IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

Unusual for a whole section of reporters to be so secretive about the cause of something that directly affects them when they admit themselves they know the reason why.

Maybe it's extremely serious in nature. That or perhaps it's embarrassingly petty.

Will have to wait until one of them decides to write about it and then decide if we believe them or not.

phog

Ha, journalists who complain about being "locked out" and still won't inform us why. Where's the truth in the news now

They're trying to look the victim here when in looks like one of them is the guilty party and the rest have rowed in behind him.

irishbucsfan

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

Thornley, who is the chairperson (or whatever the title is) of the RWI, he was on Second Captains yesterday and said there was an 'incident' in Paris that has lead to this. He wouldn't say what this incident was either. It was also mentioned on the podcast the the IRFU have told RWI exactly why the huddles have been cancelled.

The incident he's referring to is the journalist not being allowed into the print briefing, because the IRFU were not happy with their reporting.

Hurrache

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe it's extremely serious in nature. That or perhaps it's embarrassingly petty.

Will have to wait until one of them decides to write about it and then decide if we believe them or not.

Yeah, the was it looks now is that as you say it's something pretty dumb from the journalists side and they're staying quiet, or something more serious which may have legal repercussions somewhere down the line.

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

Ha, journalists who complain about being "locked out" and still won't inform us why. Where's the truth in the news now

They're trying to look the victim here when in looks like one of them is the guilty party and the rest have rowed in behind him.

Bollocks.

They're trying to protect a colleague, when the other party is attempting to single them out.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject, but there are times when we absolutely need print journalists to go after issues like this, even if its uncomfortable. Women's rugby has been greatly, greatly assisted by similarly uncomfortable reporting by Cummiskey. RWI will long outlast Schmidt and Nucifora, and that is a very good thing.

Hurrache

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Bollocks.

They're trying to protect a colleague, when the other party is attempting to single them out.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject,

Why haven't any journalist come out and said that's the issue, if it is?

irishbucsfan

Hurrache wrote: »

Why haven't any journalist come out and said that's the issue, if it is?

That they're trying to single out and bully a journalist? Some of them have come out and said that.

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/962776120402771968

Former Former

As soon as they name the person in question, the focus becomes that person and what he did, not the actions of the IRFU.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

As soon as they name the person in question, the focus becomes that person and what he did, not the actions of the IRFU.

He came forward and named himself on OTB.

You're completely right though, I'm not entirely convinced it was a great idea. But there's not exactly a handbook on how to handle this situation.

What he really needs is the NUJ's support. There have been dire times in the past when organisations have gone after NUJ members and the sports journos stood very closely by them and were greatly appreciated, he'll find support there if he needs it.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That they're trying to single out and bully a journalist? Some of them have come out and said that.

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/962776120402771968

They're not saying why. There's been an admission of (a) an error in an article and (b) an 'incident' in Paris and it's just getting muddier instead of clearer.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That they're trying to single out and bully a journalist? Some of them have come out and said that.

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/962776120402771968

Hang on, unless I've missed something in the last 12 hours we don't really know much more than we did yesterday evening. What we have learned is the identity of the journo involved. We still don't know what was said that caused the issue or exactly what the IRFU have actually done. If they have a grievance with a journo then barring that journo from media work is not really bullying is it? It's a normal response to a grievance between 2 parties, no? And until we know exactly what was said that caused the problem and exactly what the response was then we're still no closer to knowing how proportional the reaction was.

Also, am I the only one getting a bit confused by what has happened? I've heard now that a singular journo has been ostracised by the IRFU as a whole over an error in an article. I've heard that the IRFU have put an end to the "huddle" entirely for all journos due to wanting to control their own message. I've heard the Joe put an end to the "huddle" for all journos because he never really like it and questions over Grobler was the excuse he needed to put an end to it. I've heard that Joe put an end to the "huddle" for all journos because he never really like it and questions over the court case was the excuse he needed to put an end to it. There's been reports of an "incident" in Paris, which seems to differ again from the rest of the stuff. So what exactly is it? As prawnsambo is saying, this is getting less clear, not more clear.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

They're not saying why. There's been an admission of (a) an error in an article and (b) an 'incident' in Paris and it's just getting muddier instead of clearer.

