Paul Kimmage on Claire Byrne Live Monday 16th

ThisRegard

You left out the manner in which Kimmage was educated as it seems to be relevant to Fitzgerald somehow.

I'm far from privately educated myself but what's the point in mentioning he's schooled privately?

I was once a big fan, would make a point of catching all his radio segments and articles, but he's becoming a one trick pony of contrarianism now.

Sonny678

ThisRegard wrote:

Not getting into that particular argument, it's been done a million times. They aren't tough questions, they're raised on a weekly basis across the media, long before he ever got involved.

They weren't raised by the media. The Sunday Game which usually loves this sort of thing . Never mentioned it. And it was completely ignored in all other rte radio or TV programmes and national papers tabloids. No mention whatsoever. Only Kimmage and Off the Ball mentioned it. That's a fact.

CatFromHue

The Nevada State Athletic Commission got a lot of heat for sanctioning the Mayweather McGregor fight but even they wouldn't have sanctioned a debate between Fitzgerald and Kimmage. It was a complete mismatch with Luke waaaaaay out of his depth.

ThisRegard

Sonny678 wrote: »

They weren't raised by the media. The Sunday Game which usually loves this sort of thing . Never mentioned it. And it was completely ignored in all other rte radio or TV programmes and national papers tabloids. No mention whatsoever. Only Kimmage and Off the Ball mentioned it. That's a fact.

Look, saying it's a fact does not make it so. The Independent, The Mirror, The Sun, The Examiner and a number of online publications such as the42 and sportsjoe have all mentioned it in stories or opinion pieces.

As I said, it's been done numerous times over, Kimmage didn't start that particular party. Here's one, from a cursory google, going back as far as April, talking about an Evening Herald article from the week previous that also discussed it, and walks through numerous examples of their cynicism http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/analysing-eamonn-fitzmaurices-three-examples-of-dublins-hard-edge-and-cynicism-35601841.html

Sonny678

terrydel wrote:

GAA players and managers have an Everest sized chip on their shoulder, every sentence starts with 'we proved the doubters wrong' or words to that effect (well apart from 'look it....') As for Kimmage vs that private school tit Fuitzgerald, that was the most one-sided, embarassing 'debate' I've heard in a long time, Kimmage wiped the floor with an unprofessional clown. Kimmage is a grumpy old bollix but his personality makes him the brilliant journalist he is. Hes hugely principled in a world were few have any principles left. I for one think hes superb.

I don't know what Fitzgeralds education has got to do with it. Kimmage did ambush him with folders and Fitzgerald was not prepared. He is very inexperienced in the media game going up against someone like Kimmage. Kimmage did wipe the floor with him. But Fitzgerald can become a good journalist. He does have better insights into rugby compared to others.

Kimmage and rugby is very interesting. Their is a certain circling of the wagons in rugby the same way there was in cycling 20 years ago. Rugby folk are very defensive the same way cycling folk were. But to believe their is no problems in rugby would be foolish and the height of ignorance. Again Kimmage is just stating the obvious, which in time will become the truth as more and more evidence emerges.

lyric1940

i have a scoda fabia 2010 i have had no end of problems with the dpf recently i had the offending softwere removed[march this yaar] and the car is behaving itself makes no sense to me but has anybody shared this experience??? cyril mcdonnell

Sonny678

Its was mentioned. But it was not criticised. There's a difference.

Alot of the reporting was after Kimmage made his comments. You had to go back to April to find criticism. Because until Kimmage said something there was feck all criticism. And kerry manager just mentioned it in April to draw refs attention to it.
Pat Spillane Joe Brolly and national journalist in the days after the final with the exception of off the ball ignored it. Overall the vast majority turned a blind eye to Dublins carry on until Kimmage spoke up. Dublin have had no criticism overall when you compare to what Meath Donegal and Tyrone footballers and Clare 90s and Galway hurlers in 80s had to deal with. Until Kimmage bravely spoke up, there was feck all criticism. To say there was is a falsehood. Where was the criticism on the Sunday Game?. It was not even mentioned on the Sunday Game. And the Sunday Game love this sort of thing.

ThisRegard

Last word. I said it was a cursory glance at google, I didn't have to to anything to find anything. It's been discussed and criticised long before the hero of the day got thick over it. When you use words like 'bravely spoke up' when discussing this you can only laugh. He's no Daphne Caruana.

Sonny678

Kimmage is not too likeable. He's a bit rough around the edges and wee bit abrasive. He doesn't do charm . But what he does is he is not afraid to speak his mind. And his record, especially in cycling is outstanding. The way he took on Armstrong and World cycling bodies was brave and in the end right . He was proved right.

