Thornley

Taco Corp

JustinDee wrote: »

Everyone gets interviews on an open press day in camp. On a large day like pre-RWC squad announcement, a large number of players are accessible to all.
After a match, for example, there is an area for priority broadcast media to interview, a full-on press conference, interviews off top-table then a mixed zone for non-accredited media.

Can a player or member of coaching staff refuse to do an interview?

GerM

Surley wrote: »

Can a player or member of coaching staff refuse to do an interview?

Things may have changed but on the NZ tour in 2006, David Kelly from The Irish Independent was ostracised by the players.

*mod edit. posting full articles is no longer permissible

JustinDee

"It remains to be seen whether a solution can be found, but late night attempts to broker a resolution proved unsuccessful"
- Nothing like that the melodrama above these days. All good from this end anyway.

Taco Corp

JustinDee wrote: »

"It remains to be seen whether a solution can be found, but late night attempts to broker a resolution proved unsuccessful"
- Nothing like that the melodrama above these days. All good from this end anyway.

What was the resolution of the mess from 2006? Don't write anything too critical again or we won't do any interviews?

totallegend

JustinDee wrote: »

"It remains to be seen whether a solution can be found, but late night attempts to broker a resolution proved unsuccessful"
- Nothing like that the melodrama above these days. All good from this end anyway.

But that's the whole point of this thread; it's all good on both ends and the journos are too cosy in their relationships with the team and management to be objective or critical, even in the face of ever-worsening results.

JustinDee

totallegend wrote: »

But that's the whole point of this thread; it's all good on both ends and the journos are too cosy in their relationships with the team and management to be objective or critical, even in the face of ever-worsening results.

Oh for . . .

I meant there are no hassles between either regardless. I already described how good the access to players is, regardless of what a journo writes. Writers criticise. Brendan Fanning criticises. Peter O'Reilly criticises. Neil Francis the same. Sinead Kissane never got blanked for asking Eddie O'Sullivan 'that' question. Gerry Thornley went tonto regarding the player succession programme, for example. Its the IRFU who still perform accreditation procedures.
Journalists from home or abroad, still have plenty of access, and write what they want.

spank_inferno

I have never seen any of Kelly's copy so I can't vouch for it.

However from the outside, I think the players should get a grip.

The journalists are not there to be their friends, all parties are there to do a job, which the players get well for.

We all face criticism in our work from time to time, we live with it.

Podge_irl

Thornley clearly didn't make the mistake on purpose. He was however clearly trying to explain away the inevitable selection of Murray as he does with all of Kidney's selections and just made a cock of it.

totallegend

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh for . . .

I meant there are no hassles between either regardless. I already described how good the access to players is, regardless of what a journo writes. Writers criticise. Brendan Fanning criticises. Peter O'Reilly criticises. Neil Francis the same. Sinead Kissane never got blanked for asking Eddie O'Sullivan 'that' question. Gerry Thornley went tonto regarding the player succession programme, for example. Its the IRFU who still perform accreditation procedures.
Journalists from home or abroad, still have plenty of access, and write what they want.

Fair point, I should have been more specific by saying that certain journos are too cosy with the team and management (please see the thread title).

Thornley's criticism of the IRFU's player persecution succession policy is a separate issue from criticising Kidney and/or the team performance.

BTW, the IRFU giving accreditation is proof of nothing, in a million years they would never refuse it to a journalist no matter what he wrote, doesn't mean that the journalist in question will get anything good in interviews.

Tim Robbins

In some respects, it's a tough job and I can't imagine there being a lot of money in the journalism of rugby.

Where is Thornley from and where did he play Rugby? I remember googling it and not being able to find it anywhere.

danthefan

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In some respects, it's a tough job and I can't imagine there being a lot of money in the journalism of rugby.

Where is Thornley from and where did he play Rugby? I remember googling it and not being able to find it anywhere.

He played a bit in school but never to any high level.

JustinDee

totallegend wrote: »

Fair point, I should have been more specific by saying that certain journos are too cosy with the team and management (please see the thread title).

Thornley's criticism of the IRFU's player persecution succession policy is a separate issue from criticising Kidney and/or the team performance.