The incident was already confirmed beforehand. It was reported in the Irish Times. Now we know the identity.

There's nothing left to know. The only thing that is not in the public domain now is exactly what the mistake was. You just have to ask if you think any mistake in an online article that was corrected before anyone really noticed is enough to justify this response.

Jack Kanoff

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The incident was already confirmed beforehand. It was reported in the Irish Times. Now we know the identity.

There's nothing left to know. The only thing that is not in the public domain now is exactly what the mistake was. You just have to ask if you think any mistake in an online article that was corrected before anyone really noticed is enough to justify this response.

As clear as mud

Yeah_Right

molloyjh wrote: »

Hang on, unless I've missed something in the last 12 hours we don't really know much more than we did yesterday evening. What we have learned is the identity of the journo involved. We still don't know what was said that caused the issue or exactly what the IRFU have actually done. If they have a grievance with a journo then barring that journo from media work is not really bullying is it? It's a normal response to a grievance between 2 parties, no? And until we know exactly what was said that caused the problem and exactly what the response was then we're still no closer to knowing how proportional the reaction was.

Also, am I the only one getting a bit confused by what has happened? I've heard now that a singular journo has been ostracised by the IRFU as a whole over an error in an article. I've heard that the IRFU have put an end to the "huddle" entirely for all journos due to wanting to control their own message. I've heard the Joe put an end to the "huddle" for all journos because he never really like it and questions over Grobler was the excuse he needed to put an end to it. I've heard that Joe put an end to the "huddle" for all journos because he never really like it and questions over the court case was the excuse he needed to put an end to it. There's been reports of an "incident" in Paris, which seems to differ again from the rest of the stuff. So what exactly is it? As prawnsambo is saying, this is getting less clear, not more clear.

I agree. The journalists aren't clearing anything up. OK, we know who was excluded but we don't know why. The fact the RWI aren't saying why makes me think he deserved the treatment he got.

Also they mention a minor mistake in an article that was cleared up. No further info. I seen plenty of examples where newspapers clear up mistakes from sensational front page articles by putting a clarification/retraction in 3 lines on page 10.

I don't see this as a freedom of the press issue. I see it as an issue between 2 organisations who currently disagree on how they should do business.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The incident was already confirmed beforehand. It was reported in the Irish Times. Now we know the identity.

There's nothing left to know. The only thing that is not in the public domain now is exactly what the mistake was. You just have to ask if you think any mistake in an online article that was corrected before anyone really noticed is enough to justify this response.

Can you post what was confirmed in The Times? I went looking for it and couldn't find it and then hit my article limit.

As for the corrected mistake, again, any one individual may not have seen it or noted it (me being one such individual). But the IRFU clearly saw it and complained about it and it was corrected. We don't know who else saw it or what damage it may have done in the meantime. So we don't know (as molloy says) whether the IRFU response in banning the guy from a press briefing was proportional or not.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I agree. The journalists aren't clearing anything up. OK, we know who was excluded but we don't know why. The fact the RWI aren't saying why makes me think he deserved the treatment he got.

Also they mention a minor mistake in an article that was cleared up. No further info. I seen plenty of examples where newspapers clear up mistakes from sensational front page articles by putting a clarification/retraction in 3 lines on page 10.

I don't see this as a freedom of the press issue. I see it as an issue between 2 organisations who currently disagree on how they should do business.

Probably because if you write something incorrect about a person in a newspaper you can be defaming them and they can sue you. These kind of retractions help in those cases. We don't even know what the mistake was in this case so a retraction could have been unnecessary.

Former Former

This will all blow over. When it does, the IRFU will continue with their minimum contractual obligations and most of us will forget that it every happened, because we'll have @Irishrugby and facebook.com/irishrugby to tell us everything we need.

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

Hurrache

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That they're trying to single out and bully a journalist?

No, definitively wrote about the reasons that they all know for cancellation of the briefing.

AdamD

Former Former wrote: »

This will all blow over. When it does, the IRFU will continue with their minimum contractual obligations and most of us will forget that it every happened, because we'll have @Irishrugby and facebook.com/irishrugby to tell us everything we need.

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

It would be very worrying if it wasn't rugby, as its rugby I really couldn't care less.