So when he talks about other sports you know he doesn't have an agenda. And is coming from a proper journalistic mindset. Sure he's a Dub. Asking questions of Dublin being a Dub. You cannot accuse him of bias. The rugby questions all deserve to be asked. If there is no problem. Why do people not want someone asking questions. I think rugby in the next 20 years will have many revelations. For the sake of the health of players. I hope it will be tackled. Because long term health impacts on players will be a massive issue.

Sonny678

ThisRegard wrote:

Last word. I said it was a cursory glance at google, I didn't have to to anything to find anything. It's been discussed and criticised long before the hero of the day got thick over it. When you use words like 'bravely spoke up' when discussing this you can only laugh. He's no Daphne Caruana.

Again wrong. It was not criticised. In the week after the game no criticism. I read sports coverage in every national paper after the final the following week. No criticism.
The Sunday Game no mention. National radio no mention. It was not til Kimmage spoke up then it was mentioned. The only person that criticised until Kimmage was Joe Molloy on off the ball the Monday after the match. I read and listened to everything. It was praise galore. Little criticism.

Thud

Was a big fan of Kimmage but he is becoming a bit of a Dunphy all his articles and interviews are negative/drug infused now, they probably capture clickbait traffic more but would prefer a few more of his non negative articles

CatFromHue

he does a fair share of non negative articles.

a lot of his one on one, well probably most, interviews are very good and non negative.

Sonny678

Thud wrote:

Was a big fan of Kimmage but he is becoming a bit of a Dunphy all his articles and interviews are negative/drug infused now, they probably capture clickbait traffic more but would prefer a few more of his non negative articles

What do you want him to say. We have enough positive reporting. That is just the usual bland reporting eg team are great, sportsman is a legend. Kimmage looks deeper. And like anything is life if you dig deep you will find negative. Sport is no different.

He's not like Dunphy. Dunphy changes his opinion and mind on something every week. For the last 3 years he has moaned about M O Neill. After the Wales match in the star he was praising him. He has changed his opinion on Ronaldo Roy Keane U2 Fianna Fail Sinn Fein John Hume and the list goes on and on . He changes his viewpoint constantly. Kimmage doesn't. He pretty sticks to his guns. He is no Eamon Dunphy.

terrydel

ThisRegard wrote: »

You left out the manner in which Kimmage was educated as it seems to be relevant to Fitzgerald somehow.

I'm far from privately educated myself but what's the point in mentioning he's schooled privately?

I was once a big fan, would make a point of catching all his radio segments and articles, but he's becoming a one trick pony of contrarianism now.

The point? Private education is a form of elitism, which I despise. Imho it leads to a highly entitled attitude in many of its alumni, the kind of attitude the allows a journalist turn up to a debate completely unprepared as if that is beneath him. Which again imho is what Fitzgerald did.
Hopefully that answers it for you.

Sonny678

Private education has many issues. And can be criticised eg form of elitism that you mentioned above. But to have a go at Fitzgeralds private education why he was so bad v Kimmage is not correct. It was simply a very experienced top class journalist versus a young up and coming novice who is still learning his trade. Fitzgerald didn't think Kimmage was going to pull out the folders and bring up rugby. That was down to inexperience and naivety. Where he went to school had nothing to do with Kimmage showing him up. Private education should be discussed in many areas but not this.

CatFromHue

Fitzgerald isn't a journalist.

He's only in his second season of media work too so very very inexperienced.

rushfan

I read Rough Ride back when it was published and have read the vast majority of his articles in the various newspapers over the years. I've always enjoyed them, although it irks me somewhat to see how deliberately provocative he can be. What really bugs me though, is the way he shouts down his fellow debaters, if you don't agree with him God help you. If any if you saw the documentary about him a couple of years ago, he's driving up one of the mountain stages in the TdF and almost loses it at some guy on the road in front of him. He also admitted to cutting off a LA wristband worn by a daughter of somebody whose house he had called to for the purposes of an interview. If that had been my house, he'd have been asked very impolitely to leave.

Weepsie

terrydel wrote: »

Hes hugely principled in a world were few have any principles left. I for one think hes superb.

If he was so principled, he would not have simply said Humphries made a mistake.

He shouts, and shouts and badgers and gives out to people for not talking. Why not go down the investigative journalism route, look after your sources, build the story, then get it all open. He's done it before, but not so much anymore.

Rough Ride was great though, and numerous biographies since were pale imitations, the worst of which was David Millars.

dastardly00

terrydel wrote: »

The point? Private education is a form of elitism, which I despise. Imho it leads to a highly entitled attitude in many of its alumni, the kind of attitude the allows a journalist turn up to a debate completely unprepared as if that is beneath him. Which again imho is what Fitzgerald did.
Hopefully that answers it for you.

