IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

irishbucsfan · 12-02-2018 10:26AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

The Indo mentions it and refers to it as a press 'huddle' that usually happens under the stands after the game and is separate to the press conference that happens afterwards. They also seem to be pointing the finger at Joe Schmidt rather than the IRFU. Interestingly The Irish Times makes no mention of it whatsoever.

One of the journalists being targeted by this is an IT journalist. Smarter for them not to write about it until they get something out of the IRFU though they're very aware that there are fans who will back the IRFU no matter what and the optics of them complaining in their own newspapers isn't great. Interesting to look at the byline on the Indo article. For what its worth, the IRFU can't cancel the main press conference or the TV interviews even if they wanted to.

EDIT: Actually Cummiskey in the IT did mention it:

The Ireland coach refused to be surrounded by the usual “print huddle” after this emphatic 56-19 victory over Italy. The new rules of engagement, now firmly on his terms, worked well after beating nations ranked 10th and 14th in the world (sixth and seventh up next). Until Saturday, daily papers were granted an off-camera forum where repetitive messaging could be interrupted – as reporters are trained to do when direct questions go unanswered – but this never sat well with the former deputy-principal.

However, as relations between the IRFU and written journalists plummet, relations between Ireland’s rising stars and the public grows stronger. Like most coaches, Schmidt manipulates the media to serve his team, as shown by balanced comment on the performances of Larmour, Andrew Porter, Bundee Aki and Dan Leavy.

As did Johnny Watterson

irishbucsfan · 12-02-2018 10:27AM

kilns wrote: »

I think people and group get annoyed as there are a few sensationlist journalists out there like Ewan McKenna and Eamon Sweeney and while 95% of what the write is mostly bull sh1T and is done for "clicks" there are some people in society who buy into what they are writing.

I dont blame the IRFU from not wanting to interact with guys like that, I am sure they have no issues with genuine journalists who dissect a game and discuss it

No, sorry. Neither Ewan McKenna or Eamon Sweeney go to this briefing.

prawnsambo · 12-02-2018 10:37AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

One of the journalists being targeted by this is an IT journalist. Smarter for them not to write about it until they get something out of the IRFU though they're very aware that there are fans who will back the IRFU no matter what and the optics of them complaining in their own newspapers isn't great. Interesting to look at the byline on the Indo article. For what its worth, the IRFU can't cancel the main press conference or the TV interviews even if they wanted to.

No, I know they can't cancel that PC, I just mentioned it in case people were confusing the two.

There's no byline on the Indo article (at least not on the online one). Is that your point?

The Rape of Lucretia · 12-02-2018 10:38AM

Bazzo wrote: »

What the hell is going on in this thread? I'd take a thousand pages of O'Halloran and Kearney over this.

You mean Kearney over O'Halloran, surely ?

12-02-2018 10:43AM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You mean Kearney over O'Halloran, surely ?

not happening

Former Former · 12-02-2018 10:53AM

I honestly don't see how anyone can defend this.

I'm sure the IRFU think they're doing the right thing to protect their brand. I'm sure Joe doesn't want anything distracting the team's focus from the Six Nations. Fair enough, but the IRFU would want to get their own sh*t together before blaming the media for asking the questions they are employed to ask.

All of these controversies are of the IRFU's own making and it could all have been nipped in the bud with a little bit of cop-on. The bunker mentality that they think is protecting them is what is shooting them in the foot.

12-02-2018 11:08AM

Who is the journo that was banned and what was the honest mistake they made, referenced by Watterson above?

prawnsambo · 12-02-2018 11:12AM

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly don't see how anyone can defend this.

I'm sure the IRFU think they're doing the right thing to protect their brand. I'm sure Joe doesn't want anything distracting the team's focus from the Six Nations. Fair enough, but the IRFU would want to get their own sh*t together before blaming the media for asking the questions they are employed to ask.

All of these controversies are of the IRFU's own making and it could all have been nipped in the bud with a little bit of cop-on. The bunker mentality that they think is protecting them is what is shooting them in the foot.

I don't think anyone's actually defending this. We're like the blind man in the coal cellar looking for the black cat at the moment. I get the impression that some people here know more than they're saying, but it's frustrating as hell trying to have a discussion on something with so little information.

What some people (Venjur motly) are saying is that without more information (for those plebs amongst us who don't have any insight), we can't really jump to judgment and that there are quite possibly good reasons for the IRFU's stance. Or not.

