Hawthorn sledge Clark? Clark doesn't think so : Joel Selwood cries wolf

[eldorado]

And I think that should be it for any more 'finger-pointing' posts at other members...

 

[threesixpio]

O.K then....Name the posters you think have crossed the line....Make your point TO THEM about how you have issues with what they have to say....And stop hiding behind & sniping my comments in a second hand manner Sweet-Pea!

If you want to bitch & moan about your own MOBS supporters & their opinions then address them directly!

And I have throughout this thread - including to you. You're funny how you say people are on high horses when they don't agree with you mate. When you're called out you get agro. Well done mate.

 

[threesixpio]

And I think that should be it for any more 'finger-pointing' posts at other members...

Sure. I'll stop. Sorry

 

[Procrastinator35]

Sure. I'll stop. Sorry

Damien Barrett....Is that YOU?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Damian Barrett blocked me on twitter after I suggested he should check his facts before breaking stories and slandering clubs. I wasn't even abusive.

What a fragile, sook of a person he is. He should know that a key requirement of his job as a journalist is to be accountable. If he wants to break rumour and inuendo stories then he should go get a job with the Women's Weekly.

The thing that annoys me about Barrett, and the main reason I detest the football media in general is they are more interested in biting the hand that feeds them than being fair and just. In other words, football is good to these people, it offers them well paid employment and yet all they want to do is slander the game.

They get sniff of a story, they don't care if there's any truth in it or not, they don't care if innocent parties get hurt, and run with it because they want to be the first to break the story. Then, after they are proven to be incorrect, is there any apology forthcoming? Of course not, because it takes a decent person to say they were wrong, and you won't find any of that type of person in the media.

 

[seysearles]

 

[QuietB]

The thing that annoys me about Barrett, and the main reason I detest the football media in general is they are more interested in biting the hand that feeds them than being fair and just. In other words, football is good to these people, it offers them well paid employment and yet all they want to do is slander the game.

They get sniff of a story, they don't care if there's any truth in it or not, they don't care if innocent parties get hurt, and run with it because they want to be the first to break the story. Then, after they are proven to be incorrect, is there any apology forthcoming? Of course not, because it takes a decent person to say they were wrong, and you won't find any of that type of person in the media.

That's what the footy media is though. I have no issue with Barrett on this. Selwood could have made the exact same statement that Clark issued via twitter. But Selwood didn't. Selwood chose to sling mud.

Attacking Barrett is nothing more than shooting the messenger. Barrett is reporting what Selwood said. Selwood owes the apology or an explanation of the facts of the event justifying his comments.

But of course neither will not be forthcoming.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

That's what the footy media is though. I have no issue with Barrett on this. Selwood could have made the exact same statement that Clark issued via twitter. But Selwood didn't. Selwood chose to sling mud.

Attacking Barrett is nothing more than shooting the messenger. Barrett is reporting what Selwood said. Selwood owes the apology or an explanation of the facts of the event justifying his comments.

But of course neither will not be forthcoming.

That's my point. Barrett reported what Selwood said. Did he make any effort to find out if the story was vaild? No, he just ran with the story. s**t journalism, and he's a s**t person.

 

[Brant]

The thing that annoys me about Barrett, and the main reason I detest the football media in general is they are more interested in biting the hand that feeds them than being fair and just. In other words, football is good to these people, it offers them well paid employment and yet all they want to do is slander the game.

They get sniff of a story, they don't care if there's any truth in it or not, they don't care if innocent parties get hurt, and run with it because they want to be the first to break the story. Then, after they are proven to be incorrect, is there any apology forthcoming? Of course not, because it takes a decent person to say they were wrong, and you won't find any of that type of person in the media.

It's disposable journalism mate.

