IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

irishbucsfan

ClanofLams wrote: »

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

OK, you're spot on there. Saw that article at the time and was not a fan, forgot it was ROC. Nowhere near enough to blacklist him though.

Hurrache

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).

My response was just in general terms of molloyjh talking about the sensationalist stuff.

molloyjh

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).

Hang on, is it ROC individually or RWI as a group being targeted here? Honestly I'm so bloody confused as to the what at this stage, never mind the why.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

I was responding to FFs point that this goes beyond rugby. The above post is completely true, but still doesn't go beyond rugby. FF seemed to be saying something like there was some collective ill-will towards the noble profession that was damaging to society as a whole.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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

Which also may be utterly irrelevant to what has happened for all we know.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

OK, you're spot on there. Saw that article at the time and was not a fan, forgot it was ROC. Nowhere near enough to blacklist him though.

That's probably why it didn't get him blacklisted then. Although if there has been a pattern of behaviour that led to the incident in question (that none of us seem to know anything about really) then a reaction surely was bound to happen if the straw was big enough? I mean surely it's not beyond reason to suggest that as a possible scenario?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

You keep bringing up Fox News and Daily Mail. Or Rupert Murdoch, Piers Morgan and Rebekah Brookes.

That's incredibly disrespectful to the guys at RWI. If the IRFU had kicked Piers Morgan out of a press briefing noone would have given a ****e. That's not what this thread is about.

Please, stop equating RWI members with News Of The World. We're not talking about guys who hacked the phones of dead kids. Unless you've examples of them acting that way then it's not fair. If they ever do start acting that way then I'll be the first to turn my back on them.

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

Hang on, is it ROC individually or RWI as a group being targeted here? Honestly I'm so bloody confused as to the what at this stage, never mind the why.

It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.
ROC was told HE could not attend the post-match press conference.
The print media as a whole have had their post-match 'huddle' with Joe revoked.

molloyjh wrote: »

I was responding to FFs point that this goes beyond rugby. The above post is completely true, but still doesn't go beyond rugby. FF seemed to be saying something like there was some collective ill-will towards the noble profession that was damaging to society as a whole.

The decline of a reliable media is a very big problem for society. We are losing the ability to distinguish news from opinion from PR. This is not a new development but it is a very real issue.

molloyjh wrote: »

That's probably why it didn't get him blacklisted then. Although if there has been a pattern of behaviour that led to the incident in question (that none of us seem to know anything about really) then a reaction surely was bound to happen if the straw was big enough? I mean surely it's not beyond reason to suggest that as a possible scenario?

If that is the issue, let the IRFU come out and say it. My bet is, they won't. Because it's not in their interests for this to develop as a story, just like it wasn't in their interests for Grobler and Best to develop as stories, two more issues they refused to address until they absolutely had to - but very serious issues nonetheless, and if the press had not followed up, then nothing would have come of it.

Matt Lawton of the Daily Mail has done some excellent work when it comes to doping, particularly in cycling and when it comes to Team Sky. I doubt any Irish journo bar Walsh or Kimmage could match his credentials in that area. Would anyone give a **** if it was him? Probably not.

Who is talking about News of the World?

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

If that is the issue, let the IRFU come out and say it. My bet is, they won't. Because it's not in their interests for this to develop as a story, just like it wasn't in their interests for Grobler and Best to develop as stories, two more issues they refused to address until they absolutely had to - but very serious issues nonetheless, and if the press had not followed up, then nothing would have come of it.

Leaving aside the Grobler issue which was definitely one the IRFU should have been called on, the Best situation is absolutely not. The dangers there are self-evident and the IRFU and players should absolutely not have to answer questions on it. At least not without legal advice and even then, the dangers of somebody saying the wrong thing; be it a journalist or a player are far too great for such a risk to be taken. Again, we can't even discuss it here.

When a judge is forced to make a statement on the matter, everyone should sit up and take notice.

Former Former

prawnsambo wrote: »

Leaving aside the Grobler issue which was definitely one the IRFU should have been called on, the Best situation is absolutely not. The dangers there are self-evident and the IRFU and players should absolutely not have to answer questions on it. At least not without legal advice and even then, the dangers of somebody saying the wrong thing; be it a journalist or a player are far too great for such a risk to be taken. Again, we can't even discuss it here.

