IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

No crystal ball required, I'm speaking from a long experience of posting on boards.ie.

I wasn't talking about you, you may consider yourself tar-free.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

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.

Sorry, but it absolutely would. And it'd make him a target from the types of people who've been hurling insults at the journalists over this issue.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

How else is anyone meant to read what you said?

Actually reading it would be a start. If you want to do that and come back to me on the actual topic of the thread I'm all ears, I'm not arguing about something I didn't say.

phog

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".

But they have circled the wagons - or have I missed one or more of them publishing the facts as they know it, like is the full story out there somewhere for us all to read?

phog

phog wrote: »

But they have circled the wagons - or have I missed one or more of them publishing the facts as they know it, like is the full story out there somewhere for us all to read?

Certainly what it looks like to me. Rightly or wrongly.

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

But they have circled the wagons - or have I missed one or more of them publishing the facts as they know it, like is the full story out there somewhere for us all to read?

A few of them have spoken about it yes. Supposedly Thornley spoke about it last night on 2nd Captains but I haven't heard that. Watterson's article in the IT gave a pretty decent rundown of what he knows, albeit omitting the name of the journalist or saying what the error was.

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A few of them have spoken about it yes. Supposedly Thornley spoke about it last night on 2nd Captains but I haven't heard that. Watterson's article in the IT gave a pretty decent rundown of what he knows, albeit omitting the name of the journalist or saying what the error was.

Spoke about it, yes, but actual specifics haven't been forthcoming. Thornley suggested that he couldn't say much about it for legal reasons. To me, that's the most logical reason why we haven't heard the details yet.

Ultimately, we don't know the specifics from either side so drawing conclusions either way is, in my view, premature in the extreme. And that doesn't mean I'm pro/anti-IRFU or pro/anti-Journalists in this. A point which one or 2 posters on here seem to be missing.

phog

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A few of them have spoken about it yes. Supposedly Thornley spoke about it last night on 2nd Captains but I haven't heard that. Watterson's article in the IT gave a pretty decent rundown of what he knows, albeit omitting the name of the journalist or saying what the error was.

There's more written here than any journalist or group have written on it and they're supposed to be the injured party.

irishbucsfan

Just listening to Thornley there about how things have been getting worse. He is chairman of RWI.

He said he was the one who told Brendan O'Brien that IRFU-media relations are at their lowest point ever. He said that some of the interviews they've been doing for years have been taken away and solely given to IRFU run media outlets. He has been told specifically by the IRFU that they see RWI as a direct competitor. Shane Horgan sounded pretty appalled at that and came in then to wholeheartedly support the journalists and said it's the one thing he thinks Schmidt gets wrong. He said he's petty with the media and it doesn't serve Joe well. Then he did that thing where he says the same thing 7 billion times over and over again (that Irish rugby gets a really good run from the media). Thornley said they couldn't speak specifically about the issue in Paris for "all sorts of legal reasons".

irishbucsfan

aloooof wrote: »

Spoke about it, yes, but actual specifics haven't been forthcoming. Thornley suggested that he couldn't say much about it for legal reasons. To me, that's the most logical reason why we haven't heard the details yet.

Ultimately, we don't know the specifics from either side so drawing conclusions either way is, in my view, premature in the extreme. And that doesn't mean I'm pro/anti-IRFU or pro/anti-Journalists in this. A point which one or 2 posters on here seem to be missing.

Yes, I'd say you're right.

Also, completely fair enough with your 2nd point, not forming an opinion is absolutely fair enough. Noone has to form an opinion at all. However there's one way of doing that, which I'd say is your way and also the way of others here, which is absolutely fair enough. There's another way, which is to attack the integrity of the writers, which isn't quite "not taking a side". Neither is criticising those who have decided they're happy enough with the evidence to form an opinion.

Yeah_Right

Wait. The journalists are refusing to say anything due to legal reasons!! Does anyone else find that hilarious?

phog

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Just listening to Thornley there about how things have been getting worse. He is chairman of RWI.

He said he was the one who told Brendan O'Brien that IRFU-media relations are at their lowest point ever. He said that some of the interviews they've been doing for years have been taken away and solely given to IRFU run media outlets.

This sounds like the RWI are peeved that the IRFU are promoting their own business primarily through their media outlets and making money from it - cry me a river

Thornley said they couldn't speak specifically about the issue in Paris for "all sorts of legal reasons"

poacher turned gamekeeper

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Wait. The journalists are refusing to say anything due to legal reasons!! Does anyone else find that hilarious?

Why is that hilarious exactly?

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

This sounds like the RWI are peeved that the IRFU are promoting their own business primarily through their media outlets and making money from it - cry me a river

The IRFU is a non-profit NGB. If they shutter up it's a very, very bad thing for Irish rugby. Maybe you can't see the potential repercussions of the IRFU not being held to account, but you will when unscrutinised decisions start filtering down to a part of the game that you're fond of and there's nothing pushing back against them.

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why is that hilarious exactly?

Think about it. IRFU ask the journalists not to bring up something due to legal matters, journos ignore them, IRFU tell them to cut it out or the press conference is over, IRFU and their employees then gets grief in the newspapers about the whole thing.

Now the same journalists can't talk about this incident due to legal reasons. The hypocrisy makes me laugh.

Hurrache

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".

That's a massive, and incorrent, presumption to make. You still hold the belief that those not instantly insisting the IRFU are our next dictatorship then we're automatically IRFU fanboys.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Think about it. IRFU ask the journalists not to bring up something due to legal matters, journos ignore them, IRFU tell them to cut it out or the press conference is over, IRFU and their employees then gets grief in the newspapers about the whole thing.

Fantasy.

Neil3030

I want an independent press reporting on rugby. But I also want to know exactly what ROC printed, and what events followed, before I make my mind up on whether the IRFU cancelling a media session was out of line. There is more to this than anyone knows right now.

aloooof

phog wrote: »

This sounds like the RWI are peeved that the IRFU are promoting their own business primarily through their media outlets and making money from it - cry me a riverr

Reluctant to wade in further on this, as I've said as much as I want to say on it above, but I have to ask, would you rather be getting your Irish Rugby news from members of the RWI or a sanitised version from the IRFU?

Press briefings are ultimately as much a platform to address the fans as the journalists.

I've stated above that I don't want to make any conclusions until I know the specifics, which have not yet been forthcoming. But I can equally see that the RWI having reduced access is not a good thing.

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

I want an independent press reporting on rugby. But I also want to know exactly what ROC printed, and what events followed, before I make my mind up on whether the IRFU cancelling a media session was out of line. There is more to this than anyone knows right now.

Well Thornley said that he was told specifically in his role as Chairman that the IRFU see RWI as a direct competitor. That's worrying enough as it is.

It may be that ROC did something horrible and intentional (which means he's lying and it'll ultimately see him removed from the union, as others before him have discovered). If that's the case then fair enough. But it's still deeply worrying to hear what Thornley has said.

OldRio

I'm another poster who likes to know the facts before drawing any conclusions. I'm kinda old fashioned like that.

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, I'd say you're right.

Also, completely fair enough with your 2nd point, not forming an opinion is absolutely fair enough. Noone has to form an opinion at all. However there's one way of doing that, which I'd say is your way and also the way of others here, which is absolutely fair enough. There's another way, which is to attack the integrity of the writers, which isn't quite "not taking a side". Neither is criticising those who have decided they're happy enough with the evidence to form an opinion.

I agree with you on much of this, but can't see where you're coming from on the final line. Unless you mean (which seems to be the case) that some people seem to know more than others, so may be privy to more of the evidence? Based on what we know to be in the public domain, it's premature imo.

phog

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The IRFU is a non-profit NGB. If they shutter up it's a very, very bad thing for Irish rugby. Maybe you can't see the potential repercussions of the IRFU not being held to account, but you will when unscrutinised decisions start filtering down to a part of the game that you're fond of and there's nothing pushing back against them.

