Moved Thread Caroline Wilson

Remove this Banner Ad

she challenged the boys club. everyone of these media "experts" have conflicts. Why didn't anyone ask gary lyon if melbourne tanked staright out? hutchy and lloydy emphatically said yes without hesiation, why didn't garry respond...

she isn't right all of the time or enough of the time, but she got attacked last night for challenging the establishment...and good on her. She sat there took it and told it as she saw it.

tim watson interviewed...c'mon what is he going to say about his sons coach, asst coach and board members, most of which were installed by his work and doing. All media feel good spin. what was tim going to say?

Every other time the buck stops with the coach. Caro has maintained this and stated if found guilty the buck should stop with the coach.

And lloydy with his $5000 fine...c'mon really? I wonder what lloydy would have suggested if Knights was still coach....

Innocent until guilty but im glad at least someone is proving to be devils advocate and at least asking the question rightly or wrongly.

FWIW I feel sorry for innocent victims, those guilty... i hope they get the book thrown at them, which ever club that may be.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Baltimore Jack said:
Not so, many Journo's ofter write "opinion piece's"
Click to expand...

So what? I am not knocking opinion pieces. I am knocking a journo that almost exclusively writes opinion pieces and presents most of those as facts.

Hypo E.G she gets wind of political turmoil at Hawthorn. She can't get enough to write an article from the c.e.o or president, so she goes to the boot studder and gets his/her opinion. she then presents these opinions as proof of polictal turmoil. she doesn't name names so nothing can be verified and then blatantly refuses to admit she was wrong.

Last night on F.C was a prime example. She took an isolated snippet of the Demon presidents speech, twisted that snippet to prove that he had his head in the sand, only to be called out from Lyon, that the president was responding to an actual accusation. She was proved wrong. No apology. All we got was (to hutchy and Lloyd) "do you think Melbourne tanked in 2009?"

Side step, misdirection. then to say Lyon had no credibility on the issue, while she is plainly worng, it beggers belief that she is still in the industry.

I am confident however she will be brought back down one of these days.
 
75Cardies said:
she challenged the boys club..
Click to expand...

She says everything is a "boys club". I do not see the relevance with the Melbourne situation.

75Cardies said:
everyone of these media "experts" have conflicts. Why didn't anyone ask gary lyon if melbourne tanked staright out? hutchy and lloydy emphatically said yes without hesiation, why didn't garry respond.
Click to expand...

She didn't ask Garry. Rightly so as he was in an actual postion at the club over the last few years. They clearly tanked, as the whole world knows, but it seems there is an unwillingness to prosecute, or, dare i say, a lack of concrete evidence.

75Cardies said:
she isn't right all of the time or enough of the time, but she got attacked last night for challenging the establishment...and good on her. She sat there took it and told it as she saw it......
Click to expand...

She got attacked for attacking the president, when he was responding to an actual accusation. She was clearly wrong, claiming he was twisting the accusation levelled at the club. When exposed for being wrong, she changed her argument to "well he should have used the address to mount a better defence".

75Cardies said:
Every other time the buck stops with the coach. Caro has maintained this and stated if found guilty the buck should stop with the coach.......
Click to expand...

She has offered her opinion on this matter and i do not begrudge her that as it was presented as just that, her opinion.

75Cardies said:
And lloydy with his $5000 fine...c'mon really? I wonder what lloydy would have suggested if Knights was still coach...........
Click to expand...

Agreed, it was a stupid, naive comment. I think the point he was making was lets get this over with.

75Cardies said:
FWIW I feel sorry for innocent victims, those guilty... i hope they get the book thrown at them, which ever club that may be.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt there are many guilty parties in this whole thing. i wont stake my life on it, but as Hard To Beat stated when all this broke last week (or the big federal press conference at least), this is all smoke and mirrors and misdirection.

Something Caro loves!!!!!
 
God... Wilson...

Plenty of “news” regarding footy gets twisted and presented by the media in a certain way – I think everybody recognises this, and even if they don’t agree, can see why it is done (attract attention for the purposes of revenue)

Plenty of footy “news” is simply opinion that is dressed up as “fact” – again I think everybody recognises this, and even if they don’t agree, can see why it is done (fill space, sensationalising, etc).

Plenty of figures in the football media have conflicts of interest – people may not like this (I don’t in a lot of cases), but at least when these conflicts are transparent, you can make the choice to listen or read, or dismiss it.

The issue I (and I think many others) have is the majority of the “work” Wilson does just doesn’t fit strictly into any of these categories. She is of her own species, and her and Smith are the only ones I can think of who fit. They’re actually not strictly attention seeking, sell-more-copies types like so many other media heads who regularly attract the invective of football supporters.

