Footyology podcast 2024

[yaco55]

Y



You're the one who keeps initiating contact. Are you ok ? You have a real issue with dealing with facts. You reply to a post that I did not send to you , you say I weigh in (??) then engineer a surly post as you feel you've been scolded for being a virtue signaller . I know the next step with you , the vitriol and acid attack ,I be seen it on Twitter , that's why I blocked you on that forum. You're a hater.

Do you have dramas with no having the last word ? Always need to get your opinion under peoples noses ? Just can't let go ? These are rhetorical questions, something for you to take away from our interaction , a key learning opportunity to make you a better person.

Now please don't post to me again or Ill have to block you. I didn't start communicating with you , I didn't invite you or any of your Essendon sycophants to comment to me. Jog on.

Mods, please note I have asked politely. I would expect you to deal with him if he breaches again.

This is mainly an information thread about the Footology Podcast with some limited discussion - What Rohan does on twitter belongs on another thread - Stop polluting this thread with your ramblings.

 

[pepsi]

This is mainly an information thread about the Footology Podcast with some limited discussion - What Rohan does on twitter belongs on another thread - Stop polluting this thread with your ramblings.

Watch out yaco. Be prepared for a personal message to your inbox from this poster. You'll be accused of defending Connolly because of the team you support !

 

[imadodgyumpire]

The actor Rohan was talking about, the guy demeaning his girlfriend on the phone in front of his mates in the respect women ad?

That guy was a participant in an episode of First Dates Australia. Nice guy.

 

[Minka Beaver]

RohanConnolly I was delighted to hear Finey talk about Paul Amy this week. Paul is one of the great gentlemen of footy, let alone footy media.

 

[Registered User]

Rohan, would the Herald Sun sub-editors have any influence over how many times "reveal" appears in an article like that, or is it all on the journos?

 

[RohanConnolly]

G'day Registered User, that's all about whoever's writing the story. In that particular case I mentioned, decent subbing would have got rid of at least one or two of those three references in four paragraphs, which probably gives you an idea how rushed and lacking in care sub-editing (what little exists) is these days. It's a total wank. I mean, I don't mind an exclusive tag on top of a story which is big enough, but to litter an actual story with continual self-praise like that (particularly when what's being revealed is really neither here nor there) is just absurd. It's something which has only really crept in over last 10-15 years, too, I reckon.

 

[GreyCrow]

G'day Registered User, that's all about whoever's writing the story. In that particular case I mentioned, decent subbing would have got rid of at least one or two of those three references in four paragraphs, which probably gives you an idea how rushed and lacking in care sub-editing (what little exists) is these days. It's a total wank. I mean, I don't mind an exclusive tag on top of a story which is big enough, but to litter an actual story with continual self-praise like that (particularly when what's being revealed is really neither here nor there) is just absurd. It's something which has only really crept in over last 10-15 years, too, I reckon.

Some phrases that have come into use which annoy me

I Believe - I'm guessing
I understand - I'm guessing based on 2+2
Sources - I'm guessing but pretending I'm not
I can reveal - The AFL lifted the embargo
I can reveal exclusively - The AFL sent out a bulk email and I am posting this on twitter real quick

Anyone else got favourites?

 

[Minka Beaver]

G'day Registered User, that's all about whoever's writing the story. In that particular case I mentioned, decent subbing would have got rid of at least one or two of those three references in four paragraphs, which probably gives you an idea how rushed and lacking in care sub-editing (what little exists) is these days. It's a total wank. I mean, I don't mind an exclusive tag on top of a story which is big enough, but to litter an actual story with continual self-praise like that (particularly when what's being revealed is really neither here nor there) is just absurd. It's something which has only really crept in over last 10-15 years, too, I reckon.

I have a theory on this. It may be way off the mark, but here goes:

I suspect it is no coincidence that the rise in big-noting small beer follows both the clubs and the AFL expanding their internal comms/PR staff.

Fans bemoan the lack of access to players, but another consequence of the game controlling its own news is that fewer leaks occur. Loads of people are scared of speaking off the record and I reckon plenty of journos are scared of the blowback if they do (especially as Jay Clark, Jon Ralph and many others have multiple paymasters on multiple mediums).

Footy media has become - to steal an American phrase - very much an ‘inside the beltway’ business. But there’s also a need to be seen as independent and serving the best interests of fans, otherwise papers don’t get sold etc. The result is that too many journos are talking up too few news stories that hold far too little importance...and we’re bombarded with breaking news and exclusives that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

 

[Minka Beaver]

Some phrases that have come into use which annoy me

I Believe - I'm guessing
I understand - I'm guessing based on 2+2
Sources - I'm guessing but pretending I'm not
I can reveal - The AFL lifted the embargo
I can reveal exclusively - The AFL sent out a bulk email and I am posting this on twitter real quick

Anyone else got favourites?

Chuck in Damian Barrett’s favourite: “I can neither confirm or deny.”

This is a ripper, because it can be used to: a) posture as someone who possesses confidential insider knowledge; b) present yourself as having considered an issue very deeply (when in fact you have no clue as to why it matters); or c) make yourself appear to be very much in the loop, when in reality you’re as in the dark as everyone else.

 

[HeathySure]

G'day Registered User, that's all about whoever's writing the story. In that particular case I mentioned, decent subbing would have got rid of at least one or two of those three references in four paragraphs, which probably gives you an idea how rushed and lacking in care sub-editing (what little exists) is these days. It's a total wank. I mean, I don't mind an exclusive tag on top of a story which is big enough, but to litter an actual story with continual self-praise like that (particularly when what's being revealed is really neither here nor there) is just absurd. It's something which has only really crept in over last 10-15 years, too, I reckon.

Pretty rare to see something that really is exclusive these days. Biggest story of recent years that i can remember is probably Danny Frawley and we can all see who it was on Twitter or Big Footy way before any news site reports it. Can only imagine that the journalist/news source would want it up there is for bragging rights between other journalists because no person who would read the article would care.

 

[RohanConnolly]

I have a theory on this. It may be way off the mark, but here goes:

I suspect it is no coincidence that the rise in big-noting small beer follows both the clubs and the AFL expanding their internal comms/PR staff.

Fans bemoan the lack of access to players, but another consequence of the game controlling its own news is that fewer leaks occur. Loads of people are scared of speaking off the record and I reckon plenty of journos are scared of the blowback if they do (especially as Jay Clark, Jon Ralph and many others have multiple paymasters on multiple mediums).

Footy media has become - to steal an American phrase - very much an ‘inside the beltway’ business. But there’s also a need to be seen as independent and serving the best interests of fans, otherwise papers don’t get sold etc. The result is that too many journos are talking up too few news stories that hold far too little importance...and we’re bombarded with breaking news and exclusives that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

I actually think that's a really good take and very close to the mark. Certainly in terms of the rise of club media departments acting as their own outlets and depriving traditional media sources of a lot of their material. There's far fewer genuinely "big" stories around these days that are broken exclusively by anyone, so they're more prone to pump up their own tyres with things they think they do have on their own. I'd say three things about that, though.

1. I'd be absolutely staggered if someone reading a story which used the "as revealed in xxxxxxxxx on Monday" reference then thought: "Gee, these guys clearly get all these stories first, I'd better keep buying this paper I'm probably only looking at now for free because it's sitting on the table of this cafe I'm in."

2. There's less of a role "breaking news" reporters have to play now. Firstly, because of what you said above (far less decent stories around to break). And secondly, because even a genuinely big story now is only exclusive for five minutes before a whole host of online competitors rip it off and make it look like they've been on the pace also.

3. To that end (and I've been banging on about this forever) IMO a football journalist MUST have a decent understanding of and interest in the actual game, so they at least have some role to fulfill when there aren't big, breaking stories around. 30 years ago, I'd say 90pc of the football media at least were genuine hardcore fans of the game who were happiest or at least as happy writing about that as writing about Player X being out on the piss. Sadly, I reckon these days it's far more the exception than the norm. Many would argue that role has been taken over by former players. But from what I observe, more and more of even those supposed experts are being used to produce sensationalist clickbait headlines rather than considered insightful analysis about the game.

*This is a lot more than I was intending to say, but I got on a roll. I've been watching this situation evolve for a long time now, warned various people about it, and they've allowed it to happen anyway. Unfortunately, we're ALL the losers out of it, by missing out on quality as a result. The greatest irony is that while there's far more space occupied by football now than 30 years ago, the overall quality of what was being produced then was so much higher than today it's not funny.

Cheers

 

[GreyCrow]

I actually think that's a really good take and very close to the mark. Certainly in terms of the rise of club media departments acting as their own outlets and depriving traditional media sources of a lot of their material. There's far fewer genuinely "big" stories around these days that are broken exclusively by anyone, so they're more prone to pump up their own tyres with things they think they do have on their own. I'd say three things about that, though.

1. I'd be absolutely staggered if someone reading a story which used the "as revealed in xxxxxxxxx on Monday" reference then thought: "Gee, these guys clearly get all these stories first, I'd better keep buying this paper I'm probably only looking at now for free because it's sitting on the table of this cafe I'm in."

2. There's less of a role "breaking news" reporters have to play now. Firstly, because of what you said above (far less decent stories around to break). And secondly, because even a genuinely big story now is only exclusive for five minutes before a whole host of online competitors rip it off and make it look like they've been on the pace also.