When a judge is forced to make a statement on the matter, everyone should sit up and take notice.

This point would hold up - if Best and the IRFU had not, in fact, made a statement themselves.

And that's the issue. The IRFU want us to take their press releases and twitter feed as the primary source of information. I don't like that.

CMOTDibbler

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

It was actually the following day that Best made the statement. The judge spoke a few days later. But yes, you have the order correct.

Buer

prawnsambo wrote: »

Leaving aside the Grobler issue which was definitely one the IRFU should have been called on, the Best situation is absolutely not. The dangers there are self-evident and the IRFU and players should absolutely not have to answer questions on it. At least not without legal advice and even then, the dangers of somebody saying the wrong thing; be it a journalist or a player are far too great for such a risk to be taken.

I tend to agree. The article linked earlier by ROC regarding that press conference gives me more detail than I previously had seen on the situation.

I don't think the IRFU are right in their behaviour but I'd be quite annoyed if I was in their shoes to see ROC's article discussing that press conference. I would imagine they wouldn't expect to see David O'Siochain's pre-conference comments being quoted in a national publication nor the threat to halt proceedings if there were repeated questions. The fact that the Indo then opened with questions relating to Best/Henderson does not make them seem nearly as clever as that article appears to hope it does. It makes them appear provocative and disruptive to many.

There seems to be a deliberate attempt to provoke the IRFU who have responded very poorly to the situation.

Neither group are looking too smart right now. I fully subscribe to a transparent and open media who can ask the pertinent questions. But there is definitely two sides to this and I would assume there's mediation underway at this point.

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

You're assuming that it was the media reporting that caused the statement, rather than Best's actual presence in the court.

Yeah, it's one I'm pretty comnfortable making seeing as this is what was said by the judge: "You may have been aware of press coverage or coverage of some nature about the appearance of Mr Rory Best, who I understand is the captain of the Irish rugby team."

Former Former wrote: »

AFAIK, the only question that was put to Best and Joe was "did you attend with IRFU's permission?" It's not like anyone was asking for his opinion on the actual trial.

It was clearly snowballing into wider territory:

When asked by the Irish Independent, Schmidt would not clarify if Best had consulted with him about his decision to attend court. Pressed by another journalist about his thoughts on Best's presence in court he said: "We are not in a position to comment on any of that. It's a legal matter."

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.
ROC was told HE could not attend the post-match press conference.
The print media as a whole have had their post-match 'huddle' with Joe revoked.

Both for the same reason(s)?

Former Former wrote: »

The decline of a reliable media is a very big problem for society. We are losing the ability to distinguish news from opinion from PR. This is not a new development but it is a very real issue.

And an issue that the media themselves (en masse) are primarily to blame for. The development of, and continued acceptance of, the level of poor journalistic standards and integrity didn't start external to the profession. Someone mentioned Conor George (jokingly) before. He wasn't appointed by anyone other than the Indo. The opinion pieces from people like George Hook talking about things he has no idea about in his opinion pieces (see the Sexton issue for example) weren't the fault of anyone other than the print media guys themselves.

Go beyond the broadsheets and the sports pages and you have phone tapping scandals, political influence, fear of litigation and numerous other issues that over the years has led to where we are now. Thankfully we are all just discussing this singular issue in isolation. Few are passing any judgement at all on the profession itself. So those issues don't really seem to be informing much of the debate. At least not here anyway.

Former Former wrote: »

If that is the issue, let the IRFU come out and say it. My bet is, they won't. Because it's not in their interests for this to develop as a story, just like it wasn't in their interests for Grobler and Best to develop as stories, two more issues they refused to address until they absolutely had to - but very serious issues nonetheless, and if the press had not followed up, then nothing would have come of it.

None of the Indo, ROC, RWI or any print media at all have come out to explain what the issue is in full yet. They publicly kicked up this storm while providing almost no detail from which we can judge anyone on. If they are so hard done by, if they are going to start throwing around allegations, shouldn't they be the first to back their perspective up? Why should the onus be on the IRFU to react to this when the people throwing around the allegations have been anything but clear on what it is they are alleging?

