IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

The Rape of Lucretia

stephen_n wrote: »

Print being the Irish Times, Indo etc.. new media being Balls.ie, 42.ie etc...

I follow. My point being, is the distinction not trivial these days.

stephen_n

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I follow. My point being, is the distinction not trivial these days.

Probably not to the RWI.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

The notion that the IRFU would want to narrow their potential exposure, by cutting out print media, seems a bit ridiculous. No matter how much they want to push their own platforms, they would still need both traditional and new media to give them exposure and maximize sponsorship revenue.

That’s great and all but Thornley didn’t really suggest they were trying to cut out other forms of media entirely. Just cutting them out of interviews and access to their employees outside of the minimum required by their contractual obligations.

It’s extremely worrying that they see the media as being their competitors. It’s ludicrous.

El_Duderino 09

irishbucsfan wrote:

It’s extremely worrying that they see the media as being their competitors. It’s ludicrous.

Why's it ludicrous? They have used the media to get their message out, now they can do it themselves. I doubt they give away any unintended information in those briefings so why does the public needs a middle man to deliver the party line?

I can see why the middle man would be upset that he's not needed anymore but I really don't think it's any concern for the man on the street.

irishbucsfan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why's it ludicrous? They have used the media to get their message out, now they can do it themselves. I doubt they give away any unintended information in those briefings so why does the public needs a middle man to deliver the party line?

I can see why the middle man would be upset that he's not needed anymore but I really don't think it's any concern for the man on the street.

Print journalists are not middle men. They're far more than that and they've served Irish rugby very well in the past. Both in terms of forwarding their interests from a PR perspective and in terms of asking hard, uncomfortable questions when they've been needed.

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Print journalists are not middle men. They're far more than that and they've served Irish rugby very well in the past. Both in terms of forwarding their interests from a PR perspective and in terms of asking hard, uncomfortable questions when they've been needed.

When did they ask these hard uncomfortable questions? What was the setting?

El_Duderino 09

irishbucsfan wrote:

Print journalists are not middle men. They're far more than that and they've served Irish rugby very well in the past. Both in terms of forwarding their interests from a PR perspective and in terms of asking hard, uncomfortable questions when they've been needed.

True that the relationship was symbiotic but now the IRFU can do it for themselves so they don't need the journalists help.

Media has moved on to the point that they're far too savvy to give away information just because a journalist asks for it.

I listened to Thornley on Second Captains and he said it's important for print journalists tonne able to ask tough questions like "why did the Italians score 3 tries against Ireland?". That sounds like an interesting question but in actual fact, the coach would be a fool to give a full answer to it. Attention Wales, this is how the Italians did it.

So the coach will give a bland answer that doesn't give away too much info and they will analyze it to the Nth degree behind closed doors. It's not like being asked the question by print media will prompt him to fix the problems, after being asked the same question by TV and radio.

The interesting information comes from the analysis, not from the scripted answers from the IRFU.

Tigerandahalf

Only coming across this article now after seeing it mentioned on Against the Head.
The thread title doesn't reveal much.

As for print media their offering is pretty poor. Nobody of a younger age reads papers anymore.

The Indo/Irish times are caught in the past. The Indo have an app that is an embarrassment with rugby writers of very poor quality.

The Irish Times at least has a decent app but are trying to entice people to pay for content that people don't really care to read enough.

I much prefer this forum on here. There is a good discussion on various things rugby related and you get plenty of viewpoints from people at games and at home etc.

Re online I find Murray Kinsella's articles interesting but just way too long.

The print media aren't afraid of throwing their toys out of the pram. I remember that David Kelly from the Indo (another really poor writer) having a spat on a tour in NZ and the back page was full of indignant hysteria the following day.

There are very little print/online outlets out there that are decent. I do find the guardian quite good and balanced.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

When did they ask these hard uncomfortable questions? What was the setting?

On lots of occasions over the years.

In 2017 specifically you had the fiasco of the mismanagement of women's rugby in Ireland, leading to a protest against the IRFU that went international (mostly led by Cummiskey). Initially the concerns were completely dismissed, but eventually after the story wasn't permitted to just peter away like the IRFU wanted it ended up with the formation of the current committee with Sue Carty. Then you had the IRFU's shockingly poor response to the questions about the signing of dopers and the IRFU's completely hollow drugs policy, exacerbated by Brown's inability to answer questions on the subject coherently, eventually leading him to suggest no similar signings would be allowed in future (ROC was leading the charge there).