BTW, the IRFU giving accreditation is proof of nothing, in a million years they would never refuse it to a journalist no matter what he wrote, doesn't mean that the journalist in question will get anything good in interviews.

Accreditation is not automatic, regardless of media outlet. Each application is dealt with on a match by match basis.

GerM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In some respects, it's a tough job and I can't imagine there being a lot of money in the journalism of rugby.

Where is Thornley from and where did he play Rugby? I remember googling it and not being able to find it anywhere.

Thornley wasn't a rugby journalist to begin with. I think it may have been tennis that he originally reported on and he was generally a League of Ireland reporter before eventually winding up as rugby correspondent.

Think he went to St. Andrews although I'm definitely open to correction on that.

DeDoc

spank_inferno wrote: »

I have never seen any of Kelly's copy so I can't vouch for it.

However from the outside, I think the players should get a grip.

The journalists are not there to be their friends, all parties are there to do a job, which the players get well for.

We all face criticism in our work from time to time, we live with it.

Its a hard one to call. Journalists have to (or at least should) critique the performance of the players (and coach. Please note GT!). Differences of opinion as to the validity of any criticism is inevitable from time to time. In that I can agree with you - players, coaches etc need to suck it up and
get on with the job.

However, I do think the scribblers (and other media) must be held to certain standards. That is not censorship - it is simply balancing the rights of those with a lot of power in the equation (the journalists) and those without much (the players etc) about what is fair and factual.

In that sense I've no problem with Thornley - I think he is doing a poor job (right now) of being a rugby correspondent, but I don't think there is anything malicious etc about what he is writing or not writing.

That certainly wouldn't be my take on Kelly as referred to above - I thought his conduct at that time was despicable and I would totally support the players stance at the time.

danthefan

DeDoc wrote: »

That certainly wouldn't be my take on Kelly as referred to above - I thought his conduct at that time was despicable and I would totally support the players stance at the time.

What did he say/write/do exactly?

GerM

spank_inferno wrote: »

I have never seen any of Kelly's copy so I can't vouch for it.

Some harsh words but fairly honest really. Ireland had a brilliant chance to win the game and blew it. We conceded 13 points in the last 8 minutes after being 16-8 up at half time and were the better side. Remember the box kick that led to their try. It was madness. I think this was article just was the straw that broke the camel's back though. There had been a trend of picking at players leading up to it.

*mod edit. posting full articles is no longer permissible

DeDoc

danthefan wrote: »

What did he say/write/do exactly?

I can't give you chapter and verse I'm afraid, but I recall him writing some pretty scurrilous stuff - little basis in fact and extremely personalised and nasty. It may have been around the autumn internationals in 2005 or the 6N in 2006.

The AIs in 05 were certainly disappointing - we got hammered by NZ (who hammered everyone else in a GS tour to be fair), well beaten by Australia and we beat Romania in 2nd gear.

What gets overlooked very easily (and did by several at the time) was that we were without both O'Driscoll and O'Connell for the games, and we also had a slew of senior players on their way out - e.g. Corrigan, Foley, Byrne, Maggs, Miller. EOS brought in Bowe, Bestx2 and Leamy for the series, along with Trimble.

trackguy

It's interesting reading that article by David Kelly from 2006. Barring the player's names, this passage could have been written about the current set-up -

Ireland, unfortunately, are still reluctant to use the numbers allowed by the IRB to supplement the starting 15. It is a damning indictment of the unused replacements who continue to grow splinters on the Irish international bench that they are not deemed worthy of adequate, impactful game time. It is quite inconceivable why Geordan Murphy was allowed to remain on the field for 79 minutes before being replaced by Girvan Dempsey. One presumes that Murphy had been fulfilling the wishes of the management in what he admitted was a limited attacking approach on his behalf.

If not, the logic dictated that his replacement should have arrived much, much earlier than shortly after that lone, almost definitive daring break from his own half which led to the McAlister intercept. Alternatively, what does it say to Dempsey about the faith in his ability to alter the tempo of a game at such a crucial time?

Ditto the rest of the bench, a point forcefully emphasised by the delay in replacing a tiring David Wallace - who had just conceded a penalty - with a groundhog (Keith Gleeson) when a ball carrier was needed at that stage, as the All Blacks stepped up their own barrage of ball-carrying.

Sadly, there are players on this tour who would be better off sunning themselves in Tahiti as their value in terms of this summer's enterprise appears to be negligible unless there is some radical shift in emphasis this week.

One marvels at how McAlister's mental strength will have hardened in manifold ways as a result of Saturday's experience. In stark contrast, when Ronan O'Gara misfires, there is nobody on the bench to light a fire under him.

It is this comfort zone which allows the frequent lapses which creep into his performances to disappear into a worrying vacuum of almost desultory analysis. O'Gara is indubitably number one but wouldn't it be nice to see what his number two, or heaven forefend, number three look like?

Morf

GerM wrote: »

Think he went to St. Andrews although I'm definitely open to correction on that.

I thought someone had said he went to St. Conleths previously on here.

CatFromHue

I don't think it really matters where he went to school to be honest. He is usually a pretty good writer but has made a mistake here and has gone on the record in saying that he believes in Declan Kidney. I don't think the two are related though.

totallegend

DeDoc wrote: »

I can't give you chapter and verse I'm afraid, but I recall him writing some pretty scurrilous stuff - little basis in fact and extremely personalised and nasty. It may have been around the autumn internationals in 2005 or the 6N in 2006.

That's quite a serious allegation; the Independent website has a pretty good search function, I think if you're going to say something like that the least you can do is back it up.

DeDoc

totallegend wrote: »

That's quite a serious allegation; the Independent website has a pretty good search function, I think if you're going to say something like that the least you can do is back it up.

I'm stating my recollection. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to bother trawling through 6-12 months of Kelly's drivel without good reason.

Disregard my comment if you prefer, but I'd ask you this - have you heard anything before or since from any of these Irish players remotely like this with regard to any Irish journalist/reporter/broadcaster? And it isn't like they haven't had a selection of some fairly pointed (and often idiotic) criticism to deal with.

BarackPyjama

Shocking by Thornley to be honest.

GerM

Kelly's articles that hit home were in relation to EOS. It started in the autumn and culminated in the loss in NZ. I get the impression that the team were just fed up after coming so close in NZ for Kelly to stick the knife in. However, I think there was some level of justification for criticism in 2005 following the autumn. POC and BOD out or not, NZ made 15 changes for the game and beat us 45-7 at home. We scored a try in injury time to prevent the whitewash. We were trounced after putting out a poor team including Anthony Horgan, Shane Horgan at centre, Leamy at 8 for the first time and JOC at 7 with Wallace not getting a sniff. ROG came out later and criticised EOS in his book for the decisions made that autumn too. The articles represented a lot of public opinion at the time and people were starting to whisper about EOS being let go. His articles were probably a little too over the top but the sentiment wasn't much different to a lot of feelings at the moment in relation to DK.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/runaway-coach-must-be-stopped-by-players-233176.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/website-editor-lays-it-on-line-for-eos-232189.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/future-looking-bleak-as-eddie-dodges-issues-231823.html

mfceiling

To be honest the man gets on my wick.

The fester comments on newstalk...Jesus his name is Keith...it's not like you played with him for 15 years and can drop a nick name.

He also uses more cliches than a little....

"stick on the afterburners"
"serious grunt"
"dancing feet"

irishbucsfan

JustinDee wrote: »

Accreditation is not automatic, regardless of media outlet. Each application is dealt with on a match by match basis.

Has any established rugby journalist been refused access to players since 2006?

irishbucsfan

GerM wrote: »

Kelly's articles that hit home were in relation to EOS. It started in the autumn and culminated in the loss in NZ. I get the impression that the team were just fed up after coming so close in NZ for Kelly to stick the knife in. However, I think there was some level of justification for criticism in 2005 following the autumn. POC and BOD out or not, NZ made 15 changes for the game and beat us 45-7 at home. We scored a try in injury time to prevent the whitewash. We were trounced after putting out a poor team including Anthony Horgan, Shane Horgan at centre, Leamy at 8 for the first time and JOC at 7 with Wallace not getting a sniff. ROG came out later and criticised EOS in his book for the decisions made that autumn too. The articles represented a lot of public opinion at the time and people were starting to whisper about EOS being let go. His articles were probably a little too over the top but the sentiment wasn't much different to a lot of feelings at the moment in relation to DK.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/runaway-coach-must-be-stopped-by-players-233176.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/website-editor-lays-it-on-line-for-eos-232189.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/future-looking-bleak-as-eddie-dodges-issues-231823.html

I think the problem is that David Kellys knowledge of the game is quite poor yet he was putting the general unspoken consensus onto paper. It must have been very very frustrating for those guys to be criticised by Kelly.

