deluded and sick person?

stevejr wrote: »

I've read through the piece twice now, and taken in context, it's hard to believe that she really understands the concept of Karma or the implications that her words would have.

How innocent could the word 'karma' be? Is there a simpler definition then the mantra 'what goes around comes around'?

steddyeddy wrote: »

indeed and "what goes around comes around" . If I said tha after someones funeral naivety wouldnt come into it.

Of course not and you'd rightly deserve scorn for that. But you're not comparing like for like. Are you a mature adult Steddyeddy?

This girl is obviously an immature individual who made some very ill-advised comments....on facebook...not at a funeral.

Considering the reaction of her employers, do you still think that this girl fully otherstood and appreciated the implifications of some ill-judged Facebook rant.

She's a niave idiot....something which many 19 year old kids are

OutlawPete wrote: »

Michaela was well known in Ireland, especially in GAA circles (which is pretty much the majority of the country) and she was a contestant in the Rose of Tralee and had become famous in her own right off the back of that. A guest on the Late Late and many other shows.

First off, "pretty much the majority of the country" aren't in GAA circles. But that's beside the point. You've actually hit the nail on the head- much of the outpouring of grief over her death was because she was famous. Not all of it of course, but a significant portion of it. A few years ago, the young wife of an inter-county hurler was killed. It was tragic and shocking. She too was well known in GAA circles; she too had left a grieving husband (and also a son); she too was a pillar of her local community- and she got a few lines in the paper on the day following her death, and a few more on the day of her funeral. She wasn't famous, so it seems nobody cared. I know that's far too much of a generalisation, and a crude one at that, but it's hard, when one sees the muted media and public reaction to murders throughout the year, not to be tempted by such a conclusion when one contemplates the outpouring, not just of sympathy, but of grief, in response to Michaela's murder. And that's what people take issue with. It's not that they're insensitive to the tragedy, or lack empathy for the suffering of the family (as some here would claim), but an uncomfortable feeling that celebrity culture has gotten to the stage where we grive more for the the famous, than for ordinary people. It was the same with Princess Diana, and even with Jade Goody. I was informed last week that the whole country was in mouurning for Michaela. Not only was that certainly not the case, but it was unsettling to contrast such reactions with the coverage of the man murdered in Youghal in the same week. Was he less of a person that Micheala? Was he less to be mourned? Were his family less entitled to our sympathy? I know there are circumstances to the murder of Michaela that touch a nerve, but much the same should have been said of the murder by their father before Christmas of two Cork children. And yet is recieved nothing like the coverage of Michaela's death, and none of the public reaction. And it seems that the difference, as with Diana and Goody, is celebrity. And people feel uncomfortable with that.

Soldiers are at WAR, people who die of illnesses (like members of my own family) are NOT FAMOUS! Why would they be newsworthy exactly

Of course her death was more newsworthy than that of the average citizen; nobody is disputing that. But the fact that she was famous seems to be prompting much of the national outpouring of grief. I'm not saying that her murder should no go unremarked upon; rather that the nature of the reaction to a murder should not depend on someone's level of fame. Which is exactly what has happened here, and what you seem to be defending.

Some sour fuckers around, I swear to jaysus and this so called photographer is most certainly one of them.

Think what you like, but I think the people who raise questions about our reactions to the deaths of celebrities as opposed to ordinary folk, are making an entirely valid point.

m@cc@ wrote: »

Barely newsworthy. Who gives a **** what some 19-yr-old photographer thinks?

Green Goblin should have.

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Not really. Trolling fail.

Nah, it's definitely a bad thing she was murdered, but I was kind of shaking my head that she was given this much publicity. There's more important things going on.

THe whole treatment of her death has been lurid and prurient.

Deluded and sick? No. Immature and unwise...yes. She has a valid point on the media coverage of Michaela's death however, and acknowledging that fact takes nothing away from the grief of the McAreavy or Harte families.

I saw one paper headline about this saying "Police investigating comments" If they need to arrest 19 year olds for making stupid comments they may as well round them all up (although it was obviously sensationalist bollocks).

Question is, which of these is a bigger "crime", a 19 year old making some stupid ignorant comments on facebook, or a paper printing full page articles of a 19 year old calling her a bigot, doing there best to make her a pariah and getting her fired.

The media seriously need to let this go. It was a terrible tragedy for all involved, made even more tragic by the fact that she was on her honeymoon and was on top of the world at the time.

However, the way these rags are incessantly dragging this story up over and over again with these "exclusive new details" as if it were an article about Jordan's latest divorce or Kim Kardashian's news ass job is a much bigger crime than what that girl posted on her Facebook. There is a family and a large circle of friends trying to grieve and rebuild after what happened and the media feasting off of this story like the greedy little monster that it is, is not helping in any shape, way or form.



Stop pretending you care.
Stop trying to instill the mob mentality within the public which just ends up ruining peoples lives.
Just stop.

Saw another article in the indo about this whole thing again today, the girl has been sacked by the county down paper because of her comments. Fair enough, she deserved that considering she works in the media-uncencored opnions like that werent gonna go down very well. But was it really article-worthy? No.

Silly and unwise mistake on her part but she shouldn't be publicly crucified for it, especially what her own beliefs and interests are.

Heh, reminds me of a girl my GF worked with who got fired last week over a "Facebook related incident". I have as much trust in public domain privacy as I do in an arsonist in a firelighter factory.

Azureus wrote: »

Saw another article in the indo about this whole thing again today, the girl has been sacked by the county down paper because of her comments. Fair enough, she deserved that considering she works in the media-uncencored opnions like that werent gonna go down very well. But was it really article-worthy? No.

It's a personal opinion that she didn't attempt to put out at the paper, that wasn't racist sexist, homophobic or apparently bigoted. She was saying there were more important things going on.

It was crass and insensitive, but most of the papers printing their bull**** about the family were being crass and insensitive. I heard an ad for I think the Sunday world (if that's even still going) where a woman was talking about how she was going to retrace the fateful steps of the unhappy couple and expose the seedy underbelly of Mauritius. That sounds exploitative and crappy, and we're not banning newspapers. Even the **** ones.

Renn wrote: »

Love how you conveniently left out the other comments she made.

She said 'what goes around comes around' and other stupid crap, which was stupid. It was kind of offensive, but it was a personal opinion and not racist sexist, homophobic or bigoted.

What she said points her out as being dumb and inconsiderate, but if people got fired for being dumb or inconsiderate on their own time, very few people would have jobs.