Christy42

Former Former wrote: »

This will all blow over. When it does, the IRFU will continue with their minimum contractual obligations and most of us will forget that it every happened, because we'll have @Irishrugby and facebook.com/irishrugby to tell us everything we need.

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

Did he ask the wrong questions? I have heard of an error that required a correction and an 'incident'. Anything else appears to speculation.

I am a big believer in freedom of the press but I really need actual information here. So far I have the journalists annoyed one of their members was excluded for 'reasons'. If it was just the IRFU withholding the reasons I would agree 100% with the journalists but they seem to be withholding it as well and that is a red flag to me that I should not jump to conclusions.

AdamD

AdamD wrote: »

It would be very worrying if it wasn't rugby, as its rugby I really couldn't care less.

There's no precedent being set here. Sports organisations have refused to talk to press (beyond absolute necessity) since time immemorial.

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

This will all blow over. When it does, the IRFU will continue with their minimum contractual obligations and most of us will forget that it every happened, because we'll have @Irishrugby and facebook.com/irishrugby to tell us everything we need.

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

To be fair, we don't even know that. We've had two different characterisations of what it was that got him a one match ban. If we go with the original 'error' explanation and that's from the horse's mouth, it really depends on how serious that error was. In cases where such errors cause reputational damage, the courts are usually the method of righting such wrongs. If that's the top end of the sacle, surely a temporary ban is further down the scale and quite possibly proportionate to whatever damage was caused?

Former Former

Christy42 wrote: »

Did he ask the wrong questions? I have heard of an error that required a correction and an 'incident'. Anything else appears to speculation.

Well, he was either excluded for asking awkward questions, or he was excluded for an error that was corrected.

Is either of those better than the other?

Christy42 wrote: »

I am a big believer in freedom of the press but I really need actual information here. So far I have the journalists annoyed one of their members was excluded for 'reasons'. If it was just the IRFU withholding the reasons I would agree 100% with the journalists but they seem to be withholding it as well and that is a red flag to me that I should not jump to conclusions.

This confusion suits the IRFU down to the ground. They'll say nothing, let everyone work themselves into a tizzy, and luckily there's another match next week which will move everyone's attention on. That doesn't make it right.

When Gerry Thornley is coming out and talking about it, then I'm sorry, but all doubt is removed in my mind.

Former Former

AdamD wrote: »

It would be very worrying if it wasn't rugby, as its rugby I really couldn't care less.

To be clear, I don't particularly care about it either. Even when the press do get access, everything the players and coaches say is so coached, bland and anodyne that it barely counts as news.

What bothers me is the number of people who don't see the value in an independent media and are actually glad to see them getting taken down a peg or two. History would tell us that this is not a good mentality for the public to have.

Hurrache

Former Former wrote: »

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

I think that's just an assumption you're making though? If this is the reason, or the main reason at least, you can be sure fellow journalists would be all over it, making a big deal for reasons such as press freedom. The IRFU has low credit with many people these days, their joint statement with Munster on the Grobler thing the weekend was ill judged, so you can be sure the journalists know they would get a lot of public support. Similarly to how that eejit of an Irish soccer manager (name escapes me!) has behaved with Tony O'Donoghue. O'Donoghue has received a lot of public support from fellow journalists and media alike.

Former Former wrote: »

This confusion suits the IRFU down to the ground.

But it's the journalists job to clear this up, and they know how to, but aren't. Why?

Jack Kanoff

Former Former wrote: »

This will all blow over. When it does, the IRFU will continue with their minimum contractual obligations and most of us will forget that it every happened, because we'll have @Irishrugby and facebook.com/irishrugby to tell us everything we need.

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

It's been happening in sport for decades...it's nothing new, just maybe to a few here I suspect

thomond2006

I welcome our DPRK TV Irish Rugby TV Overlords!

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

What bothers me is the number of people who don't see the value in an independent media and are actually glad to see them getting taken down a peg or two. History would tell us that this is not a good mentality for the public to have.

I think we all recognise that. Especially these days with the treatment of the press in the USA. But press freedom comes with responsibilities. And part of the reason for the situation in the US is because of irresponsibility in the past. It gives oxygen to those who would undermine such freedoms.

As an example (and I'm not conflating this with the point under discussion - it's just the most recent example), people don't seem to understand how unusual and worrying it was to have a judge make a statement about certain events that were widely reported. That's as close as you can come to affecting a criminal trial without actually getting there. It's not unprecedented, but it's very rare.

