NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

 

[Del191229]

Wasn't Thomas criticised in the media and booed for much the same reasons that Jack Ginnivan was this year. - An act that was viewed as dirty and playing for free kicks?

Ah yes, a Collingwood supporter downplaying and denying racism.

I suppose fans only booed Goodes because "he's a flog" too

 

[Del191229]

I'll say.

I mean, wow. We've all been witness to one of the greatest melts in BigFooty history!

That post speaks volumes about your character

 

[Ricketz]

It shits me there's no indigenous footy journo who could have done this. Tony Armstrong is great but he's a broadcaster and not really at the stage of his career to handle something like this.

Jack Latimore at The Age would have been a far better option that Jackson too.

Except none of them did. It's not like these are recent events. They had every opportunity to.

Why does it shit you, anyway?

 

[Ricketz]

That post speaks volumes about your character

Irony again. You are good at this.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It shits me there's no indigenous footy journo who could have done this. Tony Armstrong is great but he's a broadcaster and not really at the stage of his career to handle something like this.

Jack Latimore at The Age would have been a far better option that Jackson too.

It's probable his work on the Road Owen story, then the Robbie Muir one, was why these people were comfortable with him telling their story.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That post speaks volumes about your character

We all have our cross to bear.

 

[Del191229]

Except none of them did. It's not like these are recent events. They had every opportunity to.

Why does it s**t you, anyway?

They are recent events in the media sense, they only came to light in August when Egan wrote his report.

Why they didn't come up before Egan, well, hmmm, hey, that is quite the question isn't it.

 

[Ricketz]

They are recent events in the media sense, they only came to light in August when Egan wrote his report.

Why they didn't come up before Egan, well, hmmm, hey, that is quite the question isn't it.

It's not the question at all. Why not be a grown up and say what you are really implying?

Now let me get this straight - you are complaining because no indigenous journalist broke the story, because Egan broke the story in August and Jackson released his story in September.

It's a bit difficult to figure out, because you are conflating issues and being vague.

 

[Del191229]

The knots people are tying themselves into to avoid having to acknowledge Jackson did s shit job are quite stunning.

 

[Ricketz]

The knots people are tying themselves into to avoid having to acknowledge Jackson did s s**t job are quite stunning.

Irony again. There should be a third strike rule.

Would you like to address the question I put to you?

 

[mcnulty]

Irony again. There should be a third strike rule.

Would you like to address the question I put to you?

I’ll have a stab. Egan in his report proposed mediation as the preferred method of reconciliation. Presumably in part to protact the families from potentially nasty and protracted legal proceedings. By putting everything in the public domain as he has, Jackson may have put that at risk.

 

[travelli]

One person's account by definition can never be the complete story.

I mean there's a whole artistic tradition based on this incontrovertible reality.

But it can start the conversation.

I doubt the journalist thought his story was going to be the beginning and end of the matter

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That post speaks volumes about your character

I think if you ever reflect back on your embarrassing behaviour in this thread one day, you'll realise how ironic this post is.

 

[sr36]

Ah yes, a Collingwood supporter downplaying and denying racism.

I suppose fans only booed Goodes because "he's a flog" too

I don't assume that Alastair Clarkson was racist, despite the startling stories. I don't assume that you are racist, despite your irrational aggressive criticisms of a journalist for "pointing out" something that may be racism. Nor do I assume that the people who booed Adam Goodes were racist. I think he was booed for a complex variety of reasons that include race.

The Lindsay Thomas booing may have involved racism, but it may also have been small forwardism. That AFL phenomenon where successful small forwards are routinely demonised by opposition supporters for employing the tricks of the trade. And Lindsay did employ those tricks.

One thing I do assume is that if Jack Ginnivan was indigenous, the treatment he received this year from media and fans would be described as racism and anyone who suggested otherwise would have aspersions cast against them.

 

[RichLeMonde]

So if you believe the people making the allegations why not Jacksons reporting of them???? Thats all he has done.

Because as we saw with the quite different interpretations of Hood’s letter, it’s possible for people to genuinely believe something without it being an unequivocal fact.

The players could have genuinely felt that they were told by Clarkson that they must break up with their partners, have abortions etc, but that doesn’t mean that that is what Clarkson unequivocally actually said to them.

That’s exactly why a good journo would do the work to genuinely try to get the other side of the story, not just put in a token request for comment a day before the story breaks.

I believe the players believe what they are saying, but I don’t yet have reason to believe that their version of events is an unequivocal fact.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Well I guess now it’s all ok with clarkson and Fagan returning to work before the investigation begins , and people wonder why the players don’t trust the afl

 

[blackshadow]

Well I guess now it’s all ok with clarkson and Fagan returning to work before the investigation begins , and people wonder why the players don’t trust the afl

If the indigenous players at North are happy for Clarko to start work at Arden Street, it's good enough for me.

 

[Makeshift Park]

What are you talking about? There is corroborating evidence from six eyewitnesses.

It’s quite simply not true that there were six eyewitnesses to each instance where Fagan and Clarkson are alleged to have caused someone harm.

