I know there is a separate cult of Robbo thread but thought this deserves special mention. I noticed tonight on twitter that a lot of people were complaining about being blocked by Robbo in response to Neale Daniher's FreezeMND appeal.
I had the same problem, he blocked me for querying why the Herald Sun were charging $2 for the pre-season AFL Magazine when the Age were still producing it for free. Seemed like a logical question but obviously hit a nerve. Whilst being blocked by "Robbo" the peoples champion (or so he thinks) is not a huge issue or a life changing event, it got me thinking....unusual & dangerous but true!!
Robbo is always saying what his Twitter follower/feed is supporting or telling him but isn't it logical to assume that all the followers he has left are most likely sycophants who never disagree with him & never likely to be blocked?
I personally think he is a flog but as a high profile & "respected" journalist wouldn't it be in his best interest to hear opinions from all sides of the issues not just opinions that agree with him....he does seem out of touch with what the public/viewers are thinking at times!
It's a bit like Kevin Bartlett, he cites his listeners reaction to justify his case on various issues but has a very small listening audience with a very old demographic which wouldn't be reflective of what is actually happening.
Any thoughts?
I had the same problem, he blocked me for querying why the Herald Sun were charging $2 for the pre-season AFL Magazine when the Age were still producing it for free. Seemed like a logical question but obviously hit a nerve. Whilst being blocked by "Robbo" the peoples champion (or so he thinks) is not a huge issue or a life changing event, it got me thinking....unusual & dangerous but true!!
Robbo is always saying what his Twitter follower/feed is supporting or telling him but isn't it logical to assume that all the followers he has left are most likely sycophants who never disagree with him & never likely to be blocked?
I personally think he is a flog but as a high profile & "respected" journalist wouldn't it be in his best interest to hear opinions from all sides of the issues not just opinions that agree with him....he does seem out of touch with what the public/viewers are thinking at times!
It's a bit like Kevin Bartlett, he cites his listeners reaction to justify his case on various issues but has a very small listening audience with a very old demographic which wouldn't be reflective of what is actually happening.
Any thoughts?