DeDoc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think the problem is that David Kellys knowledge of the game is quite poor yet he was putting the general unspoken consensus onto paper. It must have been very very frustrating for those guys to be criticised by Kelly.

That first article that GerM links is a pretty good example IMO.

I'm not in anyway a blind apologist for EOS - I think he made plenty of mistakes, but I also think he did plenty of good things.
One of those mistakes (as he has acknowledged) was keeping on some players a season or two too long after the 03 world cup, with sentiment for the players involved to some extent influencing the decision. There was a huge focus on delivering something tangible - which to some extent Ireland finally managed (after 19 years of waiting!) with the 04 triple crown. He stayed (too) loyal to that side for 05, hoping to win a championship - and to be fair, despite the loss to France, they had their destiny in their own hands going to Cardiff in the last game. Shame about the result.
I think that game, and more particularly the level of skill, pace and ambition of the All-Blacks on that Lions tour convinced him that we had to move our game on.

Our style was noticeably wider and faster in that autumn, but we arguably didn't have the quality of players to put it into practice. Remember that the provinces weren't exactly in the best of nick at the time and we also had a lot of injuries. It is easy to make fun of the Anthony Horgan selection - but who else was fit and available at the time? Leamy did ok that Autumn and really came into his own in the next 12 months - where he was absolutely outstanding. I'll be honest here and say I never really rated JOC as a top line player, but EOS just couldn't win when it came to selection. If he picked Gleeson or Wallace (two outstanding players) all we heard about was how JOC was tearing up trees for the brillian Wasps. When he did pick him and it didn't work out, it was all about why is Wallace being dropped. In fairness too it should be acknowledged that the Wallace of that era and before was nowhere near as good in defence or at the breakdown as he became later - it was all about the carrying.

I fully concede that plenty of people at the time wanted EOS gone, and D. Kelly wasn't the only journo making such noises. What differentiated him from others IMO was that he seemed to be working very much to an agenda, and not from any conviction that was based on any rugby evidence. To take but one example I remember Peter O'Reilly (of the tribune at the time) also wanting O'Sullivan gone and coming up with (or maybe it was a sub-ed) the very witty, "Steady Eddie Go!" headline. I didn't agree, but I could respect where he was coming from. Same as now where I'd be on the opposite side of the fence with regard to Kidney and can respect that some journalists are of the opposite view.

totallegend

What's at the root of all this is the lack of a distinction between the role of a reporter, who turns up at press conferences and gets the soundbites, and that of a columnist/pundit who comes up with opinions rather than reporting the facts.

No-one would expect Neil Francis or George Hook to pitch up at a team media event and start interviewing the coach or players; that's not what they do.

Guys like Thornley and more recently Farrelly are trying to do both. They're playing 'cub reporter' by coming along to the press conferences, by getting in with the players and coaches and getting their five minutes dictaphone clips. Then the next day, they expect to be taken seriously as a hard-hitting pundit as though they won't be influenced by the relationship they're building up with the team.

It's not plausible; either the players will get cheesed off talking to a guy who's been slating them the day before (they wouldn't be human if they didn't) or likewise, the journo is going to find it hard to be scathing about the pleasant young man he had a coffee with two days previously.

That's the problem as I see it. Ideally, Thornley would decide which he's going to be and a strong editor should be able to impose that sort of distinction, but sports journalism in general is moving away from that sort of traditional distinction.

DeDoc

I don't have any problem with someone doing both to be honest, and don't see any reason why it isn't possible

I also think it is quite possible to be critical in a professional and measured way and still retain enough professional respect to get quotes, interviews etc from the team and management