IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Guy:Incognito

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which also happened to be when Grobler started turning out for Munster A.

Why is it surprising that they were talking about it when he started playing for Munster? It was reported on when he signed as well, by the way, as has been pointed out many times. It just became controversial when he got close to the actual Munster team.

They went for it all frothy mouthed when he started to play. The excuses that the lions was on when he signed doesn't wash and clearly smacks of "we can save this and blow it up when we need to".people need to move on and stop a ring like they are the keepers of all the universes morals. If they wanted to the could have kept at it when he signed or at any stage in the 5 months before they decided it was a story again.


They can jog on with the Rory best stuff too. He went to a day in court. If they hadn't made a big deal of it no one would have noticed.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

This is not a freedom of the press issue. The press/RWI are free to report on whatever they want (legally) about rugby and the IRFU. It just now appears that they aren't going to be able to do it from a privileged position on the inside. They have to do it as outsiders looking in. So they should do things like cultivate sources on the inside, find whistleblowers, do research, find ways around the gatekeepers. You know, journalist stuff.

The IRFU can put out their PR stuff and I think most people will see it as that.

@IBF, do you think the story about the women's game would have been broken in the current climate without all the "inside" access that RWI writers had back then?

Never said it was a freedom of the press issue. The IRFU don't have that kind of power, but they do have other responsibilities.

I do think that the story about the women's game would have broken today. In fact it broke during the period that the relationship has been bad. I don't think it's turned into Russia overnight. I am worried about the feasibility of running those stories if things continue where it looks like they're going.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

True. But all of the journalists who've said anything on the subject have maintained that no reason was given. Starting with the video clip in the OP and continuing with Gerry Thornley. The IRFU have gone on record that they gave reasons. Has anyone from the RWI since come out and acknowledged this?

No, haven't seen any acknowledgement of this. I actually hadn't seen the statement. Then again, haven't actually really seen any talk of it at all since that Thornley interview, its possible there's mediation going on (hopefully).

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

Yes there are politics in sport and in nearly every walk of life, that involves people working together. But those politics are not the same as the politics I’m sure you are aware of, that I was referring to.

Yes people do dedicate huge time to sports, not just rugby. But what you think that has to do with my point, I’m not sure at all.

So what hard questions are journalists asking about these decisions the IRFU are making, that affect people’s lives? Please give examples, since you clearly have them.

Criticism though and important part of allowing public opinion to be aired, does not equate to asking hard questions of either the coach or the organization. There are always critics, in this country we have no shortage of them. If the IRFU excluded every journalist the criticized the team, the coaches or the organization, Joe would be talking to himself.

So strawman, strawman, strawman, you’re wrong about ROC?

No strawman at all.

You dismissed people's concerns because "it's not politics". I explained to you that for some people the IRFU's management of rugby in this country has the same impact as politics. I've given examples in this thread, you don't want to read them.

Just because it's not important to you doesn't mean its not important to others.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, haven't seen any acknowledgement of this. I actually hadn't seen the statement. Then again, haven't actually really seen any talk of it at all since that Thornley interview, its possible there's mediation going on (hopefully).

It's also possible that the RWI have been economical with the truth and aren't willing to own up to it.

If they sort out their differences, then well and good. But pushing an agenda in public whilst holding back or misrepresenting salient facts is exactly why we need to hold the press accountable. They can't just shuffle their feet, look at the ground and mutter "well it's all sorted out now anyway".

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's also possible that the RWI have been economical with the truth and aren't willing to own up to it.

If they sort out their differences, then well and good. But pushing an agenda in public whilst holding back or misrepresenting salient facts is exactly why we need to hold the press accountable. They can't just shuffle their feet, look at the ground and mutter "well it's all sorted out now anyway".

I mean, Joe Schmidt could be hiding under Gerry Thornley's bed with a machete. But there's no evidence of that either so I'll personally stick to the things I've got some for.