Sounds like you're the one with a big chip on the shoulder to be honest.
It's hard to take you points seriously when you are calling Fitzgerald a 'tit' and a 'clown'.

terrydel

Weepsie wrote: »

If he was so principled, he would not have simply said Humphries made a mistake.

He shouts, and shouts and badgers and gives out to people for not talking. Why not go down the investigative journalism route, look after your sources, build the story, then get it all open. He's done it before, but not so much anymore.

Rough Ride was great though, and numerous biographies since were pale imitations, the worst of which was David Millars.

Investigative journalism is hugely expensive and often leads nowhere. For all you know he could be investigating many things and hitting brick walls. Its harder now than ever with the pr and spin machines behind anything that generates money, such as most forms of professional sport.
Also, the newspaper industry is dying and owners of media outlets simply wont fund it.
I think he could have been stronger in his condemnation of Humphries yes. But I dont think him being a principled man could be in any doubt.

Thud

CatFromHue wrote: »

he does a fair share of non negative articles.

a lot of his one on one, well probably most, interviews are very good and non negative.

Yeah, those are great and I love his writing stiyle, but they seem to be less and less lately, golf seems to be the only topic that doesn't get pulled down into the drugs topic.

Sonny678 wrote: »

He's not like Dunphy .

I didn't say he was Dunphy and yes there are many differences but he comes across as angry most of the time lately (similar to Dunphy) and I'd wonder if working for the Indo and it's clickbait model has lead him to go for controversial stuff a bit more (like Dunphy does).

I'm sure you can find exceptions to this but that's just the my current opinion of him.

terrydel

CatFromHue wrote: »

Fitzgerald isn't a journalist.

Truest words spoken on this subject.

terrydel

dastardly00 wrote: »

Sounds like you're the one with a big chip on the shoulder to be honest.
It's hard to take you points seriously when you are calling Fitzgerald a 'tit' and a 'clown'.

His 'perfomance' on the podcast put him firmly into both of those categories imho.
Trying to belittle and demean someone who blew the whistle on his sport at huge personal, financial and otherwise cost, was quite honestly disgraceful behaviour on his part.

Sonny678

rushfan wrote:

I read Rough Ride back when it was published and have read the vast majority of his articles in the various newspapers over the years. I've always enjoyed them, although it irks me somewhat to see how deliberately provocative he can be. What really bugs me though, is the way he shouts down his fellow debaters, if you don't agree with him God help you. If any if you saw the documentary about him a couple of years ago, he's driving up one of the mountain stages in the TdF and almost loses it at some guy on the road in front of him. He also admitted to cutting off a LA wristband worn by a daughter of somebody whose house he had called to for the purposes of an interview. If that had been my house, he'd have been asked very impolitely to leave.

He's a bit grumpy alright. A bit abrasive. But what do you want a Marty Morrissey type reporting all fun and games. Or serious real journalism eg Kimmage. He shouts now and again. Means his TV skills need to improve. He is not Saturday night TV presenter. He is a written journalism . That's his forte.
Also court cases he has had to fight. Losing his job in the Sunday times. The backlash from the cycling community after rough ride. He had to stand up and not be timid. He has had to face some extraordinary things other journalists never had to . Like taking on Lance Armstrong, now that was brave. Probaly a more quite timid individual wouldn't have toke Lance on. Alott of great journalist and most great writers are a bit temperamental. It's all about the writing. And he is on his day best sport journalist in the country and one of the best journalist overall. Give me a passionate journalist any day then a journaliat spouting clichés and going through the motions.

rushfan

Oh don't get me wrong, he's had it tough at times with no backing from his employers. He's been thrown under enough buses too. Used to be on a regular Friday night programme on ( I think it might have been Setanta) presented by one of the guys from OTB which made for compulsive viewing but he just seems to be more aggressive lately.

Tombo2001

Sonny678 wrote: »

I think the criticism of Kimmage is telling.
I think Kimmage is a very good sports writer. Compared to the usual sporting reporting we hear eg the score is 1 nil and the best team won. His articles are interesting and thought provoking. Something you rarely can say about sport writing.

.......

Regards the Dubs . The Dublin current team are the most lauded and celebrated team I have seen in GAA land. Across the media there is little criticism. Compared to what Meath footballers, Clare Hurlers ,Tyrone footballers ,Donegal footballers and Waterford hurling sweeper system have all received in GAA land. Kimmage is perfectly correct to draw attention to mass Dublin players dragging their Mayo counterparts to the ground in the dying seconds of the game. Any other county would have been asked the same questions. Ex players and many of the Dublin media are very reluctant to criticise the Dubs. Any other county would have been criticised. So Kimmage again was right to ask questions.

