Markfs Media Watch

[WalterBlaknWhte]

I had a chicken breast that I sliced up and sauteed with some leftover greek salad which had got a bit too mushy. I was going to put it on some spagetti but it was edible on its own. I still havent watched the rest of the Swan thing.

Don't hold back on these details Markman: I find them soothing before bedtime.

 

[Markfs]

Don't hold back on these details Markman: I find them soothing before bedtime.

Sorry I kept brief. I knew I should have attached a few pics of the ingredients while I was preparing the meal but for some strange reason, i didnt take any. I'll send you a few snaps of my evening bath to make up for it...

 

[Vicky Park]

I had a chicken breast that I sliced up and sauteed with some leftover greek salad which had got a bit too mushy.

You sautéed the chicken with Greek salad? Is that a WA thing, sautéing lettuce and cucumber and feta cheese? Must try it sometime, in a few years maybe, after I've had a long period in which to contemplate the possible outcome.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

You sautéed the chicken with Greek salad? Is that a WA thing, sautéing lettuce and cucumber and feta cheese? Must try it sometime, in a few years maybe, after I've had a long period in which to contemplate the possible outcome.

Might be a male thing.

I thought 'oh yeah, if Markman pushes all that to one side of the bowl he can add dessert and minimise washing-up.'

 

[Markfs]

You sautéed the chicken with Greek salad? Is that a WA thing, sautéing lettuce and cucumber and feta cheese? Must try it sometime, in a few years maybe, after I've had a long period in which to contemplate the possible outcome.

actually, it was a preparation thing that i do. I make a bowl of tomatoes, leb cus, onion, olives and I add the feta and any other thing that might go soggy just before I eat it.... and I leave the basis in a sealed plastic bowl in the fridge. That way, I might have greek salad a few times over a couple of days but I dont have to make it up from scratch each time.

Then in the end, the stuff in the plastic bowl starts going a bit soggy, so i fry up some onions, chicken and then add the leftovers. I add some tomato paste and it serves as a reasonable chicken tomato sauce for spagetti...

It's not cooking.... more a journey for the ingredients

 

[Markfs]

I was out in the car this morning listening to SEN's trade watch or whatever they call it. I cant name the people involved other than David Schwarz. I was listening to SEN last week and evidently Schwarz was in Thailand getting totally soaked in alcohol and probably doing some "trading" of his own, if you know what I mean....wink wink.

Anyway, for some reason, he's come back. Maybe the Thai authorities made sure he stuck to his visa...

Some other idiot in the booth was doing his appraisal of the trading situation and lumped Collingwood in with Richmond. Evidently, the proposal to trade Deledio is something similar to the Pies acquiring Wells and Mayne. He then went on to add that Richmond might as well trade Jack Riewoldt. For what you might ask? well for some fantastic young kids in the draft.....cue in a rendition of "somewhere over the rainbow"..

I'm glad that these media boys arent in charge of the Collingwood list. I would have real problems with allowing 30 something media tragics who are living at home with mum and dad, the opportunity to make grown-up decisions like who should and who shouldnt be traded. I have this mental picture of one of the guys clutching onto his phone making the deal, while his mother wipes his arse...

Fortunately, the car journey came to an end and I wont be listening to SEN until I head down to the supermarket tomorrow...

 

[Markfs]

i checked into trade radio for the first time this morning just to test the water...

a message to "Cam". I'm not sure what his other name is. The message is "please take a breath"...

 

[good4footy]

Just turned SEN off. Robbo being on should have been a warning to me anyway, but I made the school boy error of staying tuned despite the 'big' HS story about the passing on of game plan info.

Not sure who is worse Maher who star gazes (I use the word lightly as it refers to Robbo) or Robbo trying to keep the click bait narrative going.

In a story about the breaking of confidentiality the conversation, despite a couple of callers trying, remains the click bait narrative of two brothers sharing information rather than the bigger story of a the largest Australian sporting organisation's integrity department unable to keep something confidential. An integrity department with no integrity.