A very good example of the absolutely shameful behavious the IRFU will try to get away with, they announced in the build up to the World Cup that they were increasing funding to women's rugby by a huge amount, in order to maximise the goodwill they were getting out of hosting the world cup. That was not true. Journalists have to hold them to account for that. If you are happy to swallow up their propaganda through Irish Rugby TV you will get a completely false story about how Irish rugby is really being run. And remember, that is the IRFU's most important role.

irishbucsfan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

True that the relationship was symbiotic but now the IRFU can do it for themselves so they don't need the journalists help.

Media has moved on to the point that they're far too savvy to give away information just because a journalist asks for it.

Nah, this is just not true I'm afraid.

Yeah_Right

Sorry IBF, I wasn't clear in what I was asking. I meant physically where. Like was it at a press conference? Was it in an exclusive interview? Did they ring someone up? Did they wait outside and ambush them?

The stories you mentioned are all valid stories but would they have not been written under the new situation? If not, why not?

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Sorry IBF, I wasn't clear in what I was asking. I meant physically where. Like was it at a press conference? Was it in an exclusive interview? Did they ring someone up? Did they wait outside and ambush them?

The stories you mentioned are all valid stories but would they have not been written under the new situation? If not, why not?

But this is exactly why stories of access being cut across the board is extremely bad. This is exactly why the IRFU telling the chairman of RWI that they consider them their competitors is extremely bad. This is why it's far more concerning to hear that this is just the latest in a pattern from the IRFU. It means their access is being cut down across the board. They'll just stop commenting altogether and replace it with fluff pieces about how wonderful they're doing. If journalists aren't getting opportunities to actually meet these people face to face any more it will cut down on their opportunities to ask these questions. And the worst part is, if some people are to believed, its exactly the most productive reporting that is causing the IRFU to do this.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Print journalists are not middle men. They're far more than that and they've served Irish rugby very well in the past. Both in terms of forwarding their interests from a PR perspective and in terms of asking hard, uncomfortable questions when they've been needed.

You mean like the hard uncomfortable questions Thornley asked of Kidney when things were going to ****?

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

You mean like the hard uncomfortable questions Thornley asked of Kidney when things were going to ****?

I don't get your point here. I don't really remember, are you trying to make an ironic post here and the truth is that Thornley didn't ask harder questions of Kidney? Because others did...

Your complaint surely can't be that not every single journalist agrees with you about every single important issue, and you're holding one issue with one journalist over the head of every other one... can it?

Hurrache

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Re online I find Murray Kinsella's articles interesting but just way too long.

Reminds me of the comments about his anaylsis of the phases leading up to Sexton's drop goal in his article on The Journal (why do I read them?). A lot of them were too long, didn't read.

And people then complain about print media. A problem with people brought up in the digital age is that they expect things to be simplified for them and summarised into a couple of sentences, anything more than that and their attention span drifts away.

slingerz

Print media do themselves no favours with their carry on. You would respect anybody who asks the pertinent questions and plays the role of a fair mediators in all instances.

however some journos peddle their own agendas and wonder why the IRFU and its subsidary organisations would get their backs up at that and restrict their access as a result. no reason for the IRFU to entertain these types as there as plenty who will report on the facts and findings in a fair and balanced manner

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But this is exactly why stories of access being cut across the board is extremely bad. This is exactly why the IRFU telling the chairman of RWI that they consider them their competitors is extremely bad. This is why it's far more concerning to hear that this is just the latest in a pattern from the IRFU. It means their access is being cut down across the board. They'll just stop commenting altogether and replace it with fluff pieces about how wonderful they're doing. If journalists aren't getting opportunities to actually meet these people face to face any more it will cut down on their opportunities to ask these questions. And the worst part is, if some people are to believed, its exactly the most productive reporting that is causing the IRFU to do this.

