Tag Archive for Terry Prone

Bleak future as Irish media face credibility crunch

Terry Prone- "no further questions, your honour."

It seems there is no better place to be a spin doctor than in Ireland.

This morning Terry Prone guested Newstalk’s Sunday Show. Toothless since the departure of Dunphy, I tuned in anyway, listening in vain for a question that would never be asked.

You might recall before Christmas that Terry Prone’s name came up in relation to the suicide of Kate Fitzgerald, who worked for her at the Communications Clinic and  who alleged in an Irish Times article that her employer’s attitude to her depression wasn’t all it should be.

For some reason, having published Kate’s original article in full, the Irish Times indulged in one of the most craven and embarrassing climbdowns in Irish journalistic history.

Terry Prone remained entirely silent on the issue.

I sent in a few half-hearted tweets to the show this morning, one suggesting that Green Party leader Eamon Ryan might bring up the subject of Fitzgerland’s untimely demise.

But true to form, Eamon avoided asking the hard question, instead choosing to continue his admirably consistent run of abject failure in holding those in power to account.

I don’t know what was said between Prone and the Newstalk researchers; maybe they struck a deal that the subject of FItzgerald’s passing not be brought up as condition of Prone’s appearance.

What I do know is that one of the most famous players in world football still doesn’t talk to me because I wouldn’t allow him to dictate the terms of an interview.

Because as a journalist, I’m the one that decides what questions the subject gets asked – not the other way round.

And if media outlets like Newstalk decide that it’s not in their best interests to ask certain questions, than we must ask questions of them.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word for Kate

Publish and be damned!

- Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, when the courtesan Harriette Wilson threatened to publish her memoirs and his letters

It’s very hard to comment on anything in the Irish Times nowadays- by the time I get to the end of this post someone in a position of power might have threatened legal action and changed the whole thing.

But given the toothless, vacuous, cowardly non-explanation offered by the Irish Times blog about their despicable handling of the Kate Fitzgerald article, here goes.

Firstly, as soon as I saw the length of it I knew there would be no apology for calling the dead girl a liar.

I was right – 1500 words, and not one of them was ‘sorry’. It seems that, in the Irish Times, that word is reserved for a select few.

Instead, it opens with the classic excuse, and goes downhill from there, rambling on and on before finishing up with a mealy-mouthed pseudo excuse the like of which Sinn Féin are rightly pilloried for when they denigrate the memories of dead innocent women.

Rather than an apology, it is a 1500-word admission that journalism in Ireland has no teeth, and it does its best work when covering up its own inadequacies.

Some examples:

It is neither appropriate nor possible for me to go into detail on the specific legal issues involved in this case.

On the contrary Hugh- it would have been more than appropriate to comment on such issues, if only to explain what they were, if not the actual details.

Let us not forget that in the craven apology printed by your paper, you accused Kate Fitzgerald of being a liar, and that “significant assertions within the original piece were not factual”.

We still don’t know what they were, and no-one seems to be in any hurry to tell us.

There follows a lot of waffle about corrections policy, the net effect being to again imply that Kate had done something wrong in her original article.

For the entire 1500 words, the Irish Times are extremely cautious in their use of language to describe what went on, but there is one staggering, glaring fact- a veritable herd of elephants in the room – that is absolutely and utterly immutable, and that is this:

The piece that caused all the trouble was not Kate’s article.

It was the subsequent piece by Peter Murtagh and the revelation that Kate had worked for Terry Prone that caused the whole situation to go nuclear, and by then the genie was out of the bottle.

Changing Kate’s original article did not change anything, because there was nothing wrong with it.

All it did was appease the beast, as the baby was thrown out with the journalistic bathwater.

But make no mistake- this charade will be played out to the end, until Terry Prone or whoever is satisfied that it has been repeated often enough to become the truth.

The weasel words continue:

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.

The implication here is that he and the Irish TImes must adhere to higher standards than bloggers or other social media – conveniently ignoring the fact that many of us who criticise their “ethical” course of action are professional journalists and publishers ourselves.

This is not about some kiss-and-tell Twitter rumour about a Premiership footballer. This is about a powerful woman reading something unpleasant and having her nose put out of joint – ironic, given Prone’s confessed love of plastic surgery.

This is about people on both sides ignoring the rights of writers and readers and deciding the narrative after the fact.

In Ireland, history is not written by the winners, because there are no winners any more.

It is written by the rich and the powerful and those with influence.

The version written by young women, the life crushed out of them under the burden of depression, is seemingly a mere footnote to be changed at will.

In kowtowing to the former, the Irish Times is in dereliction of its journalistic duty as the paper of record.

Not only have they sullied the name of a dead woman, they have singularly failed to follow up the story and ask the questions people would like to see answered by Terry Prone and Kate’s ex-colleagues at the Communications Clinic about Kate and her demise.