Having personally been in the position of getting requests for comment (as a spokesperson for a sport) on a very tangentially related matter and knowing that the choice was damned if I did or damned if I didn't, I chose the lesser of two evils and refused to comment and participate. There was absolutely no upside to getting involved in my view, and at the very worst, was the prospect of lack of comment being highlighted. I chose the latter route. Another individual who did partcipate was absolutely blindsided and their message was never heard. It was a complete ambush and I've never trusted journalists since. What was worse is that this was on TV and on a high profile show.

So perhaps I'm coming from a position of bias, but that's been my experience. It wasn't the first, but the first was a lot less damaging.

Sangre · 12-02-2018 11:19AM

Can someone please summarise quickly what has happened?

prawnsambo · 12-02-2018 11:21AM

Sangre wrote: »

Can someone please summarise quickly what has happened?

This is probably the bones of it.

12-02-2018 11:45AM

People being accused of blindly supporting the IRFU by those who are blindly defending the media with just as little available information.

There have been countless examples of the media doing more than just 'asking questions' and getting in trouble for it in recent times. The IRFU could very well have had good reason to deny a journalist access to a press huddle. If we subsequently hear said journalist tried to hack into a players phone would people still be defending them? The media are not exempt from having standards and they aren't exempt from criticism.

I'm fully open to the IRFU being completely in the wrong, but I'm reserving judgement until we know what their beef is and how justifyable their actions are. We've one side of the story from people whose relationship with the IRFU are according them at an 'all time low'. Not the best source of information as far as I'm concerned.

irishbucsfan · 12-02-2018 11:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

People being accused of blindly supporting the IRFU whilst defending the media with just as little available information.

There have been countless examples of the media doing more than just 'asking questions' and getting in trouble for it in recent times. The IRFU could very well have had good reason to deny a journalist access to a press huddle. If we subsequently hear said journalist tried to hack into a players phone would people still be defending them? The media are not exempt from having standards and they aren't exempt from criticism.

I'm fully open to the IRFU being completely in the wrong, but I'm reserving judgement until we know what their beef is and how justifyable their actions are. We've one side of the story from people whose relationship with the IRFU are according them at an 'all time low'. Not the best source of information as far as I'm concerned.

I asked you last night for an example of RWI painting a picture that is materially wrong after they were accused of that. None was forthcoming.

Now you're saying that the media are doing more than just asking questions. Can you give an example of where members of the rugby print media have done more than just ask questions?

You're right that I give RWI members more benefit of the doubt than I do the IRFU. The IRFU lost that benefit of the doubt from me years ago through their own actions.

Former Former · 12-02-2018 11:53AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think anyone's actually defending this. We're like the blind man in the coal cellar looking for the black cat at the moment. I get the impression that some people here know more than they're saying, but it's frustrating as hell trying to have a discussion on something with so little information.

What some people (Venjur motly) are saying is that without more information (for those plebs amongst us who don't have any insight), we can't really jump to judgment and that there are quite possibly good reasons for the IRFU's stance. Or not.

Having personally been in the position of getting requests for comment (as a spokesperson for a sport) on a very tangentially related matter and knowing that the choice was damned if I did or damned if I didn't, I chose the lesser of two evils and refused to comment and participate. There was absolutely no upside to getting involved in my view, and at the very worst, was the prospect of lack of comment being highlighted. I chose the latter route. Another individual who did partcipate was absolutely blindsided and their message was never heard. It was a complete ambush and I've never trusted journalists since. What was worse is that this was on TV and on a high profile show.

So perhaps I'm coming from a position of bias, but that's been my experience. It wasn't the first, but the first was a lot less damaging.

The problem is that there won't be any more information forthcoming. The IRFU are taking steps to ensure that it won't. They are not going to justify to the media why they are refusing to talk to the media.

I fully see where they are coming from in terms of journos asking questions at inappropriate times - you don't want distractions from the game in front of you - but that is a problem of the IRFU's own making.

If IRFU won't respond to press inquiries on various issues (which they have repeatedly refused to do), then that leaves the press with two options:
1) Don't ask the questions that the IRFU don't want them to ask or
2) Ask them in whatever forum they can

TBH, I'd much rather they went with option (2). An organisation that doesn't want the media asking hard questions of it should be put under twice the spotlight, every time. That applies in every walk of life, not just sport.