Fantasy

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well Thornley said that he was told specifically in his role as Chairman that the IRFU see RWI as a direct competitor. That's worrying enough as it is.

He did say that but I find the notion of someone from the IRFU telling him specifically that they saw the media now as a competitor absolutely bizarre.

Jack Kanoff

??

connemara man

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

He did say that but I find the notion of someone from the IRFU telling him specifically that they saw the media now as a competitor absolutely bizarre.

Just on this, the IRFU release interviews under the guise of an exclusive. How can it be an exclusive if they are an employee of yours?

Rowan Squeaking Baton

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

He did say that but I find the notion of someone from the IRFU telling him specifically that they saw the media now as a competitor absolutely bizarre.

Were also getting the information exclusively from the side that now feel their livelihood is in jeopardy.

That certainly shouldn't make us in any way sceptical though.

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

Fantasy

It's absolutely not. I assure you. I can tell you at great lengths, if you ever want to discuss it, of real-world examples.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Were also getting the information exclusively from the side that now feel their livelihood is in jeopardy.

That certainly shouldn't make us in any way sceptical though.

They're telling us why they think their livelihood is in jeopardy.

Either Thornley is telling a direct lie, which surely the IRFU will ask he corrects, or their livelihood actually is in jeopardy and we should all be concerned.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They're telling us why they think their livelihood is in jeopardy.

Either Thornley is telling a direct lie, which surely the IRFU will ask he corrects, or their livelihood actually is in jeopardy and we should all be concerned.

Thornley seemed fairly unfussed by the whole thing, I certainly didn't get the impression of a man who thought he'd be out of a job any time soon. Did you?

irishbucsfan

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

Thornley seemed fairly unfussed by the whole thing, I certainly didn't get the impression of a man who thought he'd be out of a job any time soon. Did you?

No, I didn't. I'm just allowing Venjur's conceit.

Thornley knows that they've been here long before the lads on the other side and they'll be there long after, hopefully.

CMOTDibbler

I've been following this with interest for a while and have made some enquiries. Some of what's been said here is pretty wide of the mark and some has been a bit closer to what I've been told.

Relations between the IRFU and the print media are at an all-time low, that's a fact. It's interesting reading how this is being reported because although it's not very clear, there are areas of conflict that are apparent. Firstly that this is affectinig print media only. There's no discussion on other media such as TV or online outlets. The mention of the 'huddle' is particularly relevant since this is a print media only privilege. As are apparently facilities within the Aviva for print journalists to compile and file their copy.

The IRFU want to expand those 'privileges' to the online media, who are very much the poor relation on match days. I assume this is the likes of Balls.ie and The 42 etc. The print media don't want this and have been fighting hard to resist it. I don't know how it escalated (possibly the ROC thing) but an ultimatum was given to the IRFU that they'd boycott the huddle if this proposal didn't go away. The IRFU then cancelled the 'huddle'.

So in essence it's print vs online. The IRFU can be considered part of that online presence, so the presentation of this being the IRFU pushing their online activities is accurate if you squint a bit and look through your fingers.

I obviously can't verify any of this, but you're all open to making enquiries as I did.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Sorry, but it absolutely would. And it'd make him a target from the types of people who've been hurling insults at the journalists over this issue.

Sorry but that really is taking out of both sides of your mouth. Putting your hand up and admitting to a mistake is one thing, trying to portray yourself as a marter, while concealing the facts is just spin. His current stance invites criticism, it’s hypocritical in the extreme.

If the IRFU came out and said we made a mistake, we aren’t going to tell you what it is, ROC, you and everybody else would be screaming blue murder.

Hurrache

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The IRFU want to expand those 'privileges' to the online media, who are very much the poor relation on match days. I assume this is the likes of Balls.ie and The 42 etc. The print media don't want this and have been fighting hard to resist it. I don't know how it escalated (possibly the ROC thing) but an ultimatum was given to the IRFU that they'd boycott the huddle if this proposal didn't go away. The IRFU then cancelled the 'huddle'.