I somehow doubt Prone and the Communications Clinic, not to mention would-be president and friend of the suicidal Gay Mitchell, will be in a hurry to give their side of this uncomfortable story, so why not send someone out to ask them?

But instead of Prone using her considerable network and influence to explore and explain the death of Kate Fitzgerald, she has chosen to ignore it – instead, she wrote some folksy nonsense for the Irish Examiner.

Worse still, they published it.

All this does is copper-fastens the idea that in Ireland, we still don’t do accountability, and we don’t tolerate criticism.

Like Fianna Fáil’s inability to apologise for ruining the country – saying “mistakes were made” is not the same thing – it seems that everyone can do whatever they like, and never be held accountable.

Nor is it acceptable to criticise anyone, however deserving they may be.

I have no problem with Hugh Linehan or any other journalist in Ireland.

I have a massive problem with how he and his paper have handled this case.

It’s not good enough.

I want them to win their credibility back.

I want to know the circumstances around Kate’s death.

I want to know if her employers supported her in her battle with the illness that led her to take her own life, or if they didn’t.

I want to know what Terry Prone thinks about Kate and what she wrote and why the Communications Clinic reacted so badly to it.

I want the Irish Times to ask those questions.

And then I want them to publish and be damned.

How quickly we forget

It all seems so long ago now.

A week or two ago, we were filled with anger and anguish, despair and indignation at two deaths.

The death of Gary Speed- one of the only true nice guys in football- had us reeling as it forced us once again to confront the unknowable that is suicide.

The death of Kate Fitzgerald did something similar.

But the nature of her passing went several steps further, coming as it did after her article about her struggle with depression and her perceptions of her employer’s attitude towards her illness became the story.

The furore was a passionate as it was short-lived. The Irish Times was loudly pilloried for pulling a sheet over her corpse and telling us “there’s nothing to see here”.

The stony silence of Terry Prone  and the rest at the Communications Clinic- who have still to make any public comment on the matter – says it all. There is no more story. There is nothing to see here.

In journalism, one of the most prized talents is also one of the most indefinable and elusive- that of “news sense”. In a good journalist, editor or subeditor, it is the ability to observe a story with laser-like precision and decide whether or not it is worth investing resources in.

That’s the first part. The latter part is knowing when to get out of a story with impeccable timing – when there’s nothing left but an empty shell. When there’s nothing to see here.

An example – I’ll be in Oslo again next week, and I can guarantee two things. People there will be weary of talking to the media about Anders Behring Breivik. And the foreign media will no longer be there.

What a difference from a few months ago, when the quietest city of them all was the centre of a media maelstrom. But the story is gone. There is nothing to see here.

For once, I question the judgement, the news sense of those far more talented than I.

I think, in relation to the deaths of Gary Speed and certainly in relation to Kate Fitzgerald, there most certainly is something to see here.

So I’m going to go against the grain for another little while and keep writing about Kate and Gary. In particular, there are still things we need to know about Kate’s situation.

One question I’d like to see answered centres on the paradox of why The Communications Clinic now has nothing to say about Kate or depression, or anything, when a few short months ago Gay Mitchell- a presidential candidate apparently schooled by them – was talking up his interest in mental health and how he would put suicide at the top of the agenda in the Aras.

For all his foghorning then, Gay seems very silent on the matter now- as do the rest of the candidates.

But I wonder did he ever meet Kate Fitzgerald during his media training? I wonder did he know of her illness? I wonder did he think of her on the campaign trail when he was making those statements?

Maybe Gay is displaying impeccable news sense. Maybe he’s moved on. But I don’t intend to, not yet.

I may not get very far, because sometimes it’s not just news sense that kills a story. Sometimes there are other reasons that we as journalists decide that there is nothing more to see here.

But this time, I’m not buying it. Not yet.

A right of reply

Terry Prone - expert on what working women should do - doesn't appear to be too keen to share that knowledge with us at the moment.

Busy day today, but here goes anyway – some things cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

The Irish Times has issued an apology to the Communications Clinic- the house of spin owned by Terry Prone and her family – after Kate Fitzgerald’s article published on September 9.

There is a simple anomaly here- neither she nor they were mentioned by name, so what is the Times apologising for?

Surely it should be regretting the fact that their identities became known by other means, rather than the article itself?

The Times goes on to say that “ significant assertions within the original piece were not factual”, but neither they nor the Communications Clinic specify what these assertions were.

In fact, I cannot recall seeing a single public statement from Prone on the issue, despite the fact that it appears she’d normally turn up at the opening of an envelope if it was televised or photographed.

The craven apology then goes on to state “their publication was significantly damaging to the staff and management of her employer, the Communications Clinic”.

Is it glib to suggest that the writing of the article was even more damaging to Kate Fitzgerald, who took her own life shortly after doing so?

But the killer blow comes at the end, when the Times blithely states that “no legal representation was made to us on this matter.”