12-02-2018 11:55AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I asked you last night for an example of RWI painting a picture that is materially wrong after they were accused of that. None was forthcoming.

Now you're saying that the media are doing more than just asking questions. Can you give an example of where members of the rugby print media have done more than just ask questions?

You're right that I give RWI members more benefit of the doubt than I do the IRFU. The IRFU lost that benefit of the doubt from me years ago through their own actions.

I went to bed.

The RWI to my knowledge have made no statement.

I provided you with examples of the Print Media however making assumptions about the IRFU's reasoning behind cancelling the huddle and taking issue with an RWI member.

Maybe you've lost trust in the IRFU and maybe you've good reason. I've long since lost faith in many aspects of the media and I similarly don't give them the benefit of the doubt. I also have very good reasons.

Jack Kanoff · 12-02-2018 12:01PM

I remember SAF at Manchester United...if you asked a question he didn't like, or was on a subject that was deemed off limits .. you were banned...end of .. daily express' John Bean was banned 3 times....
He didn't give an interview to the BBC for nearly 8 years....if Joe doesn't want to talk to any particular journo..he doesn't have to

irishbucsfan · 12-02-2018 12:09PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I went to bed.

The RWI to my knowledge have made no statement.

I provided you with examples of the Print Media however making assumptions about the IRFU's reasoning behind cancelling the huddle and taking issue with an RWI member.

Maybe you've lost trust in the IRFU and maybe you've good reason. I've long since lost faith in many aspects of the media and I similarly don't give them the benefit of the doubt. I also have very good reasons.

OK.

So to be clear, RWI members have not painted a picture that is materially wrong and there are no examples of the rugby print media doing more than asking questions. Let's make sure that is clear.

This move does absolutely nothing about members of the wider media. In fact if anything it helps them out. So your opinion of them is actually irrelevant and using the actions of the wider media to justify the IRFU's treatment directed specifically towards print rugby journalists is just a massive bait and switch.

molloyjh · 12-02-2018 12:09PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I went to bed.

The RWI to my knowledge have made no statement.

I provided you with examples of the Print Media however making assumptions about the IRFU's reasoning behind cancelling the huddle and taking issue with an RWI member.

Maybe you've lost trust in the IRFU and maybe you've good reason. I've long since lost faith in many aspects of the media and I similarly don't give them the benefit of the doubt. I also have very good reasons.

Wasn't one of the RWI members on OTB quick to move away from the idea that this has anything to do with Grobler and stress quite clearly that they don't know why the IRFU have taken this stance? I mean maybe people here know more than he does, but if one of the people being actively impacted by this is trying to be measured and not overly judgemental, why is it so hard for others not to follow suit?

It's entirely possible that the IRFU are completely in the wrong here. Or only partially in the wrong. Or have a valid case based on interactions we don't, and never will, see. The idea that something nefarious is at play (FFs posts) seems a bit much. It's a sporting organisation, not a political party. The possible issues are that they are pissed off that the level of respect they had hoped for isn't being shown, not that they are actively engaging in mass drug cheating or some form of fraud or anything like that. Difficult questions on important topics like those should be asked, sure. Asking about an ongoing trial, despite being told that the IRFU can't comment on it, is in no way shape or form close to the same league.

12-02-2018 12:18PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

OK.

So to be clear, RWI members have not painted a picture that is materially wrong and there are no examples of the rugby print media doing more than asking questions. Let's make sure that is clear.

This move does absolutely nothing about members of the wider media. In fact if anything it helps them out. So your opinion of them is actually irrelevant and using the actions of the wider media to justify the IRFU's treatment directed specifically towards print rugby journalists is just a massive bait and switch.

Sorry, but the journalist on off the ball claimed he didn't know why the IRFU were sidelining print media. He said that in answer to another journalists reported claim that it related to the Grobbler issue.

Then he put forward the idea that the IRFU was doing it's own media internally and as such were now 'the competition'. Where is the proof that this is what the IRFU are doing? This is speculation. They have no evidence for it bar other organisations doing similar in the past.

So in the absence of any forthcoming proof from said journalist it's pure speculation which could just as well be a load of bollox. They have no objectivity here.

I've no idea what you mean with your second post. I've issue with print media as much as other forms of news. I've had issue with the rugby media in the past all the way back to when Conor George was being given free reign to personally attack players. He's a pretty good example of where bias can creep onto print.