3. To that end (and I've been banging on about this forever) IMO a football journalist MUST have a decent understanding of and interest in the actual game, so they at least have some role to fulfill when there aren't big, breaking stories around. 30 years ago, I'd say 90pc of the football media at least were genuine hardcore fans of the game who were happiest or at least as happy writing about that as writing about Player X being out on the piss. Sadly, I reckon these days it's far more the exception than the norm. Many would argue that role has been taken over by former players. But from what I observe, more and more of even those supposed experts are being used to produce sensationalist clickbait headlines rather than considered insightful analysis about the game.

*This is a lot more than I was intending to say, but I got on a roll. I've been watching this situation evolve for a long time now, warned various people about it, and they've allowed it to happen anyway. Unfortunately, we're ALL the losers out of it, by missing out on quality as a result. The greatest irony is that while there's far more space occupied by football now than 30 years ago, the overall quality of what was being produced then was so much higher than today it's not funny.

Cheers

Your thoughts on the culpability of the AFL in keeping people inside the tent and excluding those who piss inside said tent?

Does that allow for the depth of journalism ?

 

[TheExtractorFactor]

Don’t go too hard either or they will threaten to take away your lievelihood. I dislike how we always get compared to America, but the NFL commissioner has been torn apart over there for years in the media, mainly because there are many independent organisations who can speak freely. Over here virtually every media entity sucks from the AFL teet in one way or another and no one dares take on Gil; but a coach loses 4 in a row or a 19 year old rookie gets caught driving with a licence that expired last week and it’s front page news and in the sleep-enducing media cycle for days on end. Thats why something like Footyology is so important.

 

[RohanConnolly]

Your thoughts on the culpability of the AFL in keeping people inside the tent and excluding those who piss inside said tent?

Does that allow for the depth of journalism ?

It's certainly got harder for those outside the clubs and AFL media to get the sort of access to players and coaches they'd like, but that has as much to do with just how big the whole thing has got. I loved the days when you could speak to a coach pretty much any time by just giving them a ring yourself, not have to wait for a scheduled press conference to ask something. But even that's not necessarily their fault, the media demands on them are a lot greater now.

As far as "exclusion" goes, I do think that whole thing about not challenging AFL policy or decisions for fear of reprisal or losing accreditation etc. tends to get overblown a bit. Reckon most of us have had a fair crack at them about this or that over the journey without repercussions. Eg. I think I'm often pretty critical but don't feel I've been treated unfairly as a result.

But the AFL and clubs having effectively their own media outlets definitely makes it harder for the rest to operate as they were once used to.

Cheers

 

[RohanConnolly]

Don’t go too hard either or they will threaten to take away your lievelihood. I dislike how we always get compared to America, but the NFL commissioner has been torn apart over there for years in the media, mainly because there are many independent organisations who can speak freely. Over here virtually every media entity sucks from the AFL teet in one way or another and no one dares take on Gil; but a coach loses 4 in a row or a 19 year old rookie gets caught driving with a licence that expired last week and it’s front page news and in the sleep-enducing media cycle for days on end. Thats why something like Footyology is so important.

View attachment 881929

I should have mentioned this case in my post above. Quite seriously, this is the only time in my entire career I recall that happening. And it definitely shouldn't have happened. But it's an isolated example. Can honestly say I've never held back on writing anything critical of the AFL because I was worried about what they'd do in retaliation.

 

[RohanConnolly]

Last one! I'm posting too much on here! Really did just mean this thread to be a place to post links to the Footyology podcast. But I do like BigFooty, and did do a Q&A on here a few years back. Would be happy to do something similar again if there was enough interest. Might keep me off Twitter for five minutes at least!

 

[Minka Beaver]

1. I'd be absolutely staggered if someone reading a story which used the "as revealed in xxxxxxxxx on Monday" reference then thought: "Gee, these guys clearly get all these stories first, I'd better keep buying this paper I'm probably only looking at now for free because it's sitting on the table of this cafe I'm in."

You're right - I don't think it's very effective. I do suspect though that it's part of the wider marketing/positioning campaign used to keep news media in the public mind. Hence all the Herald Sun guff about being Australia's leading daily newspaper for sales (or my personal favourite: "largest paper in the Southern Hemisphere", which is like winning the competition for the world's tallest dwarf.) There's a mindset that seems to suggest that if you state your importance often enough, then that alone will keep you relevant.

3. To that end (and I've been banging on about this forever) IMO a football journalist MUST have a decent understanding of and interest in the actual game, so they at least have some role to fulfill when there aren't big, breaking stories around. 30 years ago, I'd say 90pc of the football media at least were genuine hardcore fans of the game who were happiest or at least as happy writing about that as writing about Player X being out on the piss. Sadly, I reckon these days it's far more the exception than the norm. Many would argue that role has been taken over by former players. But from what I observe, more and more of even those supposed experts are being used to produce sensationalist clickbait headlines rather than considered insightful analysis about the game.