I'd imagine that if there is a resolution there'll be not a word from either party, because neither of them seem particularly keen on reporting on reporters.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I mean, Joe Schmidt could be hiding under Gerry Thornley's bed with a machete. But there's no evidence of that either so I'll personally stick to the things I've got some for.

I'd imagine that if there is a resolution there'll be not a word from either party, because neither of them seem particularly keen on reporting on reporters.

This is flat out reductio ad absurdum. You'd be quick to jump on anyone who tried that tactic on you and call it for what it is.

This is not an absurd leap of logic. The IRFU have gone on the record to directly contradict what at least two journailsts have said, also on the record. There's not been a peep from either of the two journalists (one of whom was hardly out the door of the studio the statement was read out on) in the days since that statement was released.

But they get a pass because (a) it was miscommunication or (b) they're in kiss and make up mode so it's all good.

Do we have a different set of standards for the fourth estate?

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is flat out reductio ad absurdum. You'd be quick to jump on anyone who tried that tactic on you and call it for what it is.

This is not an absurd leap of logic. The IRFU have gone on the record to directly contradict what at least two journailsts have said, also on the record. There's not been a peep from either of the two journalists (one of whom was hardly out the door of the studio the statement was read out on) in the days since that statement was released.

But they get a pass because (a) it was miscommunication or (b) they're in kiss and make up mode so it's all good.

Do we have a different set of standards for the fourth estate?

It was a little joke. Apologies!

Is it a direct contradiction? Perhaps, perhaps not. It’s not clear. If it is, someone is being untruthful. You only mentioned one potential party. Certainly from my own experiences I’d be more likely to believe it’s the other party as I’ve seen it before, but with that kind of contradiction I’d be even more likely to put it down to Hanlon’s Razor.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It was a little joke. Apologies!

Is it a direct contradiction? Perhaps, perhaps not. It’s not clear. If it is, someone is being untruthful. You only mentioned one potential party. Certainly from my own experiences I’d be more likely to believe it’s the other party as I’ve seen it before, but with that kind of contradiction I’d be even more likely to put it down to Hanlon’s Razor.

Thanks. Though Joe would never use a machete, it would be a mere.

I think we have to accept that the IRFU statement was accurate. Why? They were asked a direct question by a broadcaster and answered it directly and gave a timeframe as well. If that's not true, they'd be called on it pdq. But there's been nothing. It's possible some of the journalists concerned may not have been aware of the reasons given, but surely Thornley had to be aware? He said he was at a meeting and seems to have seen the 'short' email as well. And is he not chairman of the RWI?

If I was told that something I participated in regularly was being unilaterally stopped, the first question I would be asking is why? You can apply Hanlon's razor to one person, even a few people. But a large group?

And finally, these are journalists. The uppermost thoughts in their heads should always be verify and then report. Are they all shooting from the hip without checking first...?

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Never said it was a freedom of the press issue. The IRFU don't have that kind of power, but they do have other responsibilities.

I do think that the story about the women's game would have broken today. In fact it broke during the period that the relationship has been bad. I don't think it's turned into Russia overnight. I am worried about the feasibility of running those stories if things continue where it looks like they're going.

You may not have said freedom of the press but Pravda and "a free and impartial" press have been mentioned in this thread. I'm too lazy to go back and find who said it.

You have brought up the story about what was happening in the women's game and how important it was for that story to be told and for the IRFU to be held accountable for what was going on and I agree. Now you say that relations were already bad/strained at the time that story broke and even now in the current climate, those journos would still get that story out. Therefore I wonder why is it a problem if the RWI and the IRFU are adversarial?

If you want the IRFU to be held accountable for rugby in Ireland, surely its better that the journalists are independent and adversarial rather than being on the inside and all chummy.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Thanks. Though Joe would never use a machete, it would be a mere.

I think we have to accept that the IRFU statement was accurate. Why? They were asked a direct question by a broadcaster and answered it directly and gave a timeframe as well. If that's not true, they'd be called on it pdq. But there's been nothing. It's possible some of the journalists concerned may not have been aware of the reasons given, but surely Thornley had to be aware? He said he was at a meeting and seems to have seen the 'short' email as well. And is he not chairman of the RWI?

If I was told that something I participated in regularly was being unilaterally stopped, the first question I would be asking is why? You can apply Hanlon's razor to one person, even a few people. But a large group?

And finally, these are journalists. The uppermost thoughts in their heads should always be verify and then report. Are they all shooting from the hip without checking first...?

I absolutely don't accept it has to be accurate. I've seen similar things answered directly in explicit detail in the past that have turned out to be misunderstandings, miscommunications or subsequently swept under the rug. It may be it'll turn out they were talking about different things, maybe conveniently for either party. That's why I suggested Hanlon's razor is most likely for that one. You can assume the journalists were being untruthful if you like, I don't see it.

Although I'm surprised noone has asked who at the IRFU has said this, that was the standard that was set before!

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Although I'm surprised noone has asked who at the IRFU has said this, that was the standard that was set before!

I would assume their PR department, but why would that matter in this case? We've a credible source saying it's an official statement from the IRFU.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You may not have said freedom of the press but Pravda and "a free and impartial" press have been mentioned in this thread. I'm too lazy to go back and find who said it.

Sorry, that was me in reference to Brendan O'Brien's comments on Off The Ball. He wasn't really referring to an issue of free press, he was referring to the standard of reporting you'd get out them if they were the ones to be relied on for information. Should have referenced it.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You have brought up the story about what was happening in the women's game and how important it was for that story to be told and for the IRFU to be held accountable for what was going on and I agree. Now you say that relations were already bad/strained at the time that story broke and even now in the current climate, those journos would still get that story out. Therefore I wonder why is it a problem if the RWI and the IRFU are adversarial?

To be fair I've never suggested I think that it wouldn't break today. You're kind of changing what I meant.

I brought it up as an example to the type of people who say rugby writers aren't important. I'm explaining examples of why they are.

My worry in that regard would be that if the IRFU are capable of getting away with singling out and bullying a single journalist for printing something they don't like (which they are being accused of having done multiple times) then journalists would see it as too big a risk to cover minority areas of the game (which they don't get paid much for doing anyway). For example imagine the Northern Irish TV rights were to not be made available free to air, and imagine the journalists were to get the impression that if they criticised that decision too openly they'd lose access to the Irish team (which are the stories they need).

Yeah_Right wrote: »

If you want the IRFU to be held accountable for rugby in Ireland, surely its better that the journalists are independent and adversarial rather than being on the inside and all chummy.

Yeah that is a concern, sure. Good point. It's been something they've been accused of in the past, there were tweets along this line sent to Brendan O'Brien after he was on Off The Ball.

irishbucsfan

aloooof wrote: »

I would assume their PR department, but why would that matter in this case? We've a credible source saying it's an official statement from the IRFU.

I was asking the same question that was asked earlier in order to discredit Thornley when he said he was told by the IRFU that they considered themselves in competition to him.

Trojan

My first take on all of this was that the IRFU had thrown toys out of the pram because they've been found wanting when asked hard questions about multiple major f*ckups on their part (women's coach, zero tolerance doping, RB appearance in Belfast). If it's not that and is more about new vs print media, well that's interesting and reflects very poorly on RWI.

What was the mistake in an article that was subsequently corrected? Is that now known?

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I absolutely don't accept it has to be accurate. I've seen similar things answered directly in explicit detail in the past that have turned out to be misunderstandings, miscommunications or subsequently swept under the rug. It may be it'll turn out they were talking about different things, maybe conveniently for either party. That's why I suggested Hanlon's razor is most likely for that one. You can assume the journalists were being untruthful if you like, I don't see it.

Although I'm surprised noone has asked who at the IRFU has said this, that was the standard that was set before!

It wasn't a standard set by me.