I know why Robbo would need to keep it that way because he relates to the lowest denominator for click bait, but it is the last time I listen to Maher. Instead of playing the fanboy, neerdy, glass wearing muppett, he has an opportunity to challenge some of his guests and enlist a conversation with depth. I refuse to become more stupid than I probably already am by continuing to listen or read things by Maher, Robbo and the like.

 

[Markfs]

Just turned SEN off. Robbo being on should have been a warning to me anyway, but I made the school boy error of staying tuned despite the 'big' HS story about the passing on of game plan info.

Not sure who is worse Maher who star gazes (I use the word lightly as it refers to Robbo) or Robbo trying to keep the click bait narrative going.

In a story about the breaking of confidentiality the conversation, despite a couple of callers trying, remains the click bait narrative of two brothers sharing information rather than the bigger story of a the largest Australian sporting organisation's integrity department unable to keep something confidential. An integrity department with no integrity.

I know why Robbo would need to keep it that way because he relates to the lowest denominator for click bait, but it is the last time I listen to Maher. Instead of playing the fanboy, neerdy, glass wearing muppett, he has an opportunity to challenge some of his guests and enlist aew conversation with depth. I refuse to become more stupid than I probably already am by continuing to listen or read things by Maher, Robbo and the like.

The fanboy effect has been with sports ever since the emergence of mega-money media rights deals, although you could probably equally blame the click bait effect too as media organisations become more and more dependent on sports to bring in the readers/watchers.

It reminds me of a story that I heard a long time ago. It was about a young journalist who got his first job doing the rounds at the police department. The job was to find out from the police stories that were worth printing in the paper. It was a type of job that they would give to a junior reporter to cut his teeth. The police beat. I'm sure you've heard of it. Anyway, the kid got a bit bored after a while and noticed a few strange things happening around the police station, where the cops weren't treating the clientele too well. He wrote the story, got a big pat on the back from his editor and proceeded to be totally ignored by the cops from that day forth.... until he was let go because of his inability to get a story. The old hands back in the newsroom just looked knowingly at each other and muttered something about not biting the hand that feeds you.....

queue in andy maher and the rest of the sycophants who crawl up AFL players/coaches trousers to keep their jobs...

 

[Markfs]

hit me baby one more time.....

I was out in the car just a while back, listening to SEN on local community radio. Some armchair expert was talking about Nick Kyrgios and his suspension. Now, I know that the "expert" was only reflecting the views of many of the average punters out there but this is the second time that I heard something crazy spoken on radio in the last week about Kyrgios and I only listen to the station during the 10 minute commute to the shops....

The first shocker was this guy who said that wanted Nick banned because he couldnt stand watching him anymore..... it made him too frustrated. Its hard to know with some of the phone-in experts that SEN use, whether they are serious or just trying to raise their profile by saying the most outrageous thing that they can think of..... but he actually sounded serious. I wonder if this guy had ever been told of the "OFF" button on the tv....

Anyway, earlier today, there was another "expert" who sounded a bit more sympathetic to Nick. ...but that didnt make him any more rational. He spoke about some of his mates/colleagues who were saying that they couldnt take Nick anymore. They had given up on him. I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean that they're withdrawing their sponsorship or not buying the wheeties that Nick is promoting on tv. What does "giving up on him" mean? Anyway, this guy said that he hadnt given up on Nick. Nick will be eternally grateful. The guy said that it was a shame about Nick because he really might be a world class player. He said that Nick needed to realise that his career was short and it would be over before he knew it...... at this stage, I'm wondering if I'm listening to Kyrgios's father. Maybe his old headmaster? Whatever it is, its irrational. Why does this idiot think he has a stake in Kyrgios's future? Is he insane?

Ironically, Krygios himself nailed it when he was ranting on the tennis court last week about the rowdy fan who was bagging him. Nick said that the fan could go off and watch someone else if he wanted...or he could get on a tennis court and try to do better. Is it weird when a guy ranting on a tennis court is making more sense than some idiot expert on SEN radio?

Of course, as I said earlier, there's a ton of punters out there who get irrationally upset with Kyrgios and Tomic. It seems to be the thing to do these days. It's as if they're betting on these guys and lost money.... maybe thats what the problem is.

I would love to share some of my philosophies on life with these guys. I would suggest to them that if they hate someone, try avoiding them..... and if something in life frustrates them and they can avoid it..... then they should avoid it.... of course, they might tell me to mind my own business and butt out...... and I would agree with them entirely.

 

[Markfs]

After looking at the outcomes of some of the trades, it has got me wondering whether some club officials are doing some "window-dressing" to the trades to make them more attractive to their fans .......smoke and mirrors stuff.

One example... dion prestia. Richmond has been saying that it wanted something with Prestia for its 6th pick in the draft. The result was reported on the AFL site as getting Prestia and pick 24. Of course, we know they have to give back a future second round pick. These future picks seem to be valued a lot less in the media for some reason.

The end result is a headline that matches what the Tigers were saying last week. The reality is quite a bit different.

The Lewis and Mitchell trades appear to have a lot of window-dressing as well. Now I know that there's a HUGE difference between having pick 66 and having pick 68 but ......yeh i know i'm being sarcastic....

Either the club officials are putting some political spin into their trades, or they actually believe that their drafting is so scientific that there's a difference between a pick 66 and a pick 68. They seem to be missing the fact that most of the players picked at this level, never play a game.

 

[Markfs]

I'm interested in the ratings used to rate teams for their trade performance. Fox footy gave the following

Adelaide 5 Didnt get Gibbs
Brisbane 7.5 Aimed to get more selections in draft. It traded Hanley for much of this.
Carlton 7 Traded Tuohy and got Marchbank and Pickett.
Collingwood 6 Concerned about backline. Not sold on HE.
Essendon 6 Hibberd out and Stewart in. Second round in.
Fremantle 9 Four players in with Mayne out. Drop of 3 to 7. McCarthy viewed as following on from GWS output. Hill seen as continuing Hawthorn output.
Geelong 6.5. Lost Caddy. Gained Tuohy for future first round. Seen as having lost something.
Gold Coast 8 Lost Omeara and Prestia but has 4 top ten draft picks. Gained Hanley and others. Seen as a win.
Giants 7.5 Traded many second stringers that other clubs scramble for. Gets an upgraded round one for a player that it refused two first round picks last year. Using future first round selection for a player who will be close to 30 at the start of next year.

Hawthorn 6 Trades out legends and gets one fit gun and one possibly fit gun and also one jesse white clone.
Melbourne 8 Contracts Lewis for 3 years in a rough equivalent to Daniel Wells. Gets Hibberd for 2nd round and GWS second stringer.
North 5.5 Speculative trades for little cost. Experts dont know strategy.
Port 6 Traded first rounder for two lower first rounders.
Richmond 8.5 Got the benefit of generous compensation and a GWS with more 1st round draft picks than it can use. Used first round for Prestia but gains extra one next year.

St. Kilda 7.5 Smart move of trading current first round for next years round one, and a couple of round twos for this year.
West Coast 6 Mitchell thing. Criticism of lack of trading.
Western BDs 5 Getting rid of some second stringers.

So what can you make of all of that? WBs down the bottom evidently for not getting something new. Adelaide down there also because Carlton overrated Gibbs. I suppose I can see that it put its eggs in one basket and made a mistake because it does appear to STILL lack midfielders. I cant quite see how you can compare their situation to the WB's.

West Coast did little and gets a 6. Essendon did the same and gets a 6 so I suppose that is reasonable. Ports trades out to get more picks. Collingwood gets players from free agency and covers for a loss of Nathan Brown. Hawthorn turns its club upside down. It hard to see how all these clubs can get a 6. You have to wonder why WB didnt get a 6 as it didnt do much either. The problem with Hawthorn's rating is that it can't be judged now.

Geelong is rated higher than these clubs even though it lost Caddy. It also paid top price for Tuohy. How can it be rated higher?

Carlton gets a 7 on the basis of the GWS players and the fact that it offloaded Tuohy for a very good price. I tend to agree with the rating.

St. Kilda did use Hawthorn's desperate need for first rounders well. I will give them that. They also got a few speculative trades. I thought they did ok. Certainly better than Melbourne. GWS gets a higher rating but there's no acknowledgement that it's a millionaire and got 20 first round picks.

Gold Coast and Melbourne both get an 8. Melbourne seemed to get a lot of pats on the back for recruiting Lewis when he is probably as likely to complete his third year as Daniel Wells and the Pies took a pasting for that. Hibberd is a fair price. Is that it??? Gold Coast gets pats on the back for trading two gun mid fielders. So we congratulate the GC traders and kick their welfare people??? Praised for lots of top ten picks but look who they got rid of!!!!!

Richmond as i said above, were the beneficiary of some generous compensation and GWS generosity. I suppose they had to put themselves in the mix to be beneficiaries but I'm not sure about 8.5. Caddy is solid and Prestia looks ok. It probably provides them with a midfield that they didnt have last year.

Fremantle's trade efforts can be judged next year. I heard during the year that McCarthy was looking ok training at South Freo but I saw a pic of him and it looked like he hadnt gone near a set of weights in months. Brad Hill might be the second coming of Jesus or the next Lewis Jetta. I wonder if he has come home to retire and put up his feet. At any rate, you can only judge the trades on face value and Freo has done ok. Remember they have dropped a few spots in the first round and remember they were the beneficiaries of Collingwood doing the same thing many years ago.....


So can I make any sense of the ratings? Very little. They make a lot more sense than Terry Wallace's. However, I wasn't sure what they were marking. What does constitute a positive trade period when they are giving their ratings? I respect Chris Pelchen's opinion from his appearances on Fox. He says some well-measured things. I'm not sure what part he had in these ratings but I just cant see any consistency.

Anyway, as they say, we move on...

 

[ThePhantom777]

The Hun leads with a headline on us....from a live chat session with Buckenara where he talked about all the teams: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...tory/2cd609f3aff57dc30d36a4bacec9fa9a?login=1

 

[Markfs]

The Hun leads with a headline on us....from a live chat session with Buckenara where he talked about all the teams: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...tory/2cd609f3aff57dc30d36a4bacec9fa9a?login=1

You probably know already that Buckenara is an ex-hawk player. I dont think I have to explain to you that ex-hawk players promote the hawks agenda and use anything to deflect attention from what the hawks are doing .... including references like this to the Pies.

I think its a bit like getting a child molester to mind your kids.... you have to ask yourself "is there really such a thing as an EX child molester?"

 

[Markfs]

The photo that Damo used to define the 2016 trade period where O'Meara, Prestia, Deledio etc etc moved......

If Collingwood vanished off the map...... then Damo would be looking for a new job...

 

[Markfs]

Caroline Wilson's column yesterday had me wondering why we have any form of due process in investigating allegations against individuals in society.

I know the problem with justice is that it takes far too long. I have that gripe with it too. I can never understand how it can take months, or even years, to investigate an allegation, when it seems a lot smarter to do it as quick as possible. Take for example the coroner's investigation into the death of Phillip Hughes. It's been 2 years since he died! No wonder people cant remember what happened on that field so long ago.

But frustration with the speed of the course of justice, doesn't give journalists an open ticket to fast-track the court of public opinion. The fact that Wilson isn't a journalist isnt an excuse, she uses that job description on her census form and her employer gains prestige by using her designation as a journalist to bump up the numbers of their news staff. At any rate, I'm not sure if there is an official job classification for rumour monger.