In this country, when a reporter defames someone, there are only a select few defences available to them. One is a truth defence. But in order to argue that, they need to be able to demonstrate the imputation conveyed in their work is substantially true. Arguing that they’ve accurately conveyed someone’s allegation is insufficient. They need to stack up the allegation itself.

We have three separate players making separate allegations suggesting a single pattern of discriminatory behaviour. But if you want to substantiate the allegation by “Zac,” you can’t simply point to a completely separate allegation by “Ian.”

Reread the most incendiary passage of the article, where Ian recalls Clarkson leaning over him and demanding his partners pregnancy is terminated, and show me where there is anything to back up his recollection of that meeting.

You think these people all got together and concocted the story? You think they took notes?

No.

What bar would satisfy you? Photos?

Given the decision to name Clarkson, Fagan and Burt, anything that shows on the balance of probabilities that the terrible things they are alleged to have done actually happened.

Should the AFL not have published this?

"The AFL takes extremely seriously all matters where people report experiencing harm, discrimination or mistreatment in our industry. We recently received a document from the Hawthorn Football Club outlining very serious allegations gathered during the recently completed review by an external consultant who interviewed current and former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander players.

The experiences outlined in the document are extremely serious and require further and full examination."

It seems like an entirely appropriate response to me.

 

[sr36]

It’s quite simply not true that there were six eyewitnesses to each instance where Fagan and Clarkson are alleged to have caused someone harm.

In this country, when a reporter defames someone, there are only a select few defences available to them. One is a truth defence. But in order to argue that, they need to be able to demonstrate the imputation conveyed in their work is substantially true. Arguing that they’ve accurately conveyed someone’s allegation is insufficient. They need to stack up the allegation itself.

We have three separate players making separate allegations suggesting a single pattern of discriminatory behaviour. But if you want to substantiate the allegation by “Zac,” you can’t simply point to a completely separate allegation by “Ian.”

Reread the most incendiary passage of the article, where Ian recalls Clarkson leaning over him and demanding his partners pregnancy is terminated, and show me where there is anything to back up his recollection of that meeting.


No.

Given the decision to name Clarkson, Fagan and Burt, anything that shows on the balance of probabilities that the terrible things are alleged to have done actually happened.

It seems like an entirely appropriate response to me.

We've got the ABC editors and lawyers ticking off the story. We don't know all the info that was used to make that risk assessment. We've not heard a squeak about defamation from the accused or their lawyers. Why is there a lot of insinuation that the story isn't kosher?

We talk a lot about benefit of the doubt in stories like this. Surely, the benefit of the doubt lies firmly with Jackson regarding his story. And frankly, no credible doubt has yet appeared. None. Nada.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

If the indigenous players at North are happy for Clarko to start work at Arden Street, it's good enough for me.

I’m sure Jed is ecstatic.

 

[Makeshift Park]

We've got the ABC editors and lawyers ticking off the story. We don't know all the info that was used to make that risk assessment. We've not heard a squeak about defamation from the accused or their lawyers.

That's not true. Reread Clarkson's response.

As the allegations against me have been spread widely and sometimes presented as indisputable matters of fact, I must state that my clear memory of the matters reported is very different.

I will continue to cooperate with the AFL and I am trying to retain my trust that it will put in place a fair, respectful and supportive process for all involved. However, I will not hesitate to take further steps to protect my position and reputation should that be necessary

Those further steps to protect his reputation would be litigation.

Why is there a lot of insinuation that the story isn't kosher?

We talk a lot about benefit of the doubt in stories like this. Surely, the benefit of the doubt lies firmly with Jackson regarding his story. And frankly, no credible doubt has yet appeared.

Its entirely appropriate that readers debate a controversial story on its journalistic merits. This story is no different.
I'm not that interested in speculating on Jackson's motives. I'm interested in what the weight of the evidence shows us, the readers.

 

[blackshadow]

I’m sure Jed is ecstatic.

My understanding is that Jed has no issue with Clarko.

 

[BigPond101]

Bigfooty needs to put together a team of white saviours to go down to North's training sessions and explain to their first nation's players that Clarkson is racist and they shouldn't have anything to do with him. I have a bad feeling their indigenous players don't really understand the situation and we need to protect them before it's too late

 

[sr36]

That's not true. Reread Clarkson's response.


Those further steps to protect his reputation would be litigation.

Its entirely appropriate that readers debate a controversial story on its journalistic merits. This story is no different.
I'm not that interested in speculating on Jackson's motives. I'm interested in what the weight of the evidence shows us, the readers.

Good points. The real issue though is that we can't debate it as we don't have the evidence. I think it may have been you, but as someone pointed out earlier, we just don't have enough evidence to say either way whether it was good journalism. However, as far as I'm concerned, the benefit of the doubt lies heavily with Jackson. And at the moment, there just aren't any credible doubts, unless someone is running with the strange notion that the initial news report must cover the whole gamut of a story.

 

[Makeshift Park]

And at the moment, there just aren't any credible doubts, unless someone is running with the strange notion that the initial news report must cover the whole gamut of a story.

You mean, there are no credible doubts, aside from the fact Clarkson and Fagan deny all misconduct in relation to any of this.