By the same token, I've seen (and experienced) the press saying one thing and doing the other despite prior agreement not to. There's talk on another thread of Luke Fitz being similarly blindsided by Paul Kimmage.

We seem to accept that when a journalist says relations with the IRFU have broken down, that the fault lies, without question with the IRFU. Nobody's asked if the relationship has broken down because of bad faith by the journalists or the news organs that employ them. Relationships aren't a one way street.

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I was asking the same question that was asked earlier in order to discredit Thornley when he said he was told by the IRFU that they considered themselves in competition to him.

I accept that with regards the "competition" part of the conversation, it's completely fair that we have no grounds to assume Thornley's comments were incorrect.

But with regards whether a reason was given for cancelling the huddle, we have conflicting accounts from both parties, so I feel it's a different situation. By definition one of them has to wrong.

irishbucsfan

aloooof wrote: »

I accept that with regards the "competition" part of the conversation, it's completely fair that we have no grounds to assume Thornley's comments were incorrect.

But with regards whether a reason was given for cancelling the huddle, we have conflicting accounts from both parties, so I feel it's a different situation. By definition one of them has to wrong.

Yes, someone could well be wrong. I take issue with the idea that we have to accept that what the IRFU said is the truth. Im also saying that even if they’ve made a false statement, it’s not necessarily malicious.

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, someone could well be wrong.

By definition, one party is wrong (unless there's a timeline issue and something was disclosed later, but there doesn't seem to be).

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I take issue with the idea that we have to accept that what the IRFU said is the truth.

I'm not suggesting this. Just that we have conflicting accounts.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Im also saying that even if they’ve made a false statement, it’s not necessarily malicious.

Agreed.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, someone could well be wrong. I take issue with the idea that we have to accept that what the IRFU said is the truth. Im also saying that even if they’ve made a false statement, it’s not necessarily malicious.

This somewhat brings us back to the start of this discussion. I don't think we should at all automatically accept what the IRFU are saying, I'm not doing that and I don't think anyone else is. I think it's also fair to suggest that the media or elements within the media are capable of spin and we shouldn't automatically accept their version either.

What has potentially caused frustration is that some extremely strong language was directed from the outset at the IRFU. Posters took exception at this in the absence of concrete and corroborative information. That there now appears to be a number of feasible explanations and still a lack of clarity underpins precisely why a lot of people waited before sticking the oar in.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

it’s not necessarily malicious.

I think a lot of this debate would have been spared had this kind of 'benefit of the doubt' approach been afforded to the IRFU at the outset.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, someone could well be wrong. I take issue with the idea that we have to accept that what the IRFU said is the truth. Im also saying that even if they’ve made a false statement, it’s not necessarily malicious.

Does this mean that the reverse could also be true?

If someone could well be wrong and if the IRFU are wrong and it's not necessarily malicious, if the RWI are wrong, it necessarily is?

irishbucsfan

aloooof wrote: »

By definition, one party is wrong (unless there's a timeline issue and something was disclosed later, but there doesn't seem to be).



I'm not suggesting this. Just that we have conflicting accounts.



Agreed.

Ah yes sorry I wasn't saying you were suggesting that, prawnsambo said we have to accept what the IRFU said was the truth was just referring to that.

But yeah, I'm getting at something like a timeline issue. Or perhaps one person at the IRFU told one journalist in private and they are using that to justify their statement. If it's not something like that, someone is wrong. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is, they've done this in the recent past.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

This somewhat brings us back to the start of this discussion. I don't think we should at all automatically accept what the IRFU are saying, I'm not doing that and I don't think anyone else is. I think it's also fair to suggest that the media or elements within the media are capable of spin and we shouldn't automatically accept their version either.

I am. And for the following reasons:

1. This was a statement issued to a sports news company. That they knew would be broadcast. No organisation makes those kinds of official statements without internal discussion. Whether that internal discussion happened at the time of the enquiry or was pre-agreed as a response to the possibility of the question being asked is moot. Nobody is going out on a limb when the can could be kicked down the road just as easily with a 'no comment' or a 'we'll get back to you'.