So in essence it's print vs online. The IRFU can be considered part of that online presence, so the presentation of this being the IRFU pushing their online activities is accurate if you squint a bit and look through your fingers.

I obviously can't verify any of this, but you're all open to making enquiries as I did.

That's quite interesting if this is a reason. The print vs online has been ongoing a while now in all spheres of journalism, not just rugby, with most of the attacks being launched from the print side of things. They use the lazy generalisation that online media is poorly researched junk by a teen in their bedroom, step forward the likes of Murray Kinsella.

Facebook news feeds are another thing trotted out by them. Now it may be because I'm an oul lad and of the wrong generation, but I don't know anyone who gets their news from Facebook feeds, in fact no news appears on mine so I don't know if I've opted out or I just don't follow any such sources.

Neil3030

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well Thornley said that he was told specifically in his role as Chairman that the IRFU see RWI as a direct competitor. That's worrying enough as it is.

It may be that ROC did something horrible and intentional (which means he's lying and it'll ultimately see him removed from the union, as others before him have discovered). If that's the case then fair enough. But it's still deeply worrying to hear what Thornley has said.

The bolded bit above would contradict the cancellation being Schmidt and Nucifora's doing - as per ROC's comments on OTB.

I just want to see for myself: what did ROC say, and how was it dealt with. If it's pretty minor, and immediately corrected, then yeah, we can debate how much of this is a paranoid/control freak coach or organisation insulating the team; or a more sinister, opportunistic exercise by the IRFU to drive rugby journalism out of business.

However, it's also possible that ROC seriously overstepped a mark, and that his employer, or his union didn't handle it in a satisfactory manner. Thus, by cancelling one media session (which is all that's happened so far), the IRFU/Schmidt are sending a timely reminder to all that such actions could have consequences.

I feel that any debate on this needs to take stock of the fact that we don't have enough information right now to fully appraise the situation.

CMOTDibbler

Hurrache wrote: »

That's quite interesting if this is a reason. The print vs online has been ongoing a while now in all spheres of journalism, not just rugby, with most of the attacks being launched from the print side of things. They use the lazy generalisation that online media is poorly researched junk by a teen in their bedroom, step forward the likes of Murray Kinsella.

Facebook news feeds are another thing trotted out by them. Now it may be because I'm an oul lad and of the wrong generation, but I don't know anyone who gets their news from Facebook feeds, in fact no news appears on mine so I don't know if I've opted out or I just don't follow any such sources.

Yeah, I don't do Facebook (although I have an account - mostly to keep up with frineds abroad) so that stuff is all ignored or blocked. But the likes of Murray Kinsella and The 42 generally would be my first port of call these days for rugby related news. I never realised that they were kept so much to the fringes until I was told. And when it's pointed out, you start noticing their absence from the print media and radio.

CMOTDibbler

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The print media don't want this and have been fighting hard to resist it. I don't know how it escalated (possibly the ROC thing) but an ultimatum was given to the IRFU that they'd boycott the huddle if this proposal didn't go away. The IRFU then cancelled the 'huddle'.

Wellity wellity wellity.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I obviously can't verify any of this, but you're all open to making enquiries as I did.

Had dinner with a friend who is in the middle of those "poor relations" last night and he's certainly completely unaware of this if that's the case. There is though a seperation between the print and online guys (the online guys also includes the radio guys now as they've reduced in numbers quite a bit) and they do sit seperately and keep to themselves.

They don't see themselves as a poor relation though. The print guys getting the briefing when a game falls on a Saturday is seen as a balance to the fact they end up waiting with that info. That's why they don't do the huddle on a Sunday game.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Had dinner with a friend who is in the middle of those "poor relations" last night and he's certainly completely unaware of this if that's the case. There is though a seperation between the print and online guys (the online guys also includes the radio guys now as they've reduced in numbers quite a bit) and they do sit seperately and keep to themselves.