I have no opinion at all who is right and who is wrong. But I'm starting to get a bit tired of the RWI guys moaning and complaining without giving any real details regarding what they are moaning or complaining about. Either come out publicly about it or don't. Stop pissing around in the middle ground.

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

This point would hold up - if Best and the IRFU had not, in fact, made a statement themselves.

As I said, 'without legal advice'. The statement was made the followiing day after protracted press coverage. It was a prepared statement and no questions were allowed.

Former Former wrote: »

And that's the issue. The IRFU want us to take their press releases and twitter feed as the primary source of information. I don't like that.

Is it the issue? Clamping down on speculation about an ongoing trial is a legal matter. As I've said, we can't discuss it here. For very good reasons.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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

Again if it was, then why won’t he or any of the other journalists commenting on this say that. It’s pure hypocrisy

Former Former

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah, it's one I'm pretty comnfortable making seeing as this is what was said by the judge: "You may have been aware of press coverage or coverage of some nature about the appearance of Mr Rory Best, who I understand is the captain of the Irish rugby team."


It was clearly snowballing into wider territory:

See my edits above, I don't want to risk the wrath of the mods.

But as you point out, Joe and Rory said on Thursday:

We are not in a position to comment on any of that. It's a legal matter.

Except on Saturday, they did exactly that, they commented on it very explicitly, because they could do so at a time that suited them and in an environment that suited them.

So again, if people are only going to answer awkward questions on their terms, I don't think that is a good development.

irishbucsfan

Again the same people have dragged this into being a conversation about the trial

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

Except on Saturday, they did exactly that, they commented on it very explicitly, because they could do so at a time that suited them and in an environment that suited them.

So again, if people are only going to answer awkward questions on their terms, I don't think that is a good development.

I don't think you can divorce the subject matter of the statement from the controlled nature of it's release like that. If it was a rugby matter, I'd absolutely agree with you. But this was far from a rugby matter. It was placing a burden on unqualified people to make comment on a matter that was as far from their day job as possible. Add in the very real danger of causing a criminal trial to collapse and there's absolutely no way that you'd venture there without robust legal advice. And one would assume that this advice was sought in the interim between the questions being asked and the statement being given. That the trial judge herself felt it incumbent upon her to back up the statement in open court is further testament to how serious a matter it was.

Former Former

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think you can divorce the subject matter of the statement from the controlled nature of it's release like that. If it was a rugby matter, I'd absolutely agree with you. But this was far from a rugby matter. It was placing a burden on unqualified people to make comment on a matter that was as far from their day job as possible. Add in the very real danger of causing a criminal trial to collapse and there's absolutely no way that you'd venture there without robust legal advice. And one would assume that this advice was sought in the interim between the questions being asked and the statement being given. That the trial judge herself felt it incumbent upon her to back up the statement in open court is further testament to how serious a matter it was.

Again, the ins and outs do not matter here, please stop bringing up the details of the trial because I can't respond to it. The only thing relevant to this discussion is how the IRFU sought to control the narrative around it.

sydthebeat

Former Former wrote: »

Again, the ins and outs do not matter here, please stop bringing up the details of the trial because I can't respond to it. The only thing relevant to this discussion is how the IRFU sought to control the narrative around it.

a trial involving IRFU players on an extremely sensitive subject, in which teh irish captain was requested to attend?

of bloody course they wanted to control the narrative around it and not be agenda-led by print journalists.

its would by mindlessly stupid not to be in control of it.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Again the same people have dragged this into being a conversation about the trial

Actually it was you who brought that into the current discussion:

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).

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Actually it was you who brought that into the current discussion:

You mean in a post where I was pointing out that it was absolutely not relevant to the issue that this trial is about?

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You mean in a post where I was pointing out that it was absolutely not relevant to the issue that this trial is about?

I'm assuming you mean something else here. Discussion maybe?

But lets just look at that last sentence again. It's the one I replied to and another poster took the Aki part of it.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The trial and Aki have been handled poorly by the press, but not guys like ROC (unless I missed something).