Christy42 · 12-02-2018 12:20PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is probably the bones of it.

There is very little information on that article. Less media access because the IRFU or Schmidt are unhappy with the coverage. Surely it should go into the details a but more? Is this because of the SA player with a drugs record? I mean what is the relevance to Ireland's 6 nations ? If it is they should have held the conference and Schmidt should have had gone with the Bellicheck strategy of we're on Wales, we're on to Wales.

12-02-2018 12:21PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Wasn't one of the RWI members on OTB quick to move away from the idea that this has anything to do with Grobler and stress quite clearly that they don't know why the IRFU have taken this stance? I mean maybe people here know more than he does, but if one of the people being actively impacted by this is trying to be measured and not overly judgemental, why is it so hard for others not to follow suit?

It's entirely possible that the IRFU are completely in the wrong here. Or only partially in the wrong. Or have a valid case based on interactions we don't, and never will, see. The idea that something nefarious is at play (FFs posts) seems a bit much. It's a sporting organisation, not a political party. The possible issues are that they are pissed off that the level of respect they had hoped for isn't being shown, not that they are actively engaging in mass drug cheating or some form of fraud or anything like that. Difficult questions on important topics like those should be asked, sure. Asking about an ongoing trial, despite being told that the IRFU can't comment on it, is in no way shape or form close to the same league.

I generally agree with you. I think the media can have an agenda and an axe to grind as much as the IRFU have a reputation to uphold. We don't know what the IRFU have taken issue with and if we never do then fair enough.

But I'm not going to go along with the media narrative when it's so often shown to be misleading or incorrect just because it's the media.

prawnsambo · 12-02-2018 12:30PM

Former Former wrote: »

The problem is that there won't be any more information forthcoming. The IRFU are taking steps to ensure that it won't. They are not going to justify to the media why they are refusing to talk to the media.

I fully see where they are coming from in terms of journos asking questions at inappropriate times - you don't want distractions from the game in front of you - but that is a problem of the IRFU's own making.

If IRFU won't respond to press inquiries on various issues (which they have repeatedly refused to do), then that leaves the press with two options:
1) Don't ask the questions that the IRFU don't want them to ask or
2) Ask them in whatever forum they can

TBH, I'd much rather they went with option (2). An organisation that doesn't want the media asking hard questions of it should be put under twice the spotlight, every time. That applies in every walk of life, not just sport.

That really depends on what the issue is. I suspect that you think it's the Grobler issue, which (if it is), is disapppointing, although not necessarily something that Joe Schmidt should be answering after a match or indeed at a pre or post match presser. In fact it probably has nothing to do with Joe, seeing as Grobler is on a one year contract and will obviously have no involvement with the Irish team. Asking his opinion of that would be something akin to the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. There's no 'good' answer to that from his point of view.

If it's something else; such as the ongoing court case and there are persistent questions about it, that's a different matter imo. There are issues there that go well beyond the sporting ones and a massive danger of someone misspeaking.

irishbucsfan · 12-02-2018 12:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, but the journalist on off the ball claimed he didn't know why the IRFU were sidelining print media. He said that in answer to another journalists reported claim that it related to the Grobbler issue.

Then he put forward the idea that the IRFU was doing it's own media internally and as such were now 'the competition'. Where is the proof that this is what the IRFU are doing? This is speculation. They have no evidence for it bar other organisations doing similar in the past.

I still don't see where any of what he said is wrong? You claimed he was wrong. The only person who has been wrong so far is you, in claiming that they've been wrong or doing more than asking questions.

And what you've said here is not at all right anyway. He started by saying that he is a member but he doesn't know for sure what the reason is. He said he was confused. He said it had been an internal issue all week for RWI.

He then goes on to talk about the relationship on a wider scale and about how bad its gotten over the past year, at that point he's no longer talking about last week's problem. He said it seems to be that they are in competition with the media. At no point does he say this particular issue is because of the IRFU running their own media outlets. He just says that the inference seems to be that that's what they're doing, he's clearly framing that as his own opinion. So again, you're mischaracterising a journalist completely unfairly there.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've no idea what you mean with your second post. I've issue with print media as much as other forms of news. I've had issue with the rugby media in the past all the way back to when Conor George was being given free reign to personally attack players. He's a pretty good example of where bias can creep onto print.

Ha, and where is George now?