No doubt. I personally know of one journo who has made a successful career out of covering footy, despite barely knowing what a footy looks like. But that's also a tale about nepotism (to be saved for another day), news budgets (which have been slashed in other areas) and footy's perceived glamour and attractiveness.

The harder truth is that there are too many people covering football and who spend their time exclusively on what is still, in reality, a seasonal game. Few of them are clever enough to know how footy can be talked/written about in a new or unique angle. Walter Cronkite once said about Australia that there were "too many journalists and not enough news". That applies equally to modern footy media.

Keep up the podcast. Perversely, I think I'm enjoying it more when there's no footy on!

 

[Billy ray]

RohanConnolly - wanna feel old?

The Wonder Years aired from 1988 and 1993 and depicted the years between 1968 and 1973. When I watched the show, it felt like it was set in a time long ago. If a new Wonder Years premiered today, it would cover the years between 2000 and 2005.

 

[Registered User]

Yes, 'Winnie' does have a degree mathematics, and has written six books on the subject. Wow wee! I never knew that.

Danica McKellar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Redline]

Rohan is the latest guest on the Podcast called 'Good Evans, it's a Bobcast'. The host is Keven Mitchell from the band Jebediah and performs under the name Bob Evans.

 

[HeathySure]

Anyone follow Rohans top 20 songs on twitter? not one song from 2000 onwards! I am Rohan's age but i can find plenty this century that would make my top 20!

 

[The Made Guy]

Anyone follow Rohans top 20 songs on twitter? not one song from 2000 onwards! I am Rohan's age but i can find plenty this century that would make my top 20!

Is there a graphic/image showing the list of songs?

I think it is pretty normal that a personal list of best songs of all time will be very heavily tilted towards music from your youth/formative years - teenager through to late-twenties or thereabouts. My own list would reflect this.

I'm wondering if there are any songs outide the punk/rock/grunge genres!

 

[Plugger35]

Finey's rant about domestic violence reminded me of this Bill Burr routine.

Anyone follow Rohans top 20 songs on twitter? not one song from 2000 onwards! I am Rohan's age but i can find plenty this century that would make my top 20!

I don't follow Roco on twitter but I was very impressed when he mentioned that he was a Church fan and picked Starfish for his best album from 1988.

They are my favourite Australian band and he was bang on the money when he said they are underrated in this country, they are more rated overseas, they have a huge following in the States and tour there relentlessly.

I'm from Perth and the first Church gig I saw was in San Diego back in 1999, I had more chance of seeing them live in San Diego than Perth which says it all.

That San Diego gig at the Belly Up Tavern back in 1999 was one for the ages, they didn't play Under The Milky Way but they played a ripping version of Tantalized.

They also played a ripping version of Tantalized with a symphony orchestra backing for their well overdue induction into the Aria Hall of Fame in 2010.

 

[HeathySure]

Finey's rant about domestic violence reminded me of this Bill Burr routine.






I don't follow Roco on twitter but I was very impressed when he mentioned that he was a Church fan and picked Starfish for his best album from 1988.

They are my favourite Australian band and he was bang on the money when he said they are underrated in this country, they are more rated overseas, they have a huge following in the States and tour there relentlessly.

I'm from Perth and the first Church gig I saw was in San Diego back in 1999, I had more chance of seeing them live in San Diego than Perth which says it all.

That San Diego gig at the Belly Up Tavern back in 1999 was one for the ages, they didn't play Under The Milky Way but they played a ripping version of Tantalized.

They also played a ripping version of Tantalized with a symphony orchestra backing for their well overdue induction into the Aria Hall of Fame in 2010.

I am a big fan of Tantalised as well, probably my favourite Church song now. Unguarded Moment was in my top 10 of all time when i was in my early 20s and was really disappointed when the Church disowned it and never played it live so i boycotted them for a long time!

 

[Plugger35]

I am a big fan of Tantalised as well, probably my favourite Church song now. Unguarded Moment was in my top 10 of all time when i was in my early 20s and was really disappointed when the Church disowned it and never played it live so i boycotted them for a long time!

Don't expect to hear The Church hits when you go to their gigs, you'll end up disappointed.

This was the only song they played from Gold Afternoon Fix at the San Diego gig I went to.





They never play the two singles from Gold Afternoon Fix live.







The opening song from Gold Afternoon Fix was a big FU to the American record companies that were trying to turn them into a product rather than a band.

Hi to all the people that are selling me

Here's one straight from the factory