I would rather journalists like Kimmage who ask the tough questions and are not nodding and agreeing with everything. If we had more journalist like Kimmage, Ireland past problems would have been talked about. In Ireland we don't like the whistle-blower. We have a pack mentality. We don't like to hear the unvarnished truth. I would rather the truth then some cover up of the facts. Fair play to Kimmage. Always asking the right questions. And in time has always been on the right side of the arguement because he asked the questions with out bias or favour. The truth can be ugly and unpleasant. But the truth is the truth. And we need more people in this country saying what they really hink rather then following the pack mentality.

Agree with most of what you say.

It annoys me no end when you gets the likes of Mo Farah in a sport like athletics when people are perfectly entitled to ask the question, and he makes it out like it is a hugely personal affront to him. The reaction of the Rugby community to Kimmage seems similar to me.

Against that however i think
(i) you are wrong to say the Dubs have not come in for criticism - not because of their play, but because of their resources - no more so than on boards.ie

(ii) I think to the Dubs credit, they dont react badly or in a petty fashion to criticism. They are quite sanguine about the fact that it goes with the territory, whether from kimmage or anyone else. In a way that makes Kimmages job harder, as there is less to write about.

Tombo2001

Also - to be fair to Kimmage - the pieces he did for the Sunday Times were absolutely outstanding.

He is not at all a grumpy guy, if you follow him.

ThisRegard

terrydel wrote: »

The point? Private education is a form of elitism, which I despise. Imho it leads to a highly entitled attitude in many of its alumni, the kind of attitude the allows a journalist turn up to a debate completely unprepared as if that is beneath him. Which again imho is what Fitzgerald did.
Hopefully that answers it for you.

Your attitude of someone who is privately educated is highly ironic given that you complain about an attitude they have, every single one of them apparently,

Some are dicks, likewise in every single school, but to enter the mind to prejudge a person based on where they were schooled is juvenile.

Sonny678

The thing I found really funny was when Fitzgerald saying rugby players were afraid to meet Kimmage. 17 or 18 stone rugby players who r 6 ft 5 who spend every weekend trying to flatten other 6ft 5 17 stone rugby player to the ground is afraid of wee Paul Kimmage. That was funny.

So what fo you want ? . Something real which is a bit rough around the edges. Are do you want something polished but fake. Kimmage abrasive mannerisms should not be an issue. I think they are a smokescreen which people use. People who don't agree with what he is saying or don't want him to ask certain questions in certain sports. Kimmage is a bit abrasive (nothing more nothing less) in a very polished and PC sport journalist world. I would listen to Kimmage most days compared to the rest of the sporting journalist pack.

Sonny678

Tombo2001 wrote:

It annoys me no end when you gets the likes of Mo Farah in a sport like athletics when people are perfectly entitled to ask the question, and he makes it out like it is a hugely personal affront to him. The reaction of the Rugby community to Kimmage seems similar to me.

Tombo2001 wrote:

Against that however i think (i) you are wrong to say the Dubs have not come in for criticism - not because of their play, but because of their resources - no more so than on boards.ie

Tombo2001 wrote:

(ii) I think to the Dubs credit, they dont react badly or in a petty fashion to criticism. They are quite sanguine about the fact that it goes with the territory, whether from kimmage or anyone else. In a way that makes Kimmages job harder, as there is less to write about.

1 Agree about Farah. And of course Frome and sky cycling team have questions also . The reaction of the media and general public in Britain or should say lack of reaction or questioning of Farah and Froome is very disappointing. It's shows the Irish are not the only ones afraid to ask the tough questions.

2 Dublin have got criticism on boards regards finances. But in the main media there has been no criticism of finances. With the exception of Ewan McKenna no Irish journalist has criticised Dublins finances. The Sunday Game, national radio, national papers, ex players there is very little criticism of Dublins finances whatsoever. Compared to Tyrone ( puke football Donegal ( destroying soul of the GAA) Meath footballers ( GAA president criticisms and liveline phone on Meath wins). Compared to other counties Dublin have got no criticism. To say they have is a falsehood.

3 Dublin don't take it bad. Becuase there is very little criticism. Kimmage and Dunphy and that's it. This great Dublin team has been the most praised and lauded gaa team ever in the national media and TV. And Dublin not giving out. Well what about Jim Galvin giving out about Connolly suspension and the Sunday Game. That was very funny. That would be like the leader of North Korea saying the North Korean media give him a hard time. The media do not criticise Dublin. Forums yes, national media no. That's why Dublin are OK with criticism. When you receive feck all your not going to get to hot and bothered.