesn't feel the apology cuts it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,285 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    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.


Advertisement