I'm trying to understand where your outrage is coming from but I'm struggling. Some journalists from the RWI wrote some pieces that the IRFU didn't like and now they're reducing the access that the RWI has to the employees of the IRFU. Correct?

I don't see what the issue is. That's what I would expect any organisation to do. Why would you give your harshest critics free access to your people so they can write more critical pieces about you? It would be stupid. Of course the IRFU want to put out fluff pieces and use their own PR instruments to make themselves look good.

What this means is that the RWI are going to have get off their holes and go do some work. They absolutely should keep writing indepth, critical stories about the IRFU and keep asking them hard, uncomfortable questions. They shouldn't expect the IRFU to give them the keys to the building and the combo to the safe. If these guys want to be rugby's answer to Woodward and Bernstein, then put the work in.

OldRio

Having studied in great detail all the posts on this thread I've come to the following conclusion.
I couldn't give a fecking damn. Two posters frothing at the mouth over what?

I think this is all hilariously petty if what is being reported and suspiciously not reported is to be believed.

Cummisky, O'Conner and Thornley kicking up a stink about having to share desk space and a coffee machine with some lowly cretin bloggers and so they give the IRFU an ultimatum stating they will boycott the press huddle that the IRFU voluntarily take part in. IRFU absolutely correct to give them the two fingers and cancel the whole thing.

As for Ruairi O'Conner, I'm frankly amazed that the adage "paper never refused ink" suddenly fails to apply when it comes to press unprofessionalism being reported.

And this notion that the media needs special access for interview and huddles to be able to provide the public services of reporting on IRFU f'ups is nonsense. The various scandals that have hit Irish Rugby the last few years (all of which I view the IRFU as being completely on the wrong side of) were ably reported on without press huddles in the Aviva.

That members of the print media are airing their grievances whist shielding the full story from the light of day is shameful if true. The notion that the IRFU are 'bullying' journalists is certainly starting to look like absolute tosh.

Happy to wait and see if the full story comes to light but at this stage it looks like the above overview is what we are left with.

irishbucsfan

There you go. Gerry Thornley says on the public record something he was told directly by the IRFU:

"Woah woah woah, we should take this with a grain of salt, he might be lying"

Someone on an internet forum gives a rumour from a completely unnamed and unreferenced source that hasn't been reported anywhere of note:

"Well, that's it then! This is hilariously petty! The IRFU were in the right all along!"

Good thing we waited for proper evidence I guess.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm trying to understand where your outrage is coming from but I'm struggling. Some journalists from the RWI wrote some pieces that the IRFU didn't like and now they're reducing the access that the RWI has to the employees of the IRFU. Correct?

I don't see what the issue is. That's what I would expect any organisation to do. Why would you give your harshest critics free access to your people so they can write more critical pieces about you? It would be stupid. Of course the IRFU want to put out fluff pieces and use their own PR instruments to make themselves look good.

What this means is that the RWI are going to have get off their holes and go do some work. They absolutely should keep writing indepth, critical stories about the IRFU and keep asking them hard, uncomfortable questions. They shouldn't expect the IRFU to give them the keys to the building and the combo to the safe. If these guys want to be rugby's answer to Woodward and Bernstein, then put the work in.

Maybe you hold the IRFU to lower standards than I do. But they are not any organisation. This isn't some private football club owned by decrepid billionaires, this is the national governing body of the sport who thrive on the back of tax-breaks and grants and whose primary function is to look after the sport.

The last paragraph is incredibly unfair. Noone has said anything like that, you're putting words in my mouth there. Incredibly ignorant to suggest these guys need to get off their holes, I am certain you haven't a clue about that so I don't understand why you'd be so aggressive about them. I think a lot of people are conflating the wider press with the rugby writers.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The last paragraph is incredibly unfair. Noone has said anything like that, you're putting words in my mouth there. Incredibly ignorant to suggest these guys need to get off their holes, I am certain you haven't a clue about that so I don't understand why you'd be so aggressive about them. I think a lot of people are conflating the wider press with the rugby writers.

About as ignorant as screeching about bullying and calling the IRFU a disgrace without having a clue as to what actually happened.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

About as ignorant as screeching about bullying and calling the IRFU a disgrace without having a clue as to what actually happened.

If you're referring to me, you're mistaken.