You clearly had missed something. That (a) there was an article (that you agreed was less than illuminating about Aki) and (b) that I pointed out that he'd ignored a direct request at a press conference not to bring up the trial attendance. That's where that line of discussion started.

sydthebeat

Former Former wrote: »

However, if it is the case that the journalists are now being punished for asking questions about a case that is very much in the public eye and the voluntary choice of the Irish rugby captain to attend said trial, then that's not fair enough.
.

if the journalists were requested not to ask questions about an on going court case and then they persisted to do so, they shouldnt expect to do so without consequence.
It appears that the media frenzy around the case, and in particular Rorys attendance, was large enough to have the judge issue a clarification statement.
This was despite the IRFUs request to the media not to bring the courts case into press briefings around the 6N team.

i personally think this is all a bit of a storm in a tea cup and i have no skin in the game at all, but i do have to say i would completely agree with the IRFU trying to exert as much control as possible in those 6N press briefings in relation to the court case.

that being said, ive no idea if that was the reason to revoke the huddle.

edit: i see youve removed your post.
let me know if you want me to remove this one and i will.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm assuming you mean something else here. Discussion maybe?

But lets just look at that last sentence again. It's the one I replied to and another poster took the Aki part of it.


You clearly had missed something. That (a) there was an article (that you agreed was less than illuminating about Aki) and (b) that I pointed out that he'd ignored a direct request at a press conference not to bring up the trial attendance. That's where that line of discussion started.

I said it’s not relevant to the issue.

It’s one thing to say you’re waiting to hear more facts before you make up your mind. It’s totally another to invent your own reasons as justification. That’s what’s happening every time people bring up the trial. So hyprocritical to say that the trial is a sensitive issue and then bring it up over and over. This is the only place it’s happening. If it is part of the problem, the IRFU will surely say so.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

if the journalists were requested not to ask questions about an on going court case and then they persisted to do so, they shouldnt expect to do so without consequence.
It appears that the media frenzy around the case, and in particular Rorys attendance, was large enough to have the judge issue a clarification statement.
This was despite the IRFUs request to the media not to bring the courts case into press briefings around the 6N team.

i personally think this is all a bit of a storm in a tea cup and i have no skin in the game at all, but i do have to say i would completely agree with the IRFU trying to exert as much control as possible in those 6N press briefings in relation to the court case.

that being said, ive no idea if that was the reason to revoke the huddle.

edit: i see youve removed your post.
let me know if you want me to remove this one and i will.

I'm sure we'll find out about that in due coarse. Who knows, if the IRFU reinstate it maybe the RWI members will boycott it to teach them a lesson...!

Former Former

sydthebeat wrote: »

edit: i see youve removed your post.
let me know if you want me to remove this one and i will.

Nah it's no bother, I don't think there's anything controversial in it, just the mods have enough to be doing during 6N than keeping the likes of me in check.

Trial will be over (one way or another) in a couple of weeks, it's open season let's revisit then.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I said it’s not relevant to the issue.

It’s one thing to say you’re waiting to hear more facts before you make up your mind. It’s totally another to invent your own reasons as justification. That’s what’s happening every time people bring up the trial. So hyprocritical to say that the trial is a sensitive issue and then bring it up over and over. This is the only place it’s happening. If it is part of the problem, the IRFU will surely say so.

Not in that post you didn't. You made a statement that was provably incorrrect. People then pointed that out. With examples. If you felt it wasn't relevant, perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned it in the post I and others replied to.

As for the reason that ROC was excluded, I and others have asked multiple times for clarity on that. You've referred to an IT article that I've twice asked you to reference and which requests you've ignored. If you want the narrative to change, it's in your power to make it so.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not in that post you didn't. You made a statement that was provably incorrrect. People then pointed that out. With examples. If you felt it wasn't relevant, perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned it in the post I and others replied to.

As for the reason that ROC was excluded, I and others have asked multiple times for clarity on that. You've referred to an IT article that I've twice asked you to reference and which requests you've ignored. If you want the narrative to change, it's in your power to make it so.

I have referenced the IT article. By screenshot from a tweet. It’s in this thread. Just have to have a look there. I shouldn’t have to do it multiple times, thanks to the glory of the internet.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I have referenced the IT article. By screenshot from a tweet. It’s in this thread. Just have to have a look there. I shouldn’t have to do it multiple times, thanks to the glory of the internet.

That actually provides no clarity on what the mistake was. Which is what I and others were asking and to which requests you referenced that article. Which is a tad circular.

