Touché
Thats very naive flatty. And as for comparing it to car clampers? bloody hell.
I had a something of a similar case one time. I had a meeting in the morning, and on my way to the meeting there was news reports of a school not far from my route on fire. My boss rang me about 2 minutes after and asked did I hear it on the news. He told me to head there and find the principal and give them our companies details to go in and do the repair work once the fire brigade were done. Told me that they would need immediate work done to make it safe and to tidy the place up. I expressed my concern of essentially ambulance chasing and he said “fuck it, there is fuck all work out there and we need anything we can get. There could be serious money to be made of this if we get it”. So off I went, wondering how I would approach the principal. Got there, school on fire, teachers, parents and students out on the road, most of whom were very upset and many crying. I stood there like an idiot and said fuck this, no way am I doing this shit, its fucking horrible. I got back in the car and rang the boss and just said there was no one around as the fire brigade had cordoned off the area.
And that was a simple enough incident. Fuck sake, put yourself in her position, walking into a room of mourners, seeking out the mother and “conducting an interview”, full well knowing the interviewee isnt aware and interview is happening. Surely you’d have some sense of morals to say this isnt right. Her kids being there wasnt an accident. It was part of the “act”. At what stage do you realise its not just a fuck up, but the actions of a cunt. she asked could she take pictures of the the mother with photos of the deceased FFS. The article is still up on line on the Daily Mail site. And I have never seen O’Reilly herself express any remorse over it, despite people claiming she did. The paper apologised, but I havent heard O’Reilly comment on it. Why are we assuming she is remorseful or apologetic?
4 Likes
I’m comparing it to clampers only in that it is a nasty and unsociable thing to do in many cases, but one done on the orders of a boss. I am not in any way comparing the gravity.
Has anybody got the text of the actual article?
The objections appear to entirely surround the means adopted by the journalist to talk to Louise James, rather than anything inherently objectionable written about her in the article itself.
It’s not quite up there with The Sun saying Liverpool supporters picked the pockets of the dead and urinated on police, like.
A cuntish act but not meriting of the COTY title - other nominees who went out in the first round of this competition have performed far worse individual cuntish acts. And a lot of journalism often involves cuntish acts.
If the staff at the Irish Daily Mail object so strongly to the means adopted by O’Reilly, they should have resigned, as her orders no doubt came from her editor, who also went ahead and published the story.
But that would mean no longer having a job.
Which O’Reilly herself may well have been worried about, likely meaning she felt pressurised to use the methods she did on this story.
The pressure comes from the top.
1 Like
Why didn’t she announce herself specifically to Mrs James and place the recording device on the table?
She said she was a journalist but recorded covertly.
Journalists record covertly all the time.
Now clearly this wasn’t a case where covert recording was merited or in the public interest or anything like that, but that doesn’t necessarily make it an act worthy of COTY.
If O’Reilly had done on a hatchet job on Louise James in her article and written anything that was a lie or put a slant on the article that would prejudice the reader against her, now that would probably be worthy of COTY.
But I’ve never heard that there’s anything particularly objectionable or anything inaccurate written in the article itself.
I thought she did say she was a journalist, just hid the recording device?
Who did she say this to? And where is the evidence for this?
In truth, your argument stops at “recorded covertly”.
Paul Kelly SENSATIONALLY takes the lead.
It’s in the Roy Greenslade article.
If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it.
She was duplicitous in recording the conversation, she was dishonest, I see no reason to believe she did as she said. You dont know what happened, nor do I. I know she’s a liar however.
She said it to Louise James. The evidence is on the tape apparently. It is also clear from the tape (apparently) that Ms James was so understandably distraught that she did not realise the import of talking to a journalist
Strange list. There’s even a few nominees on it who should be on an alright sort of the year list.
A strong 3% lead now for Mr Kelly. Between the to’ing and fro’ing over Alison O’Reilly, and the veiled missives from Rome, Mr Kelly has made a burst for home.
Seasoned viewers of this competition would suggest this way way way too early for such a surge.
I say apparently because I haven’t heard the tape. But it is referenced in Roy Greenslade’s article, as above. S
Three sentences are all you needed to completely contradict yourself.
1 Like
I know, thats why I find it funny.
Why is that funny?
Because you think it apparently absolves O’Reilly. I find that laughable.