It’s as if they woke up one morning and said “remember that anoymous piece about depression by that girl who killed herself? That must have been very upsetting for the Communications Company. We really should apologise for that.”

The reason for this rebuttal is this; the Irish Times is saying that it was wrong to publish the article. I disagree.

Despite the application of the highest journalistic standars, in an open debate about depression and its effects on the family, society and the workplace, reputations are going to get questioned and in some cases damaged.

Instead, the Irish Times has chosen the easy way out and apologised to, possibly without realising that in doing so, they are implying in the process that Kate Fitzgerald was lying in her article – a serious allegation in itself, I think you’ll agree.

In allowing the piece to be published anonymously with no reference to her employer, the Irish Times has done all that is reasonably possible to facillitate that debate whilst protecting the reputations of those involved.

That the Communications Clinic was subsequently identified is regrettable; that they have been apologised to in this manner is shameful.

They have offered nothing to the public debate on the treatment of people who suffer from depression in the workplace – all they have offered is more of the same thing that allows depression and bullying to prosper.

Silence.

Covering a cover-up in the digital age

Kate Fitzgerald

Today marks a watershed for Irish media, but it’s not all positive – if Irish online journalism is truly to survive and thrive it will need to make sure that it adheres to the highest standards.

The watershed comes because of what is becoming another high-profile suicide – that of PR professional Kate Fitzgerald.

Kate suffered from depression and eventually took her own life, but not before making some serious allegations about the reaction of her employers to her illness in an anonymous piece written for the Irish Times and published in September.

Here’s where it gets sinister.

Kate worked for the Communications Clinic, a company owned by Terry Prone, her husband and son, and the article Kate wrote has been subsequently significantly altered by the Irish Times.

Terry Prone, you will remember, is Ireland’s first lady of spin and waffle. Her latest glorious achievement in the field of media training was the infliction of Gay Mitchell on the electorate as a boorish presidential no-hoper.

On Monday, Broadsheet.ie – sometimes funny, often irreverent – published a selection of links in an article about Kate.

By Monday afternoon, they noticed that the original Times article had been “butchered” (in the words of the late Kate’s mother Sally).

For whatever reason, three key paragraphs pertaining to her employers were removed from Kate’s original. You can read their account of what happened next here.

Now you may believe as I do that there is a sinister reason for that, that Ireland’s queen of spin and/or her cohorts may have decided that such a story about their heartlessness and incompetence in dealing with a sufferer of depression would be damaging to their brand- possibly even more so than Gay Mitchell’s inept candidacy was.

You may also believe that there is an entirely innocent explanation for why these three paragraphs have been removed by the Irish Times, and that the earth is flat and that gullible is not in the dictionary. It’s entirely up to yourself.

What will now follow is a test of Irish media mettle and practice.

Populated by hundreds of media types, the Irish twittersphere is alive with this story. From mainstream media, there is a deafening silence.

It should come as news to no-one that there are plenty of cosy cartels in the Irish media game (I recall one recent case whereby a Sunday paper gave over much space to a mea culpa by a radio personality that even Pravda would have balked at it, so soft was the interview and such was the easy ride given).

Nor should it be a surprise that there are those whose first call when they see their name in print or online is to their solicitor rather than the editor.

One particular sporting administrator manages to suppress almost any debate about his position or actions using this method – this I know because he has threatened a site I wrote for with legal action for simply criticising him.

But this case ensures that such – often public – figures will finally be held up to the light, at least in the digital sphere, and let us see for ourselves if they have a case to answer.

But we would do well to remember that the same journalistic rules apply online in the digital sphere as anywhere else.

The great Reuters correspondent Stephen Brown once told me that journalism is a trade, and that there are no short cuts- at its best, there is endless reading and fact-checking and corroboration needed before committing a single word to print.

Everything – especially for the world’s oldest news agency – has to be impeccable and above reproach.

So if those writing in the digital sphere are found to not have acted correctly, it will do real and lasting damage to what essentially are the green shoots of an independent Irish free press that is appearing online.

In short, the Irish online media have a massive responsibility to get it right.

What is for certain is that it is a good thing that this story is out there – it proves that the system is finally starting to work.

Am I worried about legal action? In a word, no. Put simply, I enjoy the same level of journalistic protection here in Sweden as Wikileaks and have no intention of putting myself in a similar position to Mr Assange when it comes to the ladies.

I am happy to publish the original Broadsheet.ie story, and to offer a right of reply to the Communications Clinic should they so wish. Anyone who has information relelvant to the development of the story can send it to me in confidence at philip[at]eblana.se where it will be verified before being published.

Note: In a break with tradition, this piece will not appear on journalist.ie in order to protect them from the possibility of legal action. Anyone wishing to pursue legal action based on any detail of this article is welcome to do so here in Sweden where it is published.