IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Christy42

Former Former wrote: »

Well, he was either excluded for asking awkward questions, or he was excluded for an error that was corrected.

Is either of those better than the other?



This confusion suits the IRFU down to the ground. They'll say nothing, let everyone work themselves into a tizzy, and luckily there's another match next week which will move everyone's attention on. That doesn't make it right.

When Gerry Thornley is coming out and talking about it, then I'm sorry, but all doubt is removed in my mind.

That depends on the error and how honest it was. If it was a simple typo or misunderstanding then obvious over reaction from the IRFU. Agreed 100%. Except the journalists are going to serious effort to keep the error out of the media which worries me. Also what was the incident in Paris. Did that have anything to do with it?

Except the confusion also suits the journalists as they are also propogating it. I feel like I am meant to be taking that they are right on faith here. Why are the journalists encouraging the confusion?

As I said if it was just the IRFU pushing it I would support the journalists but as is I have to go for a wait and see approach.

I believe in an independent media but I also don't think I should be expected to believe they are always in the right on pure faith. I also don't see this killing an independent media. This will not stop people giving out about Joe making selection or tactical errors after the next poor performance.

jacothelad

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The incident he's referring to is the journalist not being allowed into the print briefing, because the IRFU were not happy with their reporting.

"Their". Plural? I gathered that it was what must have been a serious bit of mis-reporting or perhaps complete invention on the part of one reporter. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm sure the whole story isn't about a split infinitive.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They're trying to protect a colleague, when the other party is attempting to single them out.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject, but there are times when we absolutely need print journalists to go after issues like this, even if its uncomfortable. Women's rugby has been greatly, greatly assisted by similarly uncomfortable reporting by Cummiskey. RWI will long outlast Schmidt and Nucifora, and that is a very good thing.

We don't know what he wrote other than it was incorrect as he admitted. Perhaps it was a totally unjustified personal attack or slur on an individual who has no platform to refute the 'mistake'. Being tenacious is a great trait in honest journalism. It isn't when the output is bilge. Using the print media to bully others without right of reply is pretty disgusting. using print media to attack those who deserve it is part of a free country but sadly it's a rare thing in Ireland. Just look at the verminous criminals who partially populate our parliaments.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The incident was already confirmed beforehand. It was reported in the Irish Times. Now we know the identity.

There's nothing left to know. The only thing that is not in the public domain now is exactly what the mistake was. You just have to ask if you think any mistake in an online article that was corrected before anyone really noticed is enough to justify this response.

This is everything that needs to be known before climbing on to the high horse.

Former Former wrote: »

This will all blow over. When it does, the IRFU will continue with their minimum contractual obligations and most of us will forget that it every happened, because we'll have @Irishrugby and facebook.com/irishrugby to tell us everything we need.

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

Asking awkward questions based on evidence is the best weapon a journalist has. How we could have done with such people over the years in Ireland. The trouble is of course is that getting answers isn't as easy as it sounds. There are plenty of journalists who are as happy to spout propaganda in support of a story than there are fearless newshounds seeking to expose corruption and criminality.

Surely in this case it wasn't about asking questions at all, it was about asserting or implying something that was not the truth. A common tool of journalists after all.

Journalists don't have an absolute right to have access to anyone. Honourable journalists check their facts before firing from the hip.
It's about rugby ffs, not life and death, war, natural disasters etc. Some journalists quite frequently have a very high and frequently laughably puffed up opinion of their own importance. We need the good ones but they in turn also have a huge responsibility to be accurate. People also have an absolute right to not interact with those who use journalistic 'licence'....or lies as we say in the great unwashed public.....in order to further an agenda.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

What bothers me is the number of people who don't see the value in an independent media and are actually glad to see them getting taken down a peg or two. History would tell us that this is not a good mentality for the public to have.

This is just ludicrously over the top.

Journalists have and will continue to go too far at times. Make statements of opinion in place of fact or ask questions that are contrived or intentionally leading, not for news sake, but for the chance to create news.

It is just as important to embrace the 4th estate as it is to hold them to standards. If the IRFU felt those standards were breached by a member of the press then I'm completely fine with them sidelining that member of the press.