They don't see themselves as a poor relation though. The print guys getting the briefing when a game falls on a Saturday is seen as a balance to the fact they end up waiting with that info. That's why they don't do the huddle on a Sunday game.

Yeah. It's hard to know, but I didn't have much difficulty finding out. Made a call, got a call back a couple of hours later and that's what I was told.

Edit: The 'poor relations' thing was just my words.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Had dinner with a friend who is in the middle of those "poor relations" last night and he's certainly completely unaware of this if that's the case. There is though a seperation between the print and online guys (the online guys also includes the radio guys now as they've reduced in numbers quite a bit) and they do sit seperately and keep to themselves.

They don't see themselves as a poor relation though. The print guys getting the briefing when a game falls on a Saturday is seen as a balance to the fact they end up waiting with that info. That's why they don't do the huddle on a Sunday game.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is not remotely true or relevant. Noone, absolutely noone, is asking for a life time ban.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is about the drug issue alone. The press have been, very rightly, skewering the IRFU's total incompetence on many issues over the past 18 months. They're tired of losing so they're taking their ball and they're going home.

So then. Who is it exactly that is tired of losing and is taking their ball home?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

So then. Who is it exactly that is tired of losing and is taking their ball home?

It's written pretty clearly in that post. Surprised you're still back on that one.

The IRFU have been absolutely dire in dealing with majorly important issues over the past 18 months. From women's rugby to drug usage and so on.

Neil3030

So just to recap all the theories:

IRFU want to as best they can do away with the media, and replace it with in-house content
IRFU want to extend print media privileges to online media
IRFU frustrated by recent coverage on certain issues
ROC printed something heinous
Schmidt hates the huddle, always has

Have I got them all? I suppose it could be more than one of the above...

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

IRFU want to do away with the media, and replace it with in-house content

Just on this, there are contractual obligations such as the post match press conference. They cannot do away with those for example, it has to be done.

Neil3030

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

Just on this, there are contractual obligations such as the post match press conference. They cannot do away with those for example, it has to be done.

List edited

CMOTDibbler

Neil3030 wrote: »

So just to recap all the theories:

IRFU want to do away with the media, and replace it with in-house content
IRFU want to extend print media privileges to online media
IRFU frustrated by recent coverage on certain issues
ROC printed something heinous
Schmidt hates the huddle, always has

Have I got them all? I suppose it could be more than one of the above...

The first one makes no sense to me. Just because you have your own outlet, doesn't mean people will use it. And certainly not use it exclusively. So there will always be other sources of news. Which means you have to talk to them if you want your message to be spread.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The first one makes no sense to me. Just because you have your own outlet, doesn't mean people will use it. And certainly not use it exclusively. So there will always be other sources of news. Which means you have to talk to them if you want your message to be spread.

Yeah I think that theory might be overstating it, but Thornley was pretty clear in what he was told by the IRFU.

The theory that print guys will be sidelined for the online group doesn’t make sense either given it’s been guys from that group who’ve been giving them interviews to air their grievances.

stephen_n

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.

The Rape of Lucretia

stephen_n wrote: »

The notion that the IRFU would want to narrow their potential exposure, by cutting out print media, seems a bit ridiculous.

Is there really such a thing any more as print media anyway. Publishing on cellulose pulp is now little more than a legacy sideline of some news channels who are as online as any of the online-only channels. The distinction is between print and online is negligible to redundant at this stage.

El_Duderino 09

I couldn't give a nugget of goat shyte about the scripted q&a session between the journalists and the irfu. The media are entitled to be upset about it but they should talk about it in their spare time. There's no need to whinge to the public about it.

Media want clickbait answers to questions and now they won't have it. I'd get much more info listening to pundits like Eddie o Sullivan than anything that comes from the Monday morning briefing. I get why journalists are upset because it's their livelihood, but it's absolutely no inconvenience for the average fan

stephen_n

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Is there really such a thing any more as print media anyway. Publishing on cellulose pulp is now little more than a legacy sideline of some news channels who are as online as any of the online-only channels. The distinction is between print and online is negligible to redundant at this stage.

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