There are certain things the press cannot do during their reportage of a trial. Some we know, some are less well known. For example, during a trial, no photograph may be published showing the defendant in handcuffs. Even if that's how they arrive and depart from the court.

Former Former

Murray Kinsella has put a GIF up of the post-match presser from Saturday

Hurrache

Former Former wrote: »

Murray Kinsella has put a GIF up of the post-match presser from Saturday

Looks like he's bending down to do a line.

Christy42

Former Former wrote: »

Well, he was either excluded for asking awkward questions, or he was excluded for an error that was corrected.

Is either of those better than the other?



This confusion suits the IRFU down to the ground. They'll say nothing, let everyone work themselves into a tizzy, and luckily there's another match next week which will move everyone's attention on. That doesn't make it right.

When Gerry Thornley is coming out and talking about it, then I'm sorry, but all doubt is removed in my mind.

That depends on the error and how honest it was. If it was a simple typo or misunderstanding then obvious over reaction from the IRFU. Agreed 100%. Except the journalists are going to serious effort to keep the error out of the media which worries me. Also what was the incident in Paris. Did that have anything to do with it?

Except the confusion also suits the journalists as they are also propogating it. I feel like I am meant to be taking that they are right on faith here. Why are the journalists encouraging the confusion?

As I said if it was just the IRFU pushing it I would support the journalists but as is I have to go for a wait and see approach.

I believe in an independent media but I also don't think I should be expected to believe they are always in the right on pure faith. I also don't see this killing an independent media. This will not stop people giving out about Joe making selection or tactical errors after the next poor performance.

jacothelad

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The incident he's referring to is the journalist not being allowed into the print briefing, because the IRFU were not happy with their reporting.

"Their". Plural? I gathered that it was what must have been a serious bit of mis-reporting or perhaps complete invention on the part of one reporter. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm sure the whole story isn't about a split infinitive.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They're trying to protect a colleague, when the other party is attempting to single them out.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject, but there are times when we absolutely need print journalists to go after issues like this, even if its uncomfortable. Women's rugby has been greatly, greatly assisted by similarly uncomfortable reporting by Cummiskey. RWI will long outlast Schmidt and Nucifora, and that is a very good thing.

We don't know what he wrote other than it was incorrect as he admitted. Perhaps it was a totally unjustified personal attack or slur on an individual who has no platform to refute the 'mistake'. Being tenacious is a great trait in honest journalism. It isn't when the output is bilge. Using the print media to bully others without right of reply is pretty disgusting. using print media to attack those who deserve it is part of a free country but sadly it's a rare thing in Ireland. Just look at the verminous criminals who partially populate our parliaments.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The incident was already confirmed beforehand. It was reported in the Irish Times. Now we know the identity.

There's nothing left to know. The only thing that is not in the public domain now is exactly what the mistake was. You just have to ask if you think any mistake in an online article that was corrected before anyone really noticed is enough to justify this response.

This is everything that needs to be known before climbing on to the high horse.

Former Former wrote: »

This will all blow over. When it does, the IRFU will continue with their minimum contractual obligations and most of us will forget that it every happened, because we'll have @Irishrugby and facebook.com/irishrugby to tell us everything we need.

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

Asking awkward questions based on evidence is the best weapon a journalist has. How we could have done with such people over the years in Ireland. The trouble is of course is that getting answers isn't as easy as it sounds. There are plenty of journalists who are as happy to spout propaganda in support of a story than there are fearless newshounds seeking to expose corruption and criminality.

Surely in this case it wasn't about asking questions at all, it was about asserting or implying something that was not the truth. A common tool of journalists after all.

Journalists don't have an absolute right to have access to anyone. Honourable journalists check their facts before firing from the hip.
It's about rugby ffs, not life and death, war, natural disasters etc. Some journalists quite frequently have a very high and frequently laughably puffed up opinion of their own importance. We need the good ones but they in turn also have a huge responsibility to be accurate. People also have an absolute right to not interact with those who use journalistic 'licence'....or lies as we say in the great unwashed public.....in order to further an agenda.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

What bothers me is the number of people who don't see the value in an independent media and are actually glad to see them getting taken down a peg or two. History would tell us that this is not a good mentality for the public to have.