Burkie1203

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".

The Grobler thing was inevitable and given the "zero tolerance" mantra of the IRFU then they were always going be called out on it. There is murmurs that Grobler may end up staying beyond this season too.


The Stander contract stuff is as much to do with his agent feeding snippets to the media to get the best deal possible for his client. If anyone thinks that wasnt happening they are deluded/naive. If i was Stander and didnt see them stories I would seek a new agent.

As for project players, well thats always going to be divisive topic. IRFU pursue that rule for players then they need to grow a thicker skin.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

That actually provides no clarity on what the mistake was. Which is what I and others were asking and to which requests you referenced that article. Which is a tad circular.

At no point did I say it did. It’s also not why I linked the article now what I used the article for. I explained the obvious position on the mistake already, which is that it only matters what it was if you believe it could be serious enough to justify a blacklisting and subsequent punishment of all print journalists.

If it was an honest mistake, I don’t see how it possibly could be serious enough to warrant such a draconian action. If it wasn’t an honest mistake, then writers are lying outright to protect someone at a rival newspaper.

thomond2006

Burkie1203 wrote: »

There is murmurs that Grobler may end up staying beyond this season too.

Furore aside I don't think there's any chance Grobler will be remaining. Beirne is coming in and Kleyn is NIE. Grobler was only ever a stopgap signing.

Apologies if OT!

irishbucsfan

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.

Does the public not have a right to know?

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does the public not have a right to know?

I’m not sure, which are you referring to? Something on the IRFUs end or something on the media’s end?

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

At no point did I say it did. It’s also not why I linked the article now what I used the article for. I explained the obvious position on the mistake already, which is that it only matters what it was if you believe it could be serious enough to justify a blacklisting and subsequent punishment of all print journalists.

If it was an honest mistake, I don’t see how it possibly could be serious enough to warrant such a draconian action. If it wasn’t an honest mistake, then writers are lying outright to protect someone at a rival newspaper.

If it was an honest mistake, then we wouldn’t be left guessing. It’s that simple, there is no way if it was just an honest mistake, that ROC or the other journalists wouldn’t have published exactly what it was.

Jack Kanoff

Burkie1203 wrote: »

The Grobler thing was inevitable and given the "zero tolerance" mantra of the IRFU then they were always going be called out on it. There is murmurs that Grobler may end up staying beyond this season too.


The Stander contract stuff is as much to do with his agent feeding snippets to the media to get the best deal possible for his client. If anyone thinks that wasnt happening they are deluded/naive. If i was Stander and didnt see them stories I would seek a new agent.

As for project players, well thats always going to be divisive topic. IRFU pursue that rule for players then they need to grow a thicker skin.

Grobeler is going to Gloucester
Stander stated categorically that he was never in contact with anyone .. stories didn't come from his side

Burkie1203

thomond2006 wrote: »

Furore aside I don't think there's any chance Grobler will be remaining. Beirne is coming in and Kleyn is NIE. Grobler was only ever a stopgap signing.

Apologies if OT!

Im hearing his move to gloucester is in doubt and Munster are interested in retaining him. Whats the contract situation with the 2nd rowers (and backrowers who cover lock) at Munster beyond Kleyn and Holland?

Whether IRFU agree or not is a different story

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I’m not sure, which are you referring to? Something on the IRFUs end or something on the media’s end?

That the journos are not reporting on their own.
If this was anyone but a journalist they would be all over each other to be the one reporting what was said

thomond2006

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Im hearing his move to gloucester is in doubt and Munster are interested in retaining him. Whats the contract situation with the 2nd rowers (and backrowers who cover lock) at Munster beyond Kleyn and Holland?

Whether IRFU agree or not is a different story

Tadhg Beirne 2020
Gerbrandt Grobler 2018
Billy Holland 2020
Jean Kleyn 2019
Darren O'Shea 2020
Fineen Wycherley 2019

Sean O'Connor Year 2

There's already 5 signed up and SOC will be in Year 3 (though he has been playing at 6 mostly). There's no room for Grobler and with the B&I scrapped you can afford to have a smaller squad.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

If it was an honest mistake, then we wouldn’t be left guessing. It’s that simple, there is no way if it was just an honest mistake, that ROC or the other journalists wouldn’t have published exactly what it was.