Honestly, you can say it bothers you that people don't see a value in independent media, I haven't seen any of that posted here. I think people fully appreciate the importance of the media but are critical enough in their thinking to also accept that the media has a responsibility to the truth that it frequently ignores in pursuit of market share.

If the journalist in question was from Fox news or the Dailymail I wonder would anyone be jumping to their defence.

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

This will all blow over. When it does, the IRFU will continue with their minimum contractual obligations and most of us will forget that it every happened, because we'll have @Irishrugby and facebook.com/irishrugby to tell us everything we need.

I'll be absolutely slated for this next bit, but the worst thing about this whole affair is that there are so many people who don't see what is wrong with excluding a journalist who asked the 'wrong' questions. That is very, very worrying, and it goes way beyond rugby.

1. This is just rugby. It isn't state of the nation stuff. It doesn't go beyond rugby at all. That's just something you're inventing here yourself I'm afraid.

2. Proportionality. We don't know how proportional the reaction was to the incident. So we can't judge how fair or otherwise the IRFU are being.

3. Was he excluded for asking the wrong question? Publishing the wrong thing? Asking the wrong question at the wrong time? I'm still no clearer on any of this at all.

You seem to think that because some people not outraged that they are immediately siding with the IRFU and ignoring the potential issue. When most of us are pretty blue in the face saying that this is not what is happening. Reserving judgement until you're comfortable that you know (or have a reasonable grasp of) the facts is, by definition, not taking sides.

phog

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Bollocks.

They're trying to protect a colleague, when the other party is attempting to single them out.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject, but there are times when we absolutely need print journalists to go after issues like this, even if its uncomfortable. Women's rugby has been greatly, greatly assisted by similarly uncomfortable reporting by Cummiskey. RWI will long outlast Schmidt and Nucifora, and that is a very good thing.

Why haven't they (the print media) given us their side of the story. They're stalling this to make a news item out of it - they welcome the online clicks and fake war.

Buer

Murray Kinsella says the IRFU are unhappy generally over reporting this season " including focus on Bundee Aki’s debut, CJ Stander’s contract and Gerbrandt Grobler".

phog

phog wrote: »

Why haven't they (the print media) given us their side of the story. They're stalling this to make a news item out of it - they welcome the online clicks and fake war.

Exactly.

If it was all so innocent then why aren’t they screaming about it from the roof tops ?

Two sides to every story, and until I hear BOTH of them I am firmly staying in the MIDDLE and NOT taking sides.

molloyjh

Buer wrote: »

Murray Kinsella says the IRFU are unhappy generally over reporting this season " including focus on Bundee Aki’s debut, CJ Stander’s contract and Gerbrandt Grobler".

And they would have a point to be fair. Some of the sensationalist stuff that has come out at times has been incredibly poor. But wasn't most of that the online guys rather than the print guys?

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly.

If it was all so innocent then why aren’t they screaming about it from the roof tops ?

Two sides to every story, and until I hear BOTH of them I am firmly staying in the MIDDLE and NOT taking sides.

In fairness, it could be that reporting what the error was, would be compunding it and whatever damage it was perceived to have caused.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

In fairness, it could be that reporting what the error was, would be compunding it and whatever damage it was perceived to have caused.

True. If it was something trivial like the standard of coffee at the IRFU press junkits it would be one thing, but it could obviously be waaaaay more serious.

prawnsambo

molloyjh wrote: »

And they would have a point to be fair. Some of the sensationalist stuff that has come out at times has been incredibly poor. But wasn't most of that the online guys rather than the print guys?

The only online media I read is The 42, so I can't comment on the rest of them. But it was all over the traditional media websites as well. The Indo especially. It was constant about Aki coming up to the AIs.

Hurrache

molloyjh wrote: »

And they would have a point to be fair. Some of the sensationalist stuff that has come out at times has been incredibly poor. But wasn't most of that the online guys rather than the print guys?

It certainly was when it came to Aki, but radio, well a particular show, and print really ran with Grobler story, be you agree or disagree with the situation.

I think the Grobler issue deserved the analysis and criticism that came with it, but there was a real snide undertone when it came to certain people on the Aki thing.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Bollocks.

They're trying to protect a colleague, when the other party is attempting to single them out.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject, but there are times when we absolutely need print journalists to go after issues like this, even if its uncomfortable. Women's rugby has been greatly, greatly assisted by similarly uncomfortable reporting by Cummiskey. RWI will long outlast Schmidt and Nucifora, and that is a very good thing.

Ah right, so you know what it is he wrote and got excluded for, please inform me, because it doesn’t seem to be common knowledge.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

Ah right, so you know what it is he wrote and got excluded for, please inform me, because it doesn’t seem to be common knowledge.

I never said that. You misunderstood the post above.

ROC was leading the reporting on Grobler. And he made himself a few enemies amongst hardcore fans of a certain province, thats what I was referring to.

irishbucsfan

Hurrache wrote: »

It certainly was when it came to Aki, but radio, well a particular show, and print really ran with Grobler story, be you agree or disagree with the situation.

I think the Grobler issue deserved the analysis and criticism that came with it, but there was a real snide undertone when it came to certain people on the Aki thing.

The writing about Aki was not the guys who are being targeted by this issue. Again, this is RWI who are losing out. Not the gossip columnists or part-time mud-slingers. The trial and Aki have been handled poorly by the press, but not guys like ROC (unless I missed something).

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I never said that. You misunderstood the post above.

ROC was leading the reporting on Grobler. And he made himself a few enemies amongst hardcore fans of a certain province, thats what I was referring to.

I get it. You may not like what he wrote or that he was tenacious on a subject, but there are times when we absolutely need print journalists to go after issues like this, even if its uncomfortable

We don’t know what he wrote, we don’t know if it was tenacious or uncomortable. We don’t know that it wasn’t just downright stupid and completely incorrect. You keep acting like it’s some sort of Pulitzer Prize winning journalism, when nobody knows what it was that caused this. Journalists scream for openness and transparency, then give the exact opposite. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order, do as I say, not as I do.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

1. This is just rugby. It isn't state of the nation stuff. It doesn't go beyond rugby at all. That's just something you're inventing here yourself I'm afraid.

Sorry, but maybe rugby is a hobby for yourself but lets remember there are people in this country who dedicate most of their lives to the game. Very often this is on a voluntary basis. The IRFU are the non-profit governing body of the sport in this country. It's not nice but unfortunately there's areas where the relationship is not good and the press are a great ally at holding them to account for that. It may not be important to you, but its vital to some people.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

We don’t know what he wrote, we don’t know if it was tenacious or uncomortable. We don’t know that it wasn’t just downright stupid and completely incorrect. You keep acting like it’s some sort of Pulitzer Prize winning journalism, when nobody knows what it was that caused this. Journalists scream for openness and transparency, then give the exact opposite. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order, do as I say, not as I do.

Again, you're misunderstanding. I'm referring to what we know he wrote, which was many articles about Grobler.

ClanofLams

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The writing about Aki was not the guys who are being targeted by this issue. Again, this is RWI who are losing out. Not the gossip columnists or part-time mud-slingers. The trial and Aki have been handled poorly by the press, but not guys like ROC (unless I missed something).

I agree with your point broadly but the Indo and ROC specifically had some shocking pieces on Aki.

This one stands out as being particularly inaccurate, misleading and playing to the gallery.

https://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/comment-why-cant-an-irishman-abroad-be-picked-but-a-foreign-player-in-ireland-can-36265952.html

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The writing about Aki was not the guys who are being targeted by this issue. Again, this is RWI who are losing out. Not the gossip columnists or part-time mud-slingers. The trial and Aki have been handled poorly by the press, but not guys like ROC (unless I missed something).

You may have done. From what I'm told, there was an agreement that Rory Best's appearance was not to be reported on, but one print organ got around that agreement by publishing it in their UK edition. Once it was out, the others followed suit.

At a subsequent press conference, it was announced beforehand that no questions would be taken on the issue. In a ROC article, it was reported that 'The Irish Independent' asked a question about it. And then another journalist. Again it was stated by the IRFU press officer that the presser would end if another question was asked. No further questions were asked.