Reading Wilson's article from yesterday, you would be forgiven if you were reading a prosecutor's closing address to the jury.

Wilson starts off her story with the use of the word "alleged" on a few occasions. The problem is that she seems to be referring to Lambert's Allan's and Whitfield's statements on the matter, rather than the ASADA allegations. It appears to be used as means to scoff at the validity of the men's statements. That comes as no surprise to me. Wilson's history with Allan has been a rocky road, and while I'm not saying that I would dismiss her comments on Allan totally, I would still argue that you have to be very wary of her motives in this matter.

I agree with Wilson that Whitfield's alibi for using the drug story doesn't sound right. In fact, I would argue that it sounds about as right as his ex-girlfriend's statement that she contacted GWS solely out of concern. The girl might be a saint. Certainly, Caroline Wilson thinks so. However, Wilson fails to give one shred of evidence to support her "no doubt" view about why the girl contacted the club. She seems to be quoting her original story, which is also based on conjecture. While the girl's motivation for her actions dont go to the heart of the matter, I cant see how Wilson can present herself as a neutral judge on this issue if she makes "no doubt" assessments on no evidence.

I read an article by Wilson a couple of weeks back on Eddie. After dishing out on Ed, she gave a few bouquets about how he would be missed as President. Evidently this is her usual modus operandi because she gives Allan a few slaps on the back for trying to do the best thing for the youngster ....and then says that all the good intentions were misplaced. It seems that she uses this strategy to show how balanced she is as an analyst. For some strange reason, it makes me think about the black widow encouraging the small male spider in for sex.

And yes, Wilson plays the gender card as well. She's on a winner as the new champion of women's rights. Dont get me wrong. There are a number of areas in society where women could be treated better. This isnt one of them. Allan and co would do anything to discredit anyone making allegations like the ex's. It could have been a eunuch and they would have done it.

Don't get me wrong about the whole situation. Allan and co. are probably guilty of trying to put Whitfield in storage while the drug testers were about. I would just like the accused to get a fair and unbiased judgement in the proper forum before we throw the rope up over the branch.

I havent read much of Wilson's stuff over the years. I left Melbourne before she started her reign at the Age and the most that I've seen her is her appearance in those late night football talk fests. She does strike me as someone who has come to the industry with a chip on her shoulder and she has appeared to have fed it steadily over the years. Maybe her kids, if she has any, can talk about the hard shell with the soft heart, but I see her personal place in the footy landscape as being largely irrelevant to the things that I'm interested in. However, as much as I shake my head in bewilderment that media types like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt can form the political opinions of a large section of the community, then in a similar way, people like Wilson and Patrick Smith do the same in the footy world. It's from this sense of frustration with how media outlets continue to foist media personalities like "Caro" and "Robbo" on the world to the degree that they seem to be more part of the furniture than the footballers who breeze through the system each year.

 

[Robroy22]

"I'm not sure if there is an official job classification for rumour monger."

Perfect!

Why can't YOU be the Age Journalist and Caro be the internet personality?

 

[4#Didak#4]

Caroline Wilson's column yesterday had me wondering why we have any form of due process in investigating allegations against individuals in society.

I know the problem with justice is that it takes far too long. I have that gripe with it too. I can never understand how it can take months, or even years, to investigate an allegation, when it seems a lot smarter to do it as quick as possible. Take for example the coroner's investigation into the death of Phillip Hughes. It's been 2 years since he died! No wonder people cant remember what happened on that field so long ago.

But frustration with the speed of the course of justice, doesn't give journalists an open ticket to fast-track the court of public opinion. The fact that Wilson isn't a journalist isnt an excuse, she uses that job description on her census form and her employer gains prestige by using her designation as a journalist to bump up the numbers of their news staff. At any rate, I'm not sure if there is an official job classification for rumour monger.

Reading Wilson's article from yesterday, you would be forgiven if you were reading a prosecutor's closing address to the jury.

