Neil Francis and clearing out "Dead Wood".

The Nal

sydthebeat wrote: »

Lads, this is a guy who said that gay men are more interested in ballet and hair dressing than sport...

Hes done a lot more than that

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neil_Francis_(rugby_union)&oldid=605470235

MarinersBlues

aloooof wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would read Neil Francis when there are plenty of quality irish rugby journalists out there.

I wouldn't read him for any amount of money.
It's very frustrating to see him trotted out with some other lazy ex-player-turned-pundits on national broadcasters.

There are at least 10 well informed young journalists who deserve that kind of exposure more.

Zzippy

Anyone else think Neil Francis should be cleared out with some dead wood?






A baseball bat is dead wood, right?

mfceiling

The Nal wrote: »

Hes done a lot more than that

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neil_Francis_(rugby_union)&oldid=605470235

Well the tears are running down my cheeks laughing at that!! Exactly what is needed at this moment in time. What a man.

Former Former

aloooof wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would read Neil Francis when there are plenty of quality irish rugby journalists out there.

Because internet.

In times gone by, reading Neil Francis meant going out and buying the Indo. You had to actually seek it out which obviously you wouldn't do if you didn't like the content, so you'd be blissfully unaware of most of it.

Now, people like the OP don't think "oh, it's Monday, I must see what Neil Francis' column is about", they just see whatever flashes up in their Twitter feed because that's how the media works now. And he clicks, and he gets angry, and he retweets, and his mates see it and they click and round and round we go.

People say "oh Francis is just writing clickbait". No, he's not. He's been writing the same sort of thing for 20 years, since before clickbait was a thing. What's changed is that people have lost the ability to distinguish opinion pieces from news from blogs from paid placements. They don't pay for content so they don't value content so they don't discriminate about what they read. People like the OP are the problem, not Neil Francis.

Imagine 20 years ago, your granny was complaining about seeing a big pair of tits in the paper. You'd say, well granny, you bought The Sun and you flicked to page 3, what did you expect? Should there be a topless lady there, probably not, but your granny should know better. That's basically the situation the OP is in. An old lady looking at a pair of tits.

joseywhales

Buer wrote: »

Yeah, I hate those lazy generalisations too.

Sure at least you didn't have to pay to read it.

stephen_n

Former Former wrote: »

Because internet.

In times gone by, reading Neil Francis meant going out and buying the Indo. You had to actually seek it out which obviously you wouldn't do if you didn't like the content, so you'd be blissfully unaware of most of it.

Now, people like the OP don't think "oh, it's Monday, I must see what Neil Francis' column is about", they just see whatever flashes up in their Twitter feed because that's how the media works now. And he clicks, and he gets angry, and he retweets, and his mates see it and they click and round and round we go.

People say "oh Francis is just writing clickbait". No, he's not. He's been writing the same sort of thing for 20 years, since before clickbait was a thing. What's changed is that people have lost the ability to distinguish opinion pieces from news from blogs from paid placements. They don't pay for content so they don't value content so they don't discriminate about what they read. People like the OP are the problem, not Neil Francis.

Imagine 20 years ago, your granny was complaining about seeing a big pair of tits in the paper. You'd say, well granny, you bought The Sun and you flicked to page 3, what did you expect? Should there be a topless lady there, probably not, but your granny should know better. That's basically the situation the OP is in. An old lady looking at a pair of tits.

Well they’re more moons in Franno’s case I’d say.

evil_seed

Heres Johnny wrote: »

To the OP.... Please understand modern journalism. It's about clicks into Web addresses and what you have done, is draw attention to the article with your snowflake outrage that is like fuel to them, I bet that article has got many hits now because of this thread. He laid the trap and you walked right into it.

Serious question, are you really as angry about an article as you appear to be?
If so, jeez, you better lighten up and toughen up.

Modern journalism may be about all that, but Franno isn't a modern journalist. He's been trolling in the papers before trolling was even a term.

He's a lazy, backways thinking "analyst"/"journalist" that is stealing a living based on the fact he's gotten a handful of caps for Ireland

jacothelad

sydthebeat wrote: »

Lads, this is a guy who said that gay men are more interested in ballet and hair dressing than sport...

Nuff said about what kind of journalist he is.

Yes, you never see a Gay man down the gym......:D

jacothelad

awec wrote: »

Has Leinster ever produced a decent journalist?

Edmund Van Esbeck

jacothelad

mfceiling wrote: »

Well the tears are running down my cheeks laughing at that!! Exactly what is needed at this moment in time. What a man.

Apparently he also invented Kleenex as he needs lots of them.:D

sydthebeat

jacothelad wrote: »

Edmund Van Esbeck

Is that the guy who was totally opposed to professionalism

jacothelad

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is that the guy who was totally opposed to professionalism

https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Rugby-1874-1999-Edmund-Esbeck/dp/0717129306

sliabh 1956

I am old enough to remember Niall threating to sue Van Especk over some unflattering piece he wrote about Niall