Is there actually anyone in this forum who understands how the media works?
Having written for the second largest print media company in this country for a decade let me give you a little clue.
They sit around in an editorial meeting and say ‘what story angles and ideas have we got today?’
The writers will sit around pitching their story angles. They will call the relevant subjects of those stories and say ‘hey it’s such and such from the Bumf**k Gazette. Just hoping I can have a word to you regarding ————.’
They will then ask questions centred around the angle of their story and get usable quotes and information about said story, and create it with the angle they originally pitched.
Patrick Dangerfield doesn’t get a publicist to put out media releases to alert the world to the fact that he wants to talk about ‘his’ premiership quest.
Even a phrase like ‘he’s well and truly moved past the individual accolades.’
You’re reading into that what you want to read into it. There is nothing implied about him ‘only ever playing for individual accolades.’ It’s a person who knows dangerfield well saying he simply doesn’t care about them. Every player likes individual recognition. At every level. There is no sportsman alive who doesn’t. That doesn’t mean that’s all they care about.
In a first grade cricket grand final I once made 17 (doesn’t sound like much but we were 9-100) and put on 30 with the #11 to get us to 130.
I took 3-34 off 21 overs and we lost by a wicket, 6 days after an epileptic seizure. A whole bunch of neutral spectators from other teams told me afterwards that I deserved to be on the winning team and was the best player involved.
To this day a decade later I’m still shattered we lost. I’m also incredibly proud that I played well and got some individual recognition. A year later we won the grand final against the same opponent by two runs and I had a shocker. I much preferred winning, though. Should I not be proud of the game a year before?
They aren’t mutually exclusive things. Stop looking for things to be hyper critical about because you might not like the guy.
Having written for the second largest print media company in this country for a decade let me give you a little clue.
They sit around in an editorial meeting and say ‘what story angles and ideas have we got today?’
The writers will sit around pitching their story angles. They will call the relevant subjects of those stories and say ‘hey it’s such and such from the Bumf**k Gazette. Just hoping I can have a word to you regarding ————.’
They will then ask questions centred around the angle of their story and get usable quotes and information about said story, and create it with the angle they originally pitched.
Patrick Dangerfield doesn’t get a publicist to put out media releases to alert the world to the fact that he wants to talk about ‘his’ premiership quest.
Even a phrase like ‘he’s well and truly moved past the individual accolades.’
You’re reading into that what you want to read into it. There is nothing implied about him ‘only ever playing for individual accolades.’ It’s a person who knows dangerfield well saying he simply doesn’t care about them. Every player likes individual recognition. At every level. There is no sportsman alive who doesn’t. That doesn’t mean that’s all they care about.
In a first grade cricket grand final I once made 17 (doesn’t sound like much but we were 9-100) and put on 30 with the #11 to get us to 130.
I took 3-34 off 21 overs and we lost by a wicket, 6 days after an epileptic seizure. A whole bunch of neutral spectators from other teams told me afterwards that I deserved to be on the winning team and was the best player involved.
To this day a decade later I’m still shattered we lost. I’m also incredibly proud that I played well and got some individual recognition. A year later we won the grand final against the same opponent by two runs and I had a shocker. I much preferred winning, though. Should I not be proud of the game a year before?
They aren’t mutually exclusive things. Stop looking for things to be hyper critical about because you might not like the guy.