They're interested in making the headline - the story is just a general means of justification (of the headline) & so is more written to support their initial claim as opposed to investigating a matter, writing a story based on fact then creating a title/headline about the actual issue. That stuff takes time. The way i-media & that twitter crap works is to get as much junk out in the public arena as possible. Nobody cares for accuracy as your original post will likely be gone in 6 hours, but your message (i-legacy?) may be talked about a week later. These clowns, as well as maybe not having the ability, don't have 'the time' to actually investigate stuff because by the time they've verified & validated sources, some other twitter-nut will have run with the crap they would've posted.

It's just a sh*t state of affairs.

As for the bolded part, nobody is worse than David King. He has such a need to be the breaking lead of any story that he splatter-guns so much crap so as to be the predictor of at least something. He sees a small part of the game in isolation, creates an alternate universe whereby this snippet of info is paramount to the outcome, then declares it as fact. The way he jumped on Port's bandwagon last year is ridiculous. He sees 'running power' in isolation of 'football' & makes i to be the most important thing on Earth, then makes huge predictions on it; seeming forgetting that the game of football isn't a running race. Same with Sydney - apparently all you need is two overpaid forward - they don't actually have to score...

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Come on Grant, you've been around long enough to know the answers to those questions.

 

[QuietB]

That's my point. Barrett reported what Selwood said. Did he make any effort to find out if the story was vaild? No, he just ran with the story. s**t journalism, and he's a s**t person.

All journalism is s**t. Journalists exist to sell advertising space, nothing more nothing less. Some manage to do some pretty good work within that framework, but unless they are at the ABC their core responsibility is the same.

And to add to that, any journalist who took themselves seriously would not even be on the footy show.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's disposable journalism mate.

They're interested in making the headline - the story is just a general means of justification (of the headline) & so is more written to support their initial claim as opposed to investigating a matter, writing a story based on fact then creating a title/headline about the actual issue. That stuff takes time. The way i-media & that twitter crap works is to get as much junk out in the public arena as possible. Nobody cares for accuracy as your original post will likely be gone in 6 hours, but your message (i-legacy?) may be talked about a week later. These clowns, as well as maybe not having the ability, don't have 'the time' to actually investigate stuff because by the time they've verified & validated sources, some other twitter-nut will have run with the crap they would've posted.

It's just a sh*t state of affairs.

As for the bolded part, nobody is worse than David King. He has such a need to be the breaking lead of any story that he splatter-guns so much crap so as to be the predictor of at least something. He sees a small part of the game in isolation, creates an alternate universe whereby this snippet of info is paramount to the outcome, then declares it as fact. The way he jumped on Port's bandwagon last year is ridiculous. He sees 'running power' in isolation of 'football' & makes i to be the most important thing on Earth, then makes huge predictions on it; seeming forgetting that the game of football isn't a running race. Same with Sydney - apparently all you need is two overpaid forward - they don't actually have to score...

You know the part I really can't get my head around? If I wrote a book and made false statements or accusations, I can be sued to the shithouse, but if I am a tabloid journalist, I can throw around as much s**t as I like without fear of retribution. I've never understood the difference.

 

[Davo23]

All journalism is s**t. Journalists exist to sell advertising space, nothing more nothing less. Some manage to do some pretty good work within that framework, but unless they are at the ABC their core responsibility is the same.

And to add to that, any journalist who took themselves seriously would not even be on the footy show.

I just wanted to quote the bolder part.

Spot on.

 

[Kil Phearns]

Even if we pummel * by 100 points, I won't be reading the paper tomorrow. The big "story" will probably be about how the "fine, brave, upstanding * players" were unfairly booed by the "big, bad Hawks supporters"...

Love how we're always painted as the bad guys, and * are always the good guys. Think LITS game, Round 22 2009, etc.

 

[cryptor]

That's what the footy media is though. I have no issue with Barrett on this. Selwood could have made the exact same statement that Clark issued via twitter. But Selwood didn't. Selwood chose to sling mud.

Attacking Barrett is nothing more than shooting the messenger. Barrett is reporting what Selwood said. Selwood owes the apology or an explanation of the facts of the event justifying his comments.