Subsequently, a few days later, Rory Best made a prepared statement and the trial judge also made a statement. I may have that last sequence out of order, but I'm working from memory.

irishbucsfan

ClanofLams wrote: »

I agree with your point broadly but the Indo and ROC specifically had some shocking pieces on Aki.

This one stands out as being particularly inaccurate, misleading and playing to the gallery.

https://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/comment-why-cant-an-irishman-abroad-be-picked-but-a-foreign-player-in-ireland-can-36265952.html

OK, you're spot on there. Saw that article at the time and was not a fan, forgot it was ROC. Nowhere near enough to blacklist him though.

Hurrache

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The writing about Aki was not the guys who are being targeted by this issue. Again, this is RWI who are losing out. Not the gossip columnists or part-time mud-slingers. The trial and Aki have been handled poorly by the press, but not guys like ROC (unless I missed something).

My response was just in general terms of molloyjh talking about the sensationalist stuff.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The writing about Aki was not the guys who are being targeted by this issue. Again, this is RWI who are losing out. Not the gossip columnists or part-time mud-slingers. The trial and Aki have been handled poorly by the press, but not guys like ROC (unless I missed something).

Hang on, is it ROC individually or RWI as a group being targeted here? Honestly I'm so bloody confused as to the what at this stage, never mind the why.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Sorry, but maybe rugby is a hobby for yourself but lets remember there are people in this country who dedicate most of their lives to the game. Very often this is on a voluntary basis. The IRFU are the non-profit governing body of the sport in this country. It's not nice but unfortunately there's areas where the relationship is not good and the press are a great ally at holding them to account for that. It may not be important to you, but its vital to some people.

I was responding to FFs point that this goes beyond rugby. The above post is completely true, but still doesn't go beyond rugby. FF seemed to be saying something like there was some collective ill-will towards the noble profession that was damaging to society as a whole.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Again, you're misunderstanding. I'm referring to what we know he wrote, which was many articles about Grobler.

Which also may be utterly irrelevant to what has happened for all we know.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

OK, you're spot on there. Saw that article at the time and was not a fan, forgot it was ROC. Nowhere near enough to blacklist him though.

That's probably why it didn't get him blacklisted then. Although if there has been a pattern of behaviour that led to the incident in question (that none of us seem to know anything about really) then a reaction surely was bound to happen if the straw was big enough? I mean surely it's not beyond reason to suggest that as a possible scenario?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

This is just ludicrously over the top.

Journalists have and will continue to go too far at times. Make statements of opinion in place of fact or ask questions that are contrived or intentionally leading, not for news sake, but for the chance to create news.

It is just as important to embrace the 4th estate as it is to hold them to standards. If the IRFU felt those standards were breached by a member of the press then I'm completely fine with them sidelining that member of the press.

Honestly, you can say it bothers you that people don't see a value in independent media, I haven't seen any of that posted here. I think people fully appreciate the importance of the media but are critical enough in their thinking to also accept that the media has a responsibility to the truth that it frequently ignores in pursuit of market share.

If the journalist in question was from Fox news or the Dailymail I wonder would anyone be jumping to their defence.

You keep bringing up Fox News and Daily Mail. Or Rupert Murdoch, Piers Morgan and Rebekah Brookes.

That's incredibly disrespectful to the guys at RWI. If the IRFU had kicked Piers Morgan out of a press briefing noone would have given a ****e. That's not what this thread is about.

Please, stop equating RWI members with News Of The World. We're not talking about guys who hacked the phones of dead kids. Unless you've examples of them acting that way then it's not fair. If they ever do start acting that way then I'll be the first to turn my back on them.

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

Hang on, is it ROC individually or RWI as a group being targeted here? Honestly I'm so bloody confused as to the what at this stage, never mind the why.

It is both. They are not mutually exclusive.
ROC was told HE could not attend the post-match press conference.
The print media as a whole have had their post-match 'huddle' with Joe revoked.

molloyjh wrote: »

I was responding to FFs point that this goes beyond rugby. The above post is completely true, but still doesn't go beyond rugby. FF seemed to be saying something like there was some collective ill-will towards the noble profession that was damaging to society as a whole.