Interesting the different levels of information you'll require before making up your mind depending on the subject though. Not sure what'd be more convincing for you, a picture of Phillip Browne holding a signed note saying "I did it" with a copy of today's paper standing over the body of Malachy Clerkin before you might reach a conclusion... or just a blog post from Ciprianilover2006 on MySpace.

EDIT: By the way, the IRFU are certainly not a disgrace. They're capable of disgraceful behaviour. That's two very, very different things.

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Interesting the different levels of information you'll require before making up your mind depending on the subject though.

He specifically said the following within his post:

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this is all hilariously petty if what is being reported and suspiciously not reported is to be believed....

....Happy to wait and see if the full story comes to light but at this stage it looks like the above overview is what we are left with.

irishbucsfan

aloooof wrote: »

He specifically said the following within his post:

He said this.

Deleted User wrote: »

Cummisky, O'Conner and Thornley kicking up a stink about having to share desk space and a coffee machine with some lowly cretin bloggers and so they give the IRFU an ultimatum stating they will boycott the press huddle that the IRFU voluntarily take part in. IRFU absolutely correct to give them the two fingers and cancel the whole thing.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

EDIT: By the way, the IRFU are certainly not a disgrace. They're capable of disgraceful behaviour. That's two very, very different things.

Former Former wrote: »

The IRFU are a disgrace. Petty and cowardly.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Spot on

You seemed to think they were at the outset of the thread. Has something caused you to reign back on that opinion?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

You seemed to think they were at the outset of the thread. Has something caused you to reign back on that opinion?

Why don't you quote the entire post instead of taking me out of context?

I agreed with a long post, not that sentence. This is fairly childish stuff.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why don't you quote the entire post instead of taking me out of context?

I agreed with a long post, not that sentence. This is fairly childish stuff.

I apologise. You quoted the entire post by Former Former and said "spot on" as the entirety of your reply.

I took this to mean that you agreed with the entire post but it's quite clear now that you only agreed with the parts that weren't going to be quoted back at you at a later date.

So silly of me, won't happen again!

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He said this.

I don't want to get into a quoting-battle, but my reading was that the first sentence set the context (i.e. ".. if what is being reported and suspiciously not reported...") and the rest expounded on it, in that context.

But again, in short, I don't see how anyone can get this:

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Interesting the different levels of information you'll require before making up your mind depending on the subject though.

from this:

Deleted User wrote: »

Happy to wait and see if the full story comes to light but at this stage it looks like the above overview is what we are left with.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I apologise. You quoted the entire post by Former Former and said "spot on" as the entirety of your reply.

I took this to mean that you agreed with the post but it's quite clear now that you only agreed with the parts that weren't going to be quoted back at you at a later date.

So silly of me, won't happen again!

I did agree with the post. But what you're doing is taking someone else's words and putting them in my mouth. It's extremely petty to get down to a level here where suddenly agreeing with a post on an internet forum means you agree with every single word that was in it, rather than the point of the post.

Let's cut out this ****e and stick to what we've actually said. It's extremely desperate stuff.

irishbucsfan

aloooof wrote: »

I don't want to get into a quoting-battle, but my reading was that the first sentence set the context (i.e. ".. if what is being reported and suspiciously not reported...") and the rest expounded on it, in that context.

But again, in short, I don't see how anyone can get this:



from this:

Fair enough. Good point.

Butt let's remind ourselves of the context of the thread here to understand where I'm coming from.

Gerry Thornley goes on live radio as chairman of RWI. He says explicitly that he was told by the IRFU that they see him as their competitor. He also gives other versions of the events.

We then get told by a poster that we should be extremely skeptical of this.

Shortly afterwards someone comes on here and shares a rumour that hasn't come up anywhere else. The rumour has no stated source. And fair enough to the poster of the rumour, he's very clear in saying he can't verify it at all and I've no reason to think he's lying.

We then get told by the same poster that this rumour is "the best overview that we've got left", meanwhile completely ignoring information that has a source and is in the public domain and doesn't exist solely on this forum.

I think it's fair enough to call it extremely hypocritical at the very least.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I did agree with the post. But what you're doing is taking someone else's words and putting them in my mouth. It's extremely petty to get down to a level here where suddenly agreeing with a post on an internet forum means you agree with every single word that was in it, rather than the point of the post.