This is just ludicrously over the top.

Journalists have and will continue to go too far at times. Make statements of opinion in place of fact or ask questions that are contrived or intentionally leading, not for news sake, but for the chance to create news.

It is just as important to embrace the 4th estate as it is to hold them to standards. If the IRFU felt those standards were breached by a member of the press then I'm completely fine with them sidelining that member of the press.

Honestly, you can say it bothers you that people don't see a value in independent media, I haven't seen any of that posted here. I think people fully appreciate the importance of the media but are critical enough in their thinking to also accept that the media has a responsibility to the truth that it frequently ignores in pursuit of market share.

If the journalist in question was from Fox news or the Dailymail I wonder would anyone be jumping to their defence.

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

This will all blow over. When it does, the IRFU will continue with their minimum contractual obligations and most of us will forget that it every happened, because we'll have @Irishrugby and facebook.com/irishrugby to tell us everything we need.

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

1. This is just rugby. It isn't state of the nation stuff. It doesn't go beyond rugby at all. That's just something you're inventing here yourself I'm afraid.

2. Proportionality. We don't know how proportional the reaction was to the incident. So we can't judge how fair or otherwise the IRFU are being.

3. Was he excluded for asking the wrong question? Publishing the wrong thing? Asking the wrong question at the wrong time? I'm still no clearer on any of this at all.

You seem to think that because some people not outraged that they are immediately siding with the IRFU and ignoring the potential issue. When most of us are pretty blue in the face saying that this is not what is happening. Reserving judgement until you're comfortable that you know (or have a reasonable grasp of) the facts is, by definition, not taking sides.

phog

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Bollocks.

They're trying to protect a colleague, when the other party is attempting to single them out.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject, but there are times when we absolutely need print journalists to go after issues like this, even if its uncomfortable. Women's rugby has been greatly, greatly assisted by similarly uncomfortable reporting by Cummiskey. RWI will long outlast Schmidt and Nucifora, and that is a very good thing.

Why haven't they (the print media) given us their side of the story. They're stalling this to make a news item out of it - they welcome the online clicks and fake war.

Buer

Murray Kinsella says the IRFU are unhappy generally over reporting this season " including focus on Bundee Aki’s debut, CJ Stander’s contract and Gerbrandt Grobler".

phog

phog wrote: »

Why haven't they (the print media) given us their side of the story. They're stalling this to make a news item out of it - they welcome the online clicks and fake war.

Exactly.

If it was all so innocent then why aren’t they screaming about it from the roof tops ?

Two sides to every story, and until I hear BOTH of them I am firmly staying in the MIDDLE and NOT taking sides.

molloyjh

Buer wrote: »

Murray Kinsella says the IRFU are unhappy generally over reporting this season " including focus on Bundee Aki’s debut, CJ Stander’s contract and Gerbrandt Grobler".

And they would have a point to be fair. Some of the sensationalist stuff that has come out at times has been incredibly poor. But wasn't most of that the online guys rather than the print guys?

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly.

If it was all so innocent then why aren’t they screaming about it from the roof tops ?

Two sides to every story, and until I hear BOTH of them I am firmly staying in the MIDDLE and NOT taking sides.

In fairness, it could be that reporting what the error was, would be compunding it and whatever damage it was perceived to have caused.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

In fairness, it could be that reporting what the error was, would be compunding it and whatever damage it was perceived to have caused.

True. If it was something trivial like the standard of coffee at the IRFU press junkits it would be one thing, but it could obviously be waaaaay more serious.

prawnsambo

molloyjh wrote: »

And they would have a point to be fair. Some of the sensationalist stuff that has come out at times has been incredibly poor. But wasn't most of that the online guys rather than the print guys?

The only online media I read is The 42, so I can't comment on the rest of them. But it was all over the traditional media websites as well. The Indo especially. It was constant about Aki coming up to the AIs.

Hurrache

molloyjh wrote: »

And they would have a point to be fair. Some of the sensationalist stuff that has come out at times has been incredibly poor. But wasn't most of that the online guys rather than the print guys?

It certainly was when it came to Aki, but radio, well a particular show, and print really ran with Grobler story, be you agree or disagree with the situation.