2. This was a live and hot topic. The 'huddle' was cancelled on Saturday, was discussed on OTB on Sunday and in the IT and Indo on Monday. If you're being portrayed as the guilty party, you make damn sure you don't dig yourself deeper into the mire by issuing a false statement.

3. There's a suggestion that this could have been a cock-up in communication from the IRFU to the RWI. That's quite possible. But the RWI is not a massive organisation. The chairman (GT) has said that there was a meeting during the week. The IRFU said they gave their reasons during the week. It's not a stretch to suggest that the reasons were given at that meeting because (again according to GT) there was nothing more until an email on Saturday confirming that the 'huddle' was off.

Neil3030

Waaaayyyy too many pages to wade through since last night - has there been any developments outside of the debate going on in here?

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

Waaaayyyy too many pages to wade through since last night - has there been any developments outside of the debate going on in here?

No.

Neil3030

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

No.

<closes door behind him>

prawnsambo

Neil3030 wrote: »

Waaaayyyy too many pages to wade through since last night - has there been any developments outside of the debate going on in here?

There was this:

aloooof wrote: »

I've just re-listened to that section of Second Captains again. Something stuck out to me.

Gerry Thornley:
In Paris, there was an incident which meant to daily huddle nearly didn't go ahead, and for a lot of legal reasons I can't really go into the details of that case, but anyway in the short of it all, we met with the IRFU Press Officer during the week in Carton House, and following that meeting they came back to us on Saturday morning to inform us that the daily huddle would be no more and no reason was given.

After the segment with Thornley on it, Eoin said they approached the IRFU for a statement and received the following:

IRFU statement:
Reasons for discontinuing the additional access post-match were clearly communicated to RWI Rugby Writers of Ireland during the week. All 5 days per week of media access to team are unaffected.

It seems to me like there's a contradiction there (unless the reasons were communicated separately after Saturday morning and before the Second Captains statement)?

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No strawman at all.

You dismissed people's concerns because "it's not politics". I explained to you that for some people the IRFU's management of rugby in this country has the same impact as politics. I've given examples in this thread, you don't want to read them.

Just because it's not important to you doesn't mean its not important to others.

I didn't see you post anything about any media articles asking questions about how the IRFU's management of rugby in Ireland impacts on members of the organisation. Can you give the post numbers? I'll go back and read them with interest. After all that is what we are talking about here, not the axe you have to grind with some of the IRFU's decisions.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

I am. And for the following reasons

The IRFU have been caught twisting the truth in public statements before. Like when they denied they were replacing full-time Tom Tierney with a part-time head coach, despite having already advertised for a part time replacement. Eventually when they were called on this, they explained that they had said this because Tierney had some some other jobs around the IRFU (7s, specifically) so technically he wasn't full-time. They wouldn't answer how this logic makes sense when they describe Anthony Eddie as full-time in the same statement despite the exact same thing being true. So no, we absolutely don't have to accept what they're saying as gospel truth, that department have lost the benefit of the doubt.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The IRFU have been caught twisting the truth in public statements before. Like when they denied they were replacing full-time Tom Tierney with a part-time head coach, despite having already advertised for a part time replacement. Eventually when they were called on this, they explained that they had said this because Tierney had some some other jobs around the IRFU (7s, specifically) so technically he wasn't full-time. They wouldn't answer how this logic makes sense when they describe Anthony Eddie as full-time in the same statement despite the exact same thing being true. So no, we absolutely don't have to accept what they're saying as gospel truth, that department have lost the benefit of the doubt.

That's not in the same league as a categorical denial of something so specific. Especially since it contradicts statements made by journalists. None of those involved hasve come forward to specifically refute that statement in, what is it now? three days?

Of course, if they do, that's a different matter. But if it were me, I'd be all over it like a cock on a raspberry.