Wilson now exists almost entirely to push completely personal agendas and to attempt to facilitate the downfall of football people whom she has identified, for whatever reasons, as enemies.

I don’t doubt that a some stage in the distant past, Wilson was a journalist. But she’s now been in the football industry a long time, and she’s obviously made her fair share of enemies. What is so utterly transparent is, whenever the slightest whiff of a scandal emerges, she totally casts aside any facts, or pretension of balance or reasonableness, and simply goes for the jugular of her enemies, using any and all means, no matter how ridiculous. Some of the things she’s said in the past two weeks have been inconceivable.

The vicious, personal, condescending nature of the constant attacks is what sets her apart. She has somewhat of a position of power in the media, and it’s hard to think of somebody who so totally abuses such a position. She’s so completely out of touch with reality.

I absolutely acknowledge that the last couple of weeks have shaped this view. You don’t completely notice this stuff until it’s directed at your own club. Knowing what I know now, you go back and read some of the stuff she’s directed at others, and all the same hallmarks are there.

Consider as a microcosm of all this, one quote of hers from 3AW the other night – “Trust me, Essendon will get theirs”. Gobsmacking. From somebody who actually purports to be a “journalist”. It’s so ridiculous that it would actually be funny, were it not specifically designed to ruin the careers, reputations and lives of people.

And then at the end of all this, she has the hide to claim that she’s not actually doing it. When challenged last night on FC she tried to claim she hadn’t demanded anybody’s resignation. Huh!? What!?

She’s a different type... the very, very worst type. Not a journalist or even a commentator – she’s a professional, opportunistic, highly paid uber-troll.

She thoroughly deserves every single piece of reasonable criticism that is directed her way. She’s a disgrace, and an utter cancer on the game.
 
the big lebowski said:
So what? I am not knocking opinion pieces. I am knocking a journo that almost exclusively writes opinion pieces and presents most of those as facts.

Hypo E.G she gets wind of political turmoil at Hawthorn. She can't get enough to write an article from the c.e.o or president, so she goes to the boot studder and gets his/her opinion. she then presents these opinions as proof of polictal turmoil. she doesn't name names so nothing can be verified and then blatantly refuses to admit she was wrong.

Last night on F.C was a prime example. She took an isolated snippet of the Demon presidents speech, twisted that snippet to prove that he had his head in the sand, only to be called out from Lyon, that the president was responding to an actual accusation. She was proved wrong. No apology. All we got was (to hutchy and Lloyd) "do you think Melbourne tanked in 2009?"

Side step, misdirection. then to say Lyon had no credibility on the issue, while she is plainly worng, it beggers belief that she is still in the industry.

I am confident however she will be brought back down one of these days.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're wrong
 
I don't necessarily like standing up for people who I'm indifferent towards, however I kind feel as though I need to when reading all this crap about Caro.

There's a reason she cites 'sources' all the time, and it's the same reason she doesn't name names.

If you understood the industry she's in, you'd understand that the information she's given is given to her by people who know what they're talking about, but give her the information on the proviso that she doesn't reveal who the information came from.

It's how the whole game works.

Don't believe me? Look at the ridicule heaped on those such as Dale Lewis, who come out and make statements which people deem outlandish, but as time goes on we realise are actually closer to the truth then we would have ever wanted to admit.

Hence the need to not be directly quoted, but to be a source. You get to answer the questions directed to you, give honest answers... all without fear of reprisal because your name will never appear in print.

And since the sources are just that, whatever Caro (or any other journo) prints means the attention is heaped on what was printed, not on who said it.

I also wouldn't doubt the validity of her sources. She's been in the business long enough to have contacts with every club. Sure she gets it wrong from time to time, but show me a journo who doesn't.

Can't believe I'm standing up for her.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

UpForGrabs said:
I don't necessarily like standing up for people who I'm indifferent towards, however I kind feel as though I need to when reading all this crap about Caro.

There's a reason she cites 'sources' all the time, and it's the same reason she doesn't name names.

If you understood the industry she's in, you'd understand that the information she's given is given to her by people who know what they're talking about, but give her the information on the proviso that she doesn't reveal who the information came from.

It's how the whole game works.

Don't believe me? Look at the ridicule heaped on those such as Dale Lewis, who come out and make statements which people deem outlandish, but as time goes on we realise are actually closer to the truth then we would have ever wanted to admit.

Hence the need to not be directly quoted, but to be a source. You get to answer the questions directed to you, give honest answers... all without fear of reprisal because your name will never appear in print.

And since the sources are just that, whatever Caro (or any other journo) prints means the attention is heaped on what was printed, not on who said it.

I also wouldn't doubt the validity of her sources. She's been in the business long enough to have contacts with every club. Sure she gets it wrong from time to time, but show me a journo who doesn't.

Can't believe I'm standing up for her.
Click to expand...

There is a difference in "breaking news" via a source vs "giving an opinion" via a source.

My point is that Caro talks to one person, maybe two, about an issue. We are unable to verify the importance of said sources or their opinions. She then presents as fact, those opinions, claiming they are the prevailing view.

So what she is saying is not wrong per se, but a limited view of an issue, that is presented by her, to suit the agenda she wants, as if everybody at an orgainsation agrees with it.

Its never some sources say "this", and some sources say "that". It "always all sources say this."
 
Catsmaninamerica said:
Getting owned by Garry Lyon. Love it. She is such an arrogant, ignorant halfwit. She practices gutter journalism. She never names names. She gets angry if challenged and refuses to admit she is wrong. PLEASE channel 9. Sack this disgrace of a woman.
Click to expand...

I can't stand Caro, but Gary Lyon owned her? What were you watching?

She was right to question Lyon's credibility. His fingerprints are all over everything at the MFC.

Made Gary look stupid I thought. Which isn't difficult.
 
Baltimore Jack said:
An opinion piece by definition is an ..........?

If you take it as fact, that's a mistake on your part not Caro's
Click to expand...

Your interpretation of what i said makes sense and would be wrong.

But it is not what i meant. As i stated in the post above yours, she is entitled to her opinion on any matter she likes. My gripe is when she claims the opinions of her or her sources are infact not opinions but fact. Or even the opinion of the majority.
 
LMAO @ Bummers fans complaining about unfair treatment in the media.

What's a matter, no longer the darlings? The free ride finally over?

Welcome to our world - eat s**t you spoiled brats.
 
the big lebowski said:
There is a difference in "breaking news" via a source vs "giving an opinion" via a source.

My point is that Caro talks to one person, maybe two, about an issue. We are unable to verify the importance of said sources or their opinions. She then presents as fact, those opinions, claiming they are the prevailing view.
Click to expand...

That's the point of sources though. Readers aren't supposed to verify the importance of the sources or their opinions, because the information the sources present is information which would damage them if the public knew the information came from them. Journalists go to jail to protect the integrity of their sources, and they take their confidentiality with the utmost seriousness.

As for Caro (or anyone else) presenting them as fact and the prevailing view... Caroline Wilson knows the sources, and do you honestly think she talk to bootstudders? Her sources will be high in the clubs's administration, board members, people high in the AFL itself. Some of the information she prints wouldn't have even be coaxed from her sources, it would've been handed to her. If she hears the same info from more than one source, she prints it.

I see nothing wrong with it. I know North supporters don't like Caro and that's fine. She's dug in against your club on numerous occasions in the past, as she has done with mine. I don't have a vendetta against her, however, and don't immediately dismiss her articles as rubbish based on what she's previously written about my club.

the big lebowski said:
So what she is saying is not wrong per se, but a limited view of an issue, that is presented by her, to suit the agenda she wants, as if everybody at an orgainsation agrees with it.

Its never some sources say "this", and some sources say "that". It "always all sources say this."
Click to expand...

Look - I'm not saying she gets it right all the time. Hell, some of her work sucks. But Fairfax would not let her print the articles she does without vetting the information she presents. If an article quotes sources, the publisher will limit their liability by validating those sources.

Fairfax wouldn't be as stupid as to give free reign to someone who posts the often volatile information that Caro does without checking the information first.

The industry doesn't work like that.
 
Caro more often than not gets compared to Emma Quayle or Sam Lane for some reason. Yes they are all female but thats about all they have in common with regards to their journalistic careers. It seems many people can not stand being given strong opinions from females in a male dominated industry. The treatment Caro receives is very similar to the attacks a certain ginger Bulldogs fan gets.
And the amount of people who dont understand how sources work in journalism is puzzling
 
Did anyone happen to catch Finey last night on SEN tear Caro and Patrick Smith a new one?

He is known for his rants, but this one was excellent, balanced, and well informed.

I am also curious to see if Patrick Smith responded on SEN this morning?

IMHO Caro is good at what she does, but what she does doesn't interest me. Rumor and gossip about off field incidents does not interest me, and calling for heads to roll every five minutes is just annoying. Patrick Smith annoys me for similar reasons, but mainly because of his irrelevance, patronising tone, and arrogance typical of a 1990s talk back radio host.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top