I think the Grobler issue deserved the analysis and criticism that came with it, but there was a real snide undertone when it came to certain people on the Aki thing.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Bollocks.

They're trying to protect a colleague, when the other party is attempting to single them out.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject, but there are times when we absolutely need print journalists to go after issues like this, even if its uncomfortable. Women's rugby has been greatly, greatly assisted by similarly uncomfortable reporting by Cummiskey. RWI will long outlast Schmidt and Nucifora, and that is a very good thing.

Ah right, so you know what it is he wrote and got excluded for, please inform me, because it doesn’t seem to be common knowledge.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

Ah right, so you know what it is he wrote and got excluded for, please inform me, because it doesn’t seem to be common knowledge.

I never said that. You misunderstood the post above.

ROC was leading the reporting on Grobler. And he made himself a few enemies amongst hardcore fans of a certain province, thats what I was referring to.

irishbucsfan

Hurrache wrote: »

It certainly was when it came to Aki, but radio, well a particular show, and print really ran with Grobler story, be you agree or disagree with the situation.

I think the Grobler issue deserved the analysis and criticism that came with it, but there was a real snide undertone when it came to certain people on the Aki thing.

The writing about Aki was not the guys who are being targeted by this issue. Again, this is RWI who are losing out. Not the gossip columnists or part-time mud-slingers. The trial and Aki have been handled poorly by the press, but not guys like ROC (unless I missed something).

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I never said that. You misunderstood the post above.

ROC was leading the reporting on Grobler. And he made himself a few enemies amongst hardcore fans of a certain province, thats what I was referring to.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject, but there are times when we absolutely need print journalists to go after issues like this, even if its uncomfortable

We don’t know what he wrote, we don’t know if it was tenacious or uncomortable. We don’t know that it wasn’t just downright stupid and completely incorrect. You keep acting like it’s some sort of Pulitzer Prize winning journalism, when nobody knows what it was that caused this. Journalists scream for openness and transparency, then give the exact opposite. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order, do as I say, not as I do.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

1. This is just rugby. It isn't state of the nation stuff. It doesn't go beyond rugby at all. That's just something you're inventing here yourself I'm afraid.

Sorry, but maybe rugby is a hobby for yourself but lets remember there are people in this country who dedicate most of their lives to the game. Very often this is on a voluntary basis. The IRFU are the non-profit governing body of the sport in this country. It's not nice but unfortunately there's areas where the relationship is not good and the press are a great ally at holding them to account for that. It may not be important to you, but its vital to some people.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

We don’t know what he wrote, we don’t know if it was tenacious or uncomortable. We don’t know that it wasn’t just downright stupid and completely incorrect. You keep acting like it’s some sort of Pulitzer Prize winning journalism, when nobody knows what it was that caused this. Journalists scream for openness and transparency, then give the exact opposite. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order, do as I say, not as I do.

Again, you're misunderstanding. I'm referring to what we know he wrote, which was many articles about Grobler.

ClanofLams

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The writing about Aki was not the guys who are being targeted by this issue. Again, this is RWI who are losing out. Not the gossip columnists or part-time mud-slingers. The trial and Aki have been handled poorly by the press, but not guys like ROC (unless I missed something).

I agree with your point broadly but the Indo and ROC specifically had some shocking pieces on Aki.

This one stands out as being particularly inaccurate, misleading and playing to the gallery.

https://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/comment-why-cant-an-irishman-abroad-be-picked-but-a-foreign-player-in-ireland-can-36265952.html

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The writing about Aki was not the guys who are being targeted by this issue. Again, this is RWI who are losing out. Not the gossip columnists or part-time mud-slingers. The trial and Aki have been handled poorly by the press, but not guys like ROC (unless I missed something).

You may have done. From what I'm told, there was an agreement that Rory Best's appearance was not to be reported on, but one print organ got around that agreement by publishing it in their UK edition. Once it was out, the others followed suit.

At a subsequent press conference, it was announced beforehand that no questions would be taken on the issue. In a ROC article, it was reported that 'The Irish Independent' asked a question about it. And then another journalist. Again it was stated by the IRFU press officer that the presser would end if another question was asked. No further questions were asked.

Subsequently, a few days later, Rory Best made a prepared statement and the trial judge also made a statement. I may have that last sequence out of order, but I'm working from memory.