Wilson starts off her story with the use of the word "alleged" on a few occasions. The problem is that she seems to be referring to Lambert's Allan's and Whitfield's statements on the matter, rather than the ASADA allegations. It appears to be used as means to scoff at the validity of the men's statements. That comes as no surprise to me. Wilson's history with Allan has been a rocky road, and while I'm not saying that I would dismiss her comments on Allan totally, I would still argue that you have to be very wary of her motives in this matter.

I agree with Wilson that Whitfield's alibi for using the drug story doesn't sound right. In fact, I would argue that it sounds about as right as his ex-girlfriend's statement that she contacted GWS solely out of concern. The girl might be a saint. Certainly, Caroline Wilson thinks so. However, Wilson fails to give one shred of evidence to support her "no doubt" view about why the girl contacted the club. She seems to be quoting her original story, which is also based on conjecture. While the girl's motivation for her actions dont go to the heart of the matter, I cant see how Wilson can present herself as a neutral judge on this issue if she makes "no doubt" assessments on no evidence.

I read an article by Wilson a couple of weeks back on Eddie. After dishing out on Ed, she gave a few bouquets about how he would be missed as President. Evidently this is her usual modus operandi because she gives Allan a few slaps on the back for trying to do the best thing for the youngster ....and then says that all the good intentions were misplaced. It seems that she uses this strategy to show how balanced she is as an analyst. For some strange reason, it makes me think about the black widow encouraging the small male spider in for sex.

And yes, Wilson plays the gender card as well. She's on a winner as the new champion of women's rights. Dont get me wrong. There are a number of areas in society where women could be treated better. This isnt one of them. Allan and co would do anything to discredit anyone making allegations like the ex's. It could have been a eunuch and they would have done it.

Don't get me wrong about the whole situation. Allan and co. are probably guilty of trying to put Whitfield in storage while the drug testers were about. I would just like the accused to get a fair and unbiased judgement in the proper forum before we throw the rope up over the branch.

I havent read much of Wilson's stuff over the years. I left Melbourne before she started her reign at the Age and the most that I've seen her is her appearance in those late night football talk fests. She does strike me as someone who has come to the industry with a chip on her shoulder and she has appeared to have fed it steadily over the years. Maybe her kids, if she has any, can talk about the hard shell with the soft heart, but I see her personal place in the footy landscape as being largely irrelevant to the things that I'm interested in. However, as much as I shake my head in bewilderment that media types like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt can form the political opinions of a large section of the community, then in a similar way, people like Wilson and Patrick Smith do the same in the footy world. It's from this sense of frustration with how media outlets continue to foist media personalities like "Caro" and "Robbo" on the world to the degree that they seem to be more part of the furniture than the footballers who breeze through the system each year.

 

[Markfs]

"I'm not sure if there is an official job classification for rumour monger."

Perfect!

Why can't YOU be the Age Journalist and Caro be the internet personality?

I chose not to sleep with the boss.....

 

[4#Didak#4]

Posted this elsewhere...probably more relevant in here:

There has been a consistent pattern of incorrect information from Caro. She is a very skillful writer and uses inference extremely well, but this does not make the information she provides correct. She portrays rumor and innuendo as fact consistently. At the same time this is what makes her successful in the same way the HUN sells papers via sensationalism. I don't blame either of them as it works, but it shouldn't go unchallenged.

Many held Wilson up as some sort of journalistic hero during the Essendon drug saga. However it was here I realised that she manufactures more than she reports. Whilst it was extremely entertaining to see James Hird & EFC dragged across hot coals, when you step back and analyse some of what she wrote it was illuminating. The whole saga was a disgrace and that included the journalism around it and she was a central player.

What she tends to do is extrapolate small details into what she believes may have happened. She surrounds this with loose references in an attempt substantiate what she is saying, when it is impossible to confirm them. Some call this journalism, some call it guessing. What she then waits for is a response, this confirms some things that she may have got right and some she did not. She quickly back tracks over the errors (sometimes apologising) then focuses on the issue that she did get right. It is like shooting a machine gun into a tree and seeing what falls out.

It is a little like a legal prosecution team putting forward their version of events based on the minimal facts they have and challenging the accused to tell them where they got it wrong, this then fills in the gaps in their knowledge.

This method does work but its easy to overlook all the other misinformation that many take as fact - she will not say she reported facts as that would be liable, she is reporting on information she has gained from others and so its not really her fault for errors.

Many have challenged her (particularly coaches who have some media platform) for not calling them direct and asking them if what she heard is true or not. She says she doesn't have to (which is true) but if she did confirm directly with people there would be a lot of juicy stuff she couldn't include without including the denial. This is why she has very little football department contacts as she burns them a lot. She does claim to have a lot of board & administrative contacts, which is probably true. The difference between boards & footy dept is politics, people in and around boards (club or AFL) have agendas they need to push and as such they can use Caro as much as she uses them. Like with a lot of politics the truth is optional.

 

[PepperFace]

Posted this elsewhere...probably more relevant in here:

There has been a consistent pattern of incorrect information from Caro. She is a very skillful writer and uses inference extremely well, but this does not make the information she provides correct. She portrays rumor and innuendo as fact consistently. At the same time this is what makes her successful in the same way the HUN sells papers via sensationalism. I don't blame either of them as it works, but it shouldn't go unchallenged.

Many held Wilson up as some sort of journalistic hero during the Essendon drug saga. However it was here I realised that she manufactures more than she reports. Whilst it was extremely entertaining to see James Hird & EFC dragged across hot coals, when you step back and analyse some of what she wrote it was illuminating. The whole saga was a disgrace and that included the journalism around it and she was a central player.

What she tends to do is extrapolate small details into what she believes may have happened. She surrounds this with loose references in an attempt substantiate what she is saying, when it is impossible to confirm them. Some call this journalism, some call it guessing. What she then waits for is a response, this confirms some things that she may have got right and some she did not. She quickly back tracks over the errors (sometimes apologising) then focuses on the issue that she did get right. It is like shooting a machine gun into a tree and seeing what falls out.

It is a little like a legal prosecution team putting forward their version of events based on the minimal facts they have and challenging the accused to tell them where they got it wrong, this then fills in the gaps in their knowledge.

This method does work but its easy to overlook all the other misinformation that many take as fact - she will not say she reported facts as that would be liable, she is reporting on information she has gained from others and so its not really her fault for errors.

Many have challenged her (particularly coaches who have some media platform) for not calling them direct and asking them if what she heard is true or not. She says she doesn't have to (which is true) but if she did confirm directly with people there would be a lot of juicy stuff she couldn't include without including the denial. This is why she has very little football department contacts as she burns them a lot. She does claim to have a lot of board & administrative contacts, which is probably true. The difference between boards & footy dept is politics, people in and around boards (club or AFL) have agendas they need to push and as such they can use Caro as much as she uses them. Like with a lot of politics the truth is optional.

I have no issue with Caros articles. Yes she is very articulate and insightful in most cases. However I find it laughable that she is the age's chief football writer. She actually doesnt write about football at all. She writes about boardroom politics and whatnot but not football itself. Me personally couldnt give two hoots about the stuff that happens off the field....I only like to read about football and let the politics take care of themselves. RoCo actually is a much better journo for the age.....because he might not be everyones taste but at least he has an opinion on the game.

 

[Markfs]

I have no issue with Caros articles. Yes she is very articulate and insightful in most cases. However I find it laughable that she is the age's chief football writer. She actually doesnt write about football at all. She writes about boardroom politics and whatnot but not football itself. Me personally couldnt give two hoots about the stuff that happens off the field....I only like to read about football and let the politics take care of themselves. RoCo actually is a much better journo for the age.....because he might not be everyones taste but at least he has an opinion on the game.