Let's cut out this ****e and stick to what we've actually said. It's extremely desperate stuff.

Maybe. It's almost as petty as trying to hang Joe Schmidt by associating him with Best's decision to attend a trial.

That was bad too... right?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe. It's almost as petty as trying to hang Joe Schmidt by associating him with Best's decision to attend a trial.

That was bad too... right?

I've never done this?

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There you go. Gerry Thornley says on the public record something he was told directly by the IRFU:

"Woah woah woah, we should take this with a grain of salt, he might be lying"

Someone on an internet forum gives a rumour from a completely unnamed and unreferenced source that hasn't been reported anywhere of note:

"Well, that's it then! This is hilariously petty! The IRFU were in the right all along!"

Good thing we waited for proper evidence I guess.

I don't think anyone's accusing Thornley of lying. And I think it's unfair to charactarise that post as saying so. But there's no real context to what he reported as being said either.

I think his words were "The IRFU see themselves increasingly as a rival to us" and he gave the example of a coach being made available to the media after the captain's run and that now being restricted to the IRFU online output.

Now, I think that's a clear enough example, but that would affect all media, not just the RWI. But there's been no pushback (that I'm aware of) from other media platforms about this. And interestingly, the second captains guys were seemingly unaware of it, as were the OTB guys.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think anyone's accusing Thornley of lying. And I think it's unfair to charactarise that post as saying so. But there's no real context to what he reported as being said either.

I think his words were "The IRFU see themselves increasingly as a rival to us" and he gave the example of a coach being made available to the media after the captain's run and that now being restricted to the IRFU online output.

Now, I think that's a clear enough example, but that would affect all media, not just the RWI. But there's been no pushback (that I'm aware of) from other media platforms about this. And interestingly, the second captains guys were seemingly unaware of it, as were the OTB guys.

Thornley said that he was told explicitly by the IRFU that they see them as a rival. He didn't just say "they see themselves as a rival" (I.E. it's not just an opinion he's stating).

Yes absolutely the other forms of media are part of that. They are pretty protected by the broadcasting contracts currently though. I know guys in that realm, they were taken completely by surprise by the whole thing, although supposedly they are getting less access as well.

There also has been pushback on both those radio shows, in that they've had RWI guys on to talk about it and given them a platform and then had Shane Horgan go on a bit of a circular rant about how Schmidt gets this all wrong and how he disagrees with the IRFU.

The online/radio guys getting squeezed out are also a concern. But the nature of their reporting is generally much shorter-form. That's changing now a little to be fair with the podcasts but usually it'd be a lot less critical in its nature and a lot more informational. The IRFU don't feel a need to try to edit that. So I'd be a little more focused on the print guys with my concern, but the whole picture is definitely important.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't get your point here. I don't really remember, are you trying to make an ironic post here and the truth is that Thornley didn't ask harder questions of Kidney? Because others did...

Your complaint surely can't be that not every single journalist agrees with you about every single important issue, and you're holding one issue with one journalist over the head of every other one... can it?

There were very few journalists asking any questions of Kidney, until things completely imploded. Thornley fed off a very close relationship with Kidney and became an apologist for the IRFU. The notion of “hard questions” is complete BS, this isn’t politics, it’s sport, there aren’t really hard questions, just perception. The IRFU want to protect their brand, but they also need to maximize exposure. The various journalists are a conduit for that, but obviously any organization will try manage how their brand is portrayed. It would be commercial suicide not to. There is only one logical reason for ROC not saying what he did and that is, it crossed a line legally, either slander or liable. If that’s the case, then it isn’t bullying, it’s prudent for the IRFU to bring censure on him.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Thornley said that he was told explicitly by the IRFU that they see them as a rival. He didn't just say "they see themselves as a rival" (I.E. it's not just an opinion he's stating).

Yes absolutely the other forms of media are part of that. They are pretty protected by the broadcasting contracts currently though. I know guys in that realm, they were taken completely by surprise by the whole thing, although supposedly they are getting less access as well.

