You are having a crack at the only person that has got anything right so far and that includes your journo mates. The idea that we need to understand the role of a journo is laughable. I am not interested in being groomed to accept a poor level of journalism. How about just present the truth or at least say 'I don't know if this is true but do you think this would work.'
Barrett's attempt to claim the Mitchell trade story as his exclusive was embarrassing and really a reflection of the ego these guys have. Maybe instead of us understanding what journalism is about they understand it is not about them.
It is what happens when an industry has a conflict between regulating itself and needing the story to make money via click bait and sales. It is what happens when its own lawyers are looking at what the journo can get away with rather than what is appropriate via the facts of the story.
"The only person on Big Footy that has got anything right" - come on now. Seriously? Let's not pump up someone who has blurry vision in a room full of the blind.
I can't remember asking anyone to accept a poor level of journalism and in many respects I agree with you 100%, but let me extrapolate on the point I'm trying to put across.
What Barrett is good at is the power of suggestion. He has good contacts, filtered through 20 years in the industry and if you read his stuff carefully, you'll realise he doesn't take many risks - what he does is let the reader take the risks for him.
It's called taking what you know and framing the story in a way that will suit his narrative.
Is this good journalism? Of course not. But it's effective and 'clickbait worthy' because he's good at pushing buttons and pulling the right reigns for what the football industry finds interesting.
But journalism has changed - especially sports journalism - because of the onset of media managers and PR people.
The emphasis on each club is to now 'control the narrative' of its stories. Managers, coaches or anyone involved in football departments can't talk to journos at this time of year on the record (unless there's gamesmanship with other clubs).
So what we get is player managers controlling the narrative instead. PM's are the ones the most desperate to frame a story around their player and creating publicity and public pressure around getting deals done.
So when Barrett comes forward with 'something he's heard' - he's not saying anything directly. He's leaving that to people on Big Footy to lose their minds over, then can come back the next day and reiterate what he knows to be true:
"Aish's name was mentioned in a conversation with a rival club yesterday from Gubby Allen."
There's no idea of the context. No idea of the substance - they could be talking about terrible haircuts for all we know. He leaves that to you.
But what he's done is report on what he's had from his source - then its up to the club to put the conversation into context (which Hyne has done).
I agree that journalism in today's day and age is sickening - but this is what happens in an environment that rewards half-rumours and innuendo.
Instead of bleating like a child when there's a headline you don't like, all I'm saying is, understand the game. Understand the environment. Take what you're given and fill in the holes from all the players and you'll find something close to the truth.
Coming on here and bleating about Barrett being a bottom-feeder is embarrassing to someone who then goes on to spend the next 2 weeks hanging on his every word, hoping for some news they like instead of news they don't.
If you don't like 'journalism' during trade week, or any other week during the football season, do yourself a favour and support independent avenues that don't delve into the mud and don't require corporate dollars to survive - I guarantee you won't have much to listen to at this time of year.
Hope that helps.