I tend to agree with you that, other than the fate of Richmond, she doesn't show much interest in the footy. It seems to be a Fairfax thing. Patrick Smith seems to be more concerned with using football as a black hole into the way of zen. I heard him speaking to barlett on SEN last week and he was discussing heroism or something....a frustrated philosopher. I think Wilson is a frustrated politician...... I don't think either of them think football is something serious people should be earning their living from.

 

[Markfs]

Posted this elsewhere...probably more relevant in here:

There has been a consistent pattern of incorrect information from Caro. She is a very skillful writer and uses inference extremely well, but this does not make the information she provides correct. She portrays rumor and innuendo as fact consistently. At the same time this is what makes her successful in the same way the HUN sells papers via sensationalism. I don't blame either of them as it works, but it shouldn't go unchallenged.

Many held Wilson up as some sort of journalistic hero during the Essendon drug saga. However it was here I realised that she manufactures more than she reports. Whilst it was extremely entertaining to see James Hird & EFC dragged across hot coals, when you step back and analyse some of what she wrote it was illuminating. The whole saga was a disgrace and that included the journalism around it and she was a central player.

What she tends to do is extrapolate small details into what she believes may have happened. She surrounds this with loose references in an attempt substantiate what she is saying, when it is impossible to confirm them. Some call this journalism, some call it guessing. What she then waits for is a response, this confirms some things that she may have got right and some she did not. She quickly back tracks over the errors (sometimes apologising) then focuses on the issue that she did get right. It is like shooting a machine gun into a tree and seeing what falls out.

It is a little like a legal prosecution team putting forward their version of events based on the minimal facts they have and challenging the accused to tell them where they got it wrong, this then fills in the gaps in their knowledge.

This method does work but its easy to overlook all the other misinformation that many take as fact - she will not say she reported facts as that would be liable, she is reporting on information she has gained from others and so its not really her fault for errors.

Many have challenged her (particularly coaches who have some media platform) for not calling them direct and asking them if what she heard is true or not. She says she doesn't have to (which is true) but if she did confirm directly with people there would be a lot of juicy stuff she couldn't include without including the denial. This is why she has very little football department contacts as she burns them a lot. She does claim to have a lot of board & administrative contacts, which is probably true. The difference between boards & footy dept is politics, people in and around boards (club or AFL) have agendas they need to push and as such they can use Caro as much as she uses them. Like with a lot of politics the truth is optional.

the trouble is there is a difference between the way normal journalists operate and how sports writers conduct themselves.

generally speaking, journalists don't have ongoing relationships with the people that they are writing about, although the police reporter establishes relationships with the cops down the station and the finance reporter will know people down the stock exchange.

however with sports writers, they are both reporting on the game and promoting it.... and the clubs deal with them knowing this. They treat Wilson as both an outsider and an insider....and in return, the footy industry tolerates a lot of shoddy journalism because if they take Wilson to court it's bad for business....

lots of "failed" journalists become publicists ...and journos look down their noses at them. Wilson is part sports writer and less frequently, she is a publicist for the game. At some time in the future if she's still around and soccer becomes more popular and AFL less resilient, she might actually start doing some damage to the game and the golden goose for people like her and "Robbo" etc, will be plucked and cooked...

 

[mike123]

Has anyone in the media written a story about the scary similarities between the Scott Brother's situation? Except for Chris lucking out on a premiership in his first year, there are some strange parallels between how the two boys have treated older players and how both their clubs might be failing at the last hurdle to win a premiership...

Maybe they're not really brothers and it's the same guy...

I went on the Geelong board and their comments about Scott were very similar to ours about Buckley.

 

[Markfs]

I went on the Geelong board and their comments about Scott were very similar to ours about Buckley.

so they've got a thatsgold too? I must admit that I haven't been keeping track with what we're saying about buckley. i should know in case someone asks me.....