There also has been pushback on both those radio shows, in that they've had RWI guys on to talk about it and given them a platform and then had Shane Horgan go on a bit of a circular rant about how Schmidt gets this all wrong and how he disagrees with the IRFU.

The online/radio guys getting squeezed out are also a concern. But the nature of their reporting is generally much shorter-form. That's changing now a little to be fair with the podcasts but usually it'd be a lot less critical in its nature and a lot more informational. The IRFU don't feel a need to try to edit that. So I'd be a little more focused on the print guys with my concern, but the whole picture is definitely important.

His exact words on it are as follows:

"But I think also that if you look at it, this is part of a trend whereby the IRFU would see themselves almost as a rival now to the media because of their own online coverage, because of their own social media content... [stuff about caoch not being made available after captain's run] And they said that to us, that they see us, you know, increasingly as a rival now"

Not specifically disagreeing with you, just that it's not as explict as "they see us as a rival" without any equivocation.

What I mean by that is that as the IRFU have their own outlets, and as they increase in volume and take-up, so does their competition with the other media platforms.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

His exact words on it are as follows:

"But I think also that if you look at it, this is part of a trend whereby the IRFU would see themselves almost as a rival now to the media because of their own online coverage, because of their own social media content... [stuff about caoch not being made available after captain's run] And they said that to us, that they see us, you know, increasingly as a rival now"

Not specifically disagreeing with you, just that it's not as explict as "they see us as a rival" without any equivocation.

What I mean by that is that as the IRFU have their own outlets, and as they increase in volume and take-up, so does their competition with the other media platforms.

That could just as easily be taken as Thornley putting words in the IRFU's mouth..

Who is it on here that hates when people do that?

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That could just as easily be taken as Thornley putting words in the IRFU's mouth..

Who is it on here that hates when people do that?

Another suggestion of people lying. Still never a bit of proof. While accepting stuff with absolutely no source as truth.

Who was it who was waiting for some concrete facts before making their mind up?

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

That could just as easily be taken as Thornley putting words in the IRFU's mouth..

Who is it on here that hates when people do that?

Also, the context is important and we just don't have it. For example, when was this said? It's being assumed that this was said during the current contretemps, when it could have been said at any time. There's also an element of "well d'uh" about it, given the IRFU's presence on their website and social media over the years.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

There were very few journalists asking any questions of Kidney, until things completely imploded. Thornley fed off a very close relationship with Kidney and became an apologist for the IRFU. The notion of “hard questions” is complete BS, this isn’t politics, it’s sport, there aren’t really hard questions, just perception. The IRFU want to protect their brand, but they also need to maximize exposure. The various journalists are a conduit for that, but obviously any organization will try manage how their brand is portrayed. It would be commercial suicide not to. There is only one logical reason for ROC not saying what he did and that is, it crossed a line legally, either slander or liable. If that’s the case, then it isn’t bullying, it’s prudent for the IRFU to bring censure on him.

You say that this is sports and not politics. But here are politics in sport. In a huge way.

And some people dedicate most of their time to the sport.

The IRFU are the NGB for the sport. Existing off subsidies, grants and tax-breaks. They are judge jury and executioner on some important issues that make genuinely important differences to some people’s lives.

So dismissing people’s concerns I think belies a misunderstanding of just how important some people in the IRFU are.

This weird thing about Kidney (who absolutely was criticised from some corners) is not nearly as relevant as actual reporting into issues where the people involved have very few other outlets or rights of reply. And very often when there is no coverage you end up with a very authoritarian stance that can often take the sport down the wrong path. In recent times I’ve seen a direct example where that has happened and was corrected following coverage in the press.

So you have to consider here that what you’re saying here is almost entirely wrong. Including the bit about ROC.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

His exact words on it are as follows:

"But I think also that if you look at it, this is part of a trend whereby the IRFU would see themselves almost as a rival now to the media because of their own online coverage, because of their own social media content... [stuff about caoch not being made available after captain's run] And they said that to us, that they see us, you know, increasingly as a rival now"

Not specifically disagreeing with you, just that it's not as explict as "they see us as a rival" without any equivocation.

What I mean by that is that as the IRFU have their own outlets, and as they increase in volume and take-up, so does their competition with the other media platforms.

Yes, I’m not really disagreeing with that at any point though.

I said exactly that. I just also said it’s an extremely bad thing if the free press is squeezed out to be replaced by Pravda.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Also, the context is important and we just don't have it. For example, when was this said? It's being assumed that this was said during the current contretemps, when it could have been said at any time. There's also an element of "well d'uh" about it, given the IRFU's presence on their website and social media over the years.

Also he hasn't attributing the quote to anyone. Just the "IRFU" said "X". Who in the IRFU said it and in what context. Did they say it in jest or was it communicated formally as the new position of the IRFU.

It's strange that it's so intentionally vague and yet is being pointed to as the reason for relations being at an "all time low".

El_Duderino 09

irishbucsfan wrote:

Nah, this is just not true I'm afraid.

I think it is. Media management is clinical at this point. Eddie Jones is a great example though he takes a different approach than JS. Jones just talks nonsense in interviews which renders anything he says useless because it could have been ironic or sarcastic or nonsense or serious. He can't be held to anything he says.

JS is so precise in what he says that he makes sure he only sticks to the IRFU script. So it doesn't matter to me whether the IRFU tells me or Thornley tells me. It's the same bland answer in any case. Thornley can still do his analysis which can be interesting. But I don't think print media needs special time to ask the same questions forma 3rd time.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also he hasn't attributing the quote to anyone. Just the "IRFU" said "X". Who in the IRFU said it and in what context. Did they say it in jest or was it communicated formally as the new position of the IRFU.

It's strange that it's so intentionally vague and yet is being pointed to as the reason for relations being at an "all time low".

He attributed the quote to the IRFU.

You’ve just this morning explained that our best view of things is entirely based on an unverified anonymous internet rumour. Now you’re complaining that a quote was attributed to an organization and not someone specifically in that organisation? Why the double standards?

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So you have to consider here that what you’re saying here is almost entirely wrong. Including the bit about ROC.

Just on this and maybe we don't want to continue down this line too far, but Thornley didn't want to get into a discussion on the near cancellation of the Paris 'huddle' because of "a lot of legal reasons".

There aren't too many of those surrounding Irish rugby at the moment.

irishbucsfan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it is. Media management is clinical at this point. Eddie Jones is a great example though he takes a different approach than JS. Jones just talks nonsense in interviews which renders anything he says useless because it could have been ironic or sarcastic or nonsense or serious. He can't be held to anything he says.

JS is so precise in what he says that he makes sure he only sticks to the IRFU script. So it doesn't matter to me whether the IRFU tells me or Thornley tells me. It's the same bland answer in any case. Thornley can still do his analysis which can be interesting. But I don't think print media needs special time to ask the same questions forma 3rd time.

OK, but what you’re referring to here are issues that are specifically related to JS discussing his own issues with the media.

We’re talking here about the media being squeezed out across the board and claiming they feel relations are at their worst point ever. There is far more important that gets asked about than issues that pertain directly to the Irish team.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Just on this and maybe we don't want to continue down this line too far, but Thornley didn't want to get into a discussion on the near cancellation of the Paris 'huddle' because of "a lot of legal reasons".

There aren't too many of those surrounding Irish rugby at the moment.

You’re making a big jump here to try to bring this all back to the trial again?

The legal issues could entirely be down to him talking in public about the actions of a newspaper that rival his employer, especially if he found that out through his union.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You’re making a big jump here to try to bring this all back to the trial again?

The legal issues could entirely be down to him talking in public about the actions of a newspaper that rival his employer, especially if he found that out through his union.

He could have said what's already in the public domain. That an error was made in an article and was subsequently corrected. The journalist in question had already admitted to it. So he could have quite readily said that and stopped at the point where any further identification of the error would be made and then said that he didn't want to cross the same line as the journalist in question.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

He could have said what's already in the public domain. That an error was made in an article and was subsequently corrected. The journalist in question had already admitted to it. So he could have quite readily said that and stopped at the point where any further identification of the error would be made and then said that he didn't want to cross the same line as the journalist in question.

Had ROC already admitted to it when they were recording that interview? It would have been around the same time I don't know.

Also don't think it'd be a good idea to have gotten into anything like that.