The decline of a reliable media is a very big problem for society. We are losing the ability to distinguish news from opinion from PR. This is not a new development but it is a very real issue.

molloyjh wrote: »

That's probably why it didn't get him blacklisted then. Although if there has been a pattern of behaviour that led to the incident in question (that none of us seem to know anything about really) then a reaction surely was bound to happen if the straw was big enough? I mean surely it's not beyond reason to suggest that as a possible scenario?

If that is the issue, let the IRFU come out and say it. My bet is, they won't. Because it's not in their interests for this to develop as a story, just like it wasn't in their interests for Grobler and Best to develop as stories, two more issues they refused to address until they absolutely had to - but very serious issues nonetheless, and if the press had not followed up, then nothing would have come of it.

Matt Lawton of the Daily Mail has done some excellent work when it comes to doping, particularly in cycling and when it comes to Team Sky. I doubt any Irish journo bar Walsh or Kimmage could match his credentials in that area. Would anyone give a **** if it was him? Probably not.

Who is talking about News of the World?

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

If that is the issue, let the IRFU come out and say it. My bet is, they won't. Because it's not in their interests for this to develop as a story, just like it wasn't in their interests for Grobler and Best to develop as stories, two more issues they refused to address until they absolutely had to - but very serious issues nonetheless, and if the press had not followed up, then nothing would have come of it.

Leaving aside the Grobler issue which was definitely one the IRFU should have been called on, the Best situation is absolutely not. The dangers there are self-evident and the IRFU and players should absolutely not have to answer questions on it. At least not without legal advice and even then, the dangers of somebody saying the wrong thing; be it a journalist or a player are far too great for such a risk to be taken. Again, we can't even discuss it here.

When a judge is forced to make a statement on the matter, everyone should sit up and take notice.

Former Former

prawnsambo wrote: »

Leaving aside the Grobler issue which was definitely one the IRFU should have been called on, the Best situation is absolutely not. The dangers there are self-evident and the IRFU and players should absolutely not have to answer questions on it. At least not without legal advice and even then, the dangers of somebody saying the wrong thing; be it a journalist or a player are far too great for such a risk to be taken. Again, we can't even discuss it here.

When a judge is forced to make a statement on the matter, everyone should sit up and take notice.

This point would hold up - if Best and the IRFU had not, in fact, made a statement themselves.

And that's the issue. The IRFU want us to take their press releases and twitter feed as the primary source of information. I don't like that.

CMOTDibbler

prawnsambo wrote: »

You may have done. From what I'm told, there was an agreement that Rory Best's appearance was not to be reported on, but one print organ got around that agreement by publishing it in their UK edition. Once it was out, the others followed suit.

At a subsequent press conference, it was announced beforehand that no questions would be taken on the issue. In a ROC article, it was reported that 'The Irish Independent' asked a question about it. And then another journalist. Again it was stated by the IRFU press officer that the presser would end if another question was asked. No further questions were asked.

Subsequently, a few days later, Rory Best made a prepared statement and the trial judge also made a statement. I may have that last sequence out of order, but I'm working from memory.

It was actually the following day that Best made the statement. The judge spoke a few days later. But yes, you have the order correct.

Buer

prawnsambo wrote: »

Leaving aside the Grobler issue which was definitely one the IRFU should have been called on, the Best situation is absolutely not. The dangers there are self-evident and the IRFU and players should absolutely not have to answer questions on it. At least not without legal advice and even then, the dangers of somebody saying the wrong thing; be it a journalist or a player are far too great for such a risk to be taken.

I tend to agree. The article linked earlier by ROC regarding that press conference gives me more detail than I previously had seen on the situation.

I don't think the IRFU are right in their behaviour but I'd be quite annoyed if I was in their shoes to see ROC's article discussing that press conference. I would imagine they wouldn't expect to see David O'Siochain's pre-conference comments being quoted in a national publication nor the threat to halt proceedings if there were repeated questions. The fact that the Indo then opened with questions relating to Best/Henderson does not make them seem nearly as clever as that article appears to hope it does. It makes them appear provocative and disruptive to many.

There seems to be a deliberate attempt to provoke the IRFU who have responded very poorly to the situation.

Neither group are looking too smart right now. I fully subscribe to a transparent and open media who can ask the pertinent questions. But there is definitely two sides to this and I would assume there's mediation underway at this point.