This logic doesn’t follow whatsoever.

If it’s an honest mistake that was corrected upon request, they absolutely shouldn’t be allowed to get away with coercing it into the public domain just to make a journalist the center of the story. Same reason he probably shouldn’t have come forward and the others were declining to name him. Just as your own employer/colleagues should protect you at your own job.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That the journos are not reporting on their own.
If this was anyone but a journalist they would be all over each other to be the one reporting what was said

You’re asking why union members aren’t reporting on a member of their union who they perceive as being under attack by a 3rd party?

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This logic doesn’t follow whatsoever.

If it’s an honest mistake that was corrected upon request, they absolutely shouldn’t be allowed to get away with coercing it into the public domain just to make a journalist the center of the story. Same reason he probably shouldn’t have come forward and the others were declining to name him. Just as your own employer/colleagues should protect you at your own job.

So journalists should be able to publish stories without backing them up in any way is what you're saying? I mean the article was put out in the public domain with the mistake and the subsequent correction so the DP stuff isn't exactly relevant here is it? It's all technically a matter of public record.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

So journalists should be able to publish stories without backing them up in any way is what you're saying?

Why would anyone bother replying to ****e like this? Would you?

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This logic doesn’t follow whatsoever.

If it’s an honest mistake that was corrected upon request, they absolutely shouldn’t be allowed to get away with coercing it into the public domain just to make a journalist the center of the story. Same reason he probably shouldn’t have come forward and the others were declining to name him. Just as your own employer/colleagues should protect you at your own job.

But he did and now it's news and should be reported on.

I disagree with the IRFU but journalists can't just decide to avoid answering questions which they would ask of others

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You’re asking why union members aren’t reporting on a member of their union who they perceive as being under attack by a 3rd party?

What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and the kind of official stonewall which journalists would expose if they were truthful about the public's right to know

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why would anyone bother replying to ****e like this? Would you?

How else is anyone meant to read what you said? If they didn't say who the person was then they couldn't say what the article was. If they couldn't reference the article then they can't reference the mistake. If they can't reference the mistake then we have no basis on which to judge the situation. If we have no reference point for judging it then the whole story becomes a mess where the journos claim something happened but provide no real context or details around it. Which is what has happened regardless of the fact that we know the individual in question.

Once you're in a situation like that, and you accept it as being a reasonable standard, how easy would it be to start making stuff up? And is this kind of "keeping quiet" not the exact same kind of keeping quiet that the IRFU have been getting grief off these same people for in relation to the Best and Grobler issues?

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and the kind of official stonewall which journalists would expose if they were truthful about the public's right to know

If the print journalists all came out in support of a named colleague, the same people who are currently asking "why aren't they reporting on it?" would instantly change tack to "oh, look at the journalists circling the wagons, typical".

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

If the print journalists all came out in support of a named colleague, the same people who are currently asking "why aren't they reporting on it?" would instantly change tack to "oh, look at the journalists circling the wagons, typical".

Wow, crystal ball gazing again then? I mean I'm not sure how I and others aren't meant to take that personally. You're projecting onto us behaviours that not all of us, at least, would show.

If they reported on it and gave us something to actually go on I might be able to form an opinion on the matter. Assuming you know what that opinion is, is quite frankly, insulting. So please stop tarring people with a brush that you've picked up from somewhere else.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This logic doesn’t follow whatsoever.

If it’s an honest mistake that was corrected upon request, they absolutely shouldn’t be allowed to get away with coercing it into the public domain just to make a journalist the center of the story. Same reason he probably shouldn’t have come forward and the others were declining to name him. Just as your own employer/colleagues should protect you at your own job.

I made a mistake and printed “x”, wouldn’t make ROC the center of the story, anymore so than admitting he was the journalist in question would. If anything admitting that, while omitting the reason only serves to extend this and place him very much at the center.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and the kind of official stonewall which journalists would expose if they were truthful about the public's right to know

Sorry, but where is this hypocrisy exactly from RWI members? I think you're getting worked up here by a bit of a straw man, you're (or perhaps another poster I've missed) bringing this whole "public's right to know" into this as far as I can see.