But of course neither will not be forthcoming.

If he was a legitimate journalist he would have done his due diligence when he came across this story. That involves questioning his source privately to ensure they have enough details for him to go fact check with, then questioning Mitch Clark regarding it, and then finally seeking a statement from Hawthorn FC and the player accused.

If he'd done all that and he genuinely cared about the well being of Mitch Clark he would've dropped it upon questioning Clark who would've told him it wasn't as bad as he was thinking and he doesn't want to make it public.

 

[QuietB]

If he was a legitimate journalist he would have done his due diligence when he came across this story. That involves questioning his source privately to ensure they have enough details for him to go fact check with, then questioning Mitch Clark regarding it, and then finally seeking a statement from Hawthorn FC and the player accused.

If he'd done all that and he genuinely cared about the well being of Mitch Clark he would've dropped it upon questioning Clark who would've told him it wasn't as bad as he was thinking and he doesn't want to make it public.

Again, you are overstating what journalism is.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I find it difficult to believe - no really I do that Barrett sat on this story for three days knowing that selwood was going to be a guest on the show and would wait till then to verify his information. It seems, contrary to what poor cats fans want everyone to believe, that selwood gave him the heads up before the show and hence the question live.

It's nice to know someone has the perception to see the situation for what it was. I've said before that Selwood obviously would have asked Barrett to raise it. Nothing clearer in my mind. As you've said, if Barrett had wind of this earlier, he wouldn't have waited until the Thursday night to mention it. I think that's pretty obvious. No journo waits to break a juicy bit of gossip.

Clark doesn't want anyone to make a fuss about his mental health issues, so here's his captain blurting it out on national TV. Way to respect your team mate's wishes Selwood. I was also annoyed by the inference that because Motlop broke club rules and has been suspended for a week, somehow it was Hawthorn's fault.

I have been fast losing respect for Selwood over the past couple of years, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. He's in the Hird and Sheedy class of pooh people. He is now an enemy of the Hawthorn Football Club. Any misfortune he suffers in future will be greeted with a raise of a glass and a smile from me.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Apart from being a seriously good player - selwood is a terrible captain.

 

[cryptor]

Again, you are overstating what journalism is.

I'm fully aware of the state of sports journalism here in Australia. I've already stated that they care more about ad revenue generation than they do in reporting factual stories. That's what it currently is. That doesn't mean that's the standards we should be accepting. As someone mentioned, if they were to publish a book with stuff like that in there they would be sued for defamation yet because he's a "journalist" he gets off scot free.

http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html Barrett is probably guilty of breaking at least half of these codes from this story alone.

I reckon he's failed on points 1, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 12 with this sledging story.

 

[Blaze Storm]

How good will Freo go today - they have a truckload of new material to work with We could see a bloodbath

Selwood is a sook. Plain and simple. That is the only story here.

#shitcaptain

I can foresee a little "Oi Selwood, You gonna tell your Mummy on me?" "Don't worry, mate, I told her last night."

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

Or The Age!

Do you mean Reuters and AAP? Who is this 'The Age' you speak of

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

Come on Grant, you've been around long enough to know the answers to those questions.

He just wants others to think about it

 

[Gunstall555]

I have been fast losing respect for Selwood over the past couple of years, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. He's in the Hird and Sheedy class of pooh people. He is now an enemy of the Hawthorn Football Club. Any misfortune he suffers in future will be greeted with a raise of a glass and a smile from me.

This would make an interesting thread topic.

 

[Fossie 32]

How come Bombers fans were booing Lake after Clark tweeted that he didn't name Lake as the sledger? Either he didn't, or that's a lie, or is that ok because it's the 'Players' Code'?

 

[hardway]

How come Bombers fans were booing Lake after Clark tweeted that he didn't name Lake as the sledger? Either he didn't, or that's a lie, or is that ok because it's the 'Players' Code'?

They put clarks tweet through the shredder and as such didn't happen.