Conor George actually was attacking players before he was writing for a major newspaper. Then the old tweets were discovered. Where is he now?

Guys like him and Farrelly are examples of the standards that are set and maintained by print media. Nothing else. If guys like George are the best you can do then you're a long, long way from justifying the IRFU's actions.

irishbucsfan · 12-02-2018 12:37PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

That really depends on what the issue is. I suspect that you think it's the Grobler issue, which (if it is), is disapppointing, although not necessarily something that Joe Schmidt should be answering after a match or indeed at a pre or post match presser. In fact it probably has nothing to do with Joe, seeing as Grobler is on a one year contract and will obviously have no involvement with the Irish team. Asking his opinion of that would be something akin to the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. There's no 'good' answer to that from his point of view.

If it's something else; such as the ongoing court case and there are persistent questions about it, that's a different matter imo. There are issues there that go well beyond the sporting ones and a massive danger of someone misspeaking.

There's been absolutely no suggestion from anyone at all apart from people on this forum that the court case is even remotely related to this. No idea why you keep bringing it up.

stephen_n · 12-02-2018 12:40PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's been absolutely no suggestion from anyone at all apart from people on this forum that the court case is even remotely related to this. No idea why you keep bringing it up.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s been no clear suggestion from anyone as to what this about at all.

12-02-2018 12:40PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I still don't see where any of what he said is wrong? You claimed he was wrong. The only person who has been wrong so far is you, in claiming that they've been wrong or doing more than asking questions.

And what you've said here is not at all right anyway. He started by saying that he is a member but he doesn't know for sure what the reason is. He said he was confused. He said it had been an internal issue all week for RWI.

He then goes on to talk about the relationship on a wider scale and about how bad its gotten over the past year, at that point he's no longer talking about last week's problem. He said it seems to be that they are in competition with the media. At no point does he say this particular issue is because of the IRFU running their own media outlets. He just says that the inference seems to be that that's what they're doing, he's clearly framing that as his own opinion. So again, you're mischaracterising a journalist completely unfairly there.

Ha, and where is George now?

Conor George actually was attacking players before he was writing for a major newspaper. Then the old tweets were discovered. Where is he now?

Guys like him and Farrelly are examples of the standards that are set and maintained by print media. Nothing else. If guys like George are the best you can do then you're a long, long way from justifying the IRFU's actions.

He made the statement. The onus is on him to prove his statement is true. In the absence of him proving his statement what are we left with? Where is the proof that the IRFU are sidelining print media because they are bringing media relations completely in house?

And I've heaps of issues beyond Conor George. The recent treatment of Best was a disgrace, David Walsh providing a reference for Tom Humphries is a disgrace. I completely disagree with Schmidt being asked about a trial in the north when trying to announce the Irish rugby team. George Hook talking about Sextons parents was a disgrace. The list goes on. The media are no saints.

12-02-2018 12:40PM

stephen_n wrote: »

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s been no clear suggestion from anyone as to what this about at all.

Exactly.

irishbucsfan · 12-02-2018 12:41PM

Christy42 wrote: »

There is very little information on that article. Less media access because the IRFU or Schmidt are unhappy with the coverage. Surely it should go into the details a but more? Is this because of the SA player with a drugs record? I mean what is the relevance to Ireland's 6 nations ? If it is they should have held the conference and Schmidt should have had gone with the Bellicheck strategy of we're on Wales, we're on to Wales.

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/962982866756997120

The IRFU are trying to single out and bully a single journalist. I'd imagine the writers won't go into more detail because they want to protect the journalist.

irishbucsfan · 12-02-2018 12:42PM

stephen_n wrote: »

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s been no clear suggestion from anyone as to what this about at all.

Yes, there has. Read above.

prawnsambo · 12-02-2018 12:43PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's been absolutely no suggestion from anyone at all apart from people on this forum that the court case is even remotely related to this. No idea why you keep bringing it up.

There's no suggestion of anything tbh. And I did say 'such as'. It's very hard to provide examples of nothing.

And Conor George hasn't gone away you know

.

12-02-2018 12:43PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/962982866756997120

The IRFU are trying to single out and bully a single journalist. I'd imagine the writers won't go into more detail because they want to protect the journalist.

The media trying to single out and bully the IRFU. I'd imagine the writers won't go into more detail because they want to protect themselves.

Am I doing it right?

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Comments