IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

No, the onus is not on him. You're the one who accused him of being wrong. He said he has no idea what has led to this then he said what it seems like. He's not even claiming its a fact, he's just talking about the feeling he's gotten over the past year.

You are the one who accused him of being wrong. So far you've given no evidence of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

These people are relevant whatsoever! Seriously, this is just bollocks. The journalists you're talking about here are the ones who will benefit from the marginalisation of rugby print media. David Walsh and George Hook :pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

Nonsense post.

prawnsambo wrote: »

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 .

Yes there is. As has been pointed out repeatedly. Actually take the time and have a read of the IT today.

Conor George has gone away in exactly the context I said he has, come on, its not hard to follow.

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

Exactly. We don't know what article they are talking about and the whole "honest error that was subsequently corrected" could just as easily have been a forced correction. They are making it sound like it's over next to nothing at all. If that is the case then the IRFU and Joe are being petty beyond belief. Given some of the stuff written (and spoken) over the years though that doesn't stack up with previous experience. Sounds like they've taken exception to something they felt was very serious. If so, then maybe they have a point. If not, then they are being petty. I'm certainly still no closer to knowing which it is.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, there has. Read above.

Nope that’s not it, there’s some conjecture there, but nothing definitive. It’s an OP, with the only fact being that a particular journalist (unamed) was excluded in Paris. There is no explanation given for linking that to Saturday’s decision either. So why is one journalists opinion any different than the opinions held here?

molloyjh wrote: »

Exactly. We don't know what article they are talking about and the whole "honest error that was subsequently corrected" could just as easily have been a forced correction. They are making it sound like it's over next to nothing at all. If that is the case then the IRFU and Joe are being petty beyond belief. Given some of the stuff written (and spoken) over the years though that doesn't stack up with previous experience. Sounds like they've taken exception to something they felt was very serious. If so, then maybe they have a point. If not, then they are being petty. I'm certainly still no closer to knowing which it is.

Unfortunately things can't be true just because we want them to be.

Although its amazing that you think cutting off access to all print media could ever be justified by any mistake in an online article that was corrected

stephen_n wrote: »

Nope that’s not it, there’s some conjecture there, but nothing definitive. It’s an OP, with the only fact being that a particular journalist (unamed) was excluded in Paris. There is no explanation given for linking that to Saturday’s decision either. So why is one journalists opinion any different than the opinions held here?

Ah stop moving the goalposts. You said there is no clear suggestion as to what it's about.

There is a crystal clear suggestion as to what its about from a member of the organisation that is at the centre of it.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes there is. As has been pointed out repeatedly. Actually take the time and have a read of the IT today.

Conor George has gone away in exactly the context I said he has, come on, its not hard to follow.

1. I don't have a sub and my aricle limit has been reached. But what has been pointed out repeatedly? We've had suggestions of everything from Gerbrandt Grobler, through court cases and now to 'an [unspecified] error'. From the outside it's been as clear as mud so far.

2. Get a sense of humour would ya.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Unfortunately things can't be true just because we want them to be.

Although its amazing that you think cutting off access to all print media could ever be justified by any mistake in an online article that was corrected

And you are assuming that is the reason based on one OP and a confirmation bias against the IRFU.

prawnsambo wrote: »

1. I don't have a sub and my aricle limit has been reached. But what has been pointed out repeatedly? We've had suggestions of everything from Gerbrandt Grobler, through cour cases and now to 'an [unspecified] error'. From the outside it's been as clear as mud so far.

2. Get a sense of humour would ya.

Really? Where has that been suggested?

molloyjh wrote: »

Exactly. We don't know what article they are talking about and the whole "honest error that was subsequently corrected" could just as easily have been a forced correction. They are making it sound like it's over next to nothing at all. If that is the case then the IRFU and Joe are being petty beyond belief. Given some of the stuff written (and spoken) over the years though that doesn't stack up with previous experience. Sounds like they've taken exception to something they felt was very serious. If so, then maybe they have a point. If not, then they are being petty. I'm certainly still no closer to knowing which it is.

No Molloy, I agree with IBF. The media are obviously not going to in any way distort what happened to highlight their side. The media would never do anything like that. We should just take their side in this dispute as the obvious and complete arbiters of truth and integrity that they are. Anything else is just nonsense.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Unfortunately things can't be true just because we want them to be.

Luckily I have no idea what is true and what isn't. And am happy in that ignorance and happy to state that ignorance. Saying "I don't know" can very much be the right thing to say. Especially when I don't know.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Although its amazing that you think cutting off access to all print media could ever be justified by any mistake in an online article that was corrected

That's assuming it was a genuine mistake. And assuming that it was a relatively harmless mistake. Genuine mistakes can be quite damaging. Print media has a responsibility to ensure that what it prints is accurate. If the IRFU feel the mistake was damaging enough, and not enough was done to ensure it didn't happen, they have every right to react to it.

Again, all of this is "if", because I don't know. Pretty sure nobody else here does either.

stephen_n wrote: »

And you are assuming that is the reason based on one OP and a confirmation bias against the IRFU.

I'm a patron of the IRFU. I know it extremely well. I have contributed countless hours to working with them to achieve their primary goal as an NGB of developing rugby in this country. I have no bias against the IRFU, however I find some of their decision-making and treatment of key stakeholders of rugby in this country to be absolutely unacceptable and I'll take any opportunity that I can to point that out. And the journalists being targeted in all this have also been key to shining a light on some of the worst practices of the IRFU in recent times.

molloyjh wrote: »

Luckily I have no idea what is true and what isn't. And am happy in that ignorance and happy to state that ignorance. Saying "I don't know" can very much be the right thing to say. Especially when I don't know.

That's assuming it was a genuine mistake. And assuming that it was a relatively harmless mistake. Genuine mistakes can be quite damaging. Print media has a responsibility to ensure that what it prints is accurate. If the IRFU feel the mistake was damaging enough, and not enough was done to ensure it didn't happen, they have every right to react to it.

Again, all of this is "if", because I don't know. Pretty sure nobody else here does either.

We don't know the facts but we do know that the media are completely beyond questioning which is facts enough for me. Down with the IRFU.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm a patron of the IRFU. I know it extremely well. I have contributed countless hours to working with them to achieve their primary goal as an NGB of developing rugby in this country. I have no bias against the IRFU, however I find some of their decision-making and treatment of key stakeholders of rugby in this country to be absolutely unacceptable and I'll take any opportunity that I can to point that out.

So you did come into this debate biased from the outset then. Thanks for clearing that up.

You still don't know what happened, yet you're passing judgement regardless.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Really? Where has that been suggested?

On here. It's no more definitive than anything else so far. The above tweet does offer some improved clarity, but yesterday and this morning, there was virtually nothing concrete. Even the original tweeted discussion was unclear as to the cause of it with various suggestions put forward.

thomond2006

It's disappointing that this impasse has manifested itself but the sense of entitlement / self-importance amongst the media is a tad nauseating.

molloyjh wrote: »

So you did come into this debate biased from the outset then. Thanks for clearing that up.

You still don't know what happened, yet you're passing judgement regardless.

I'm fairly happy that I know what's going on.

But there's enough stated publicly for people to make their own minds up. Some people I guess are just always going to circle the wagons and put their hands over their ears.

prawnsambo wrote: »

On here. It's no more definitive than anything else so far. The above tweet does offer some improved clarity, but yesterday and this morning, there was virtually nothing concrete. Even the original tweeted discussion was unclear as to the cause of it with various suggestions put forward.

That's gas. A post on boards.ie from people scrambling to defend the IRFU with anything they can muster is no more definitive than statements or articles from RWI.

I think that probably draws a good line under this issue for me. Some people don't want to know.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm fairly happy that I know what's going on.

But there's enough stated publicly for people to make their own minds up. Some people I guess are just always going to circle the wagons and put their hands over their ears.

That's unworthy of you. You obviously know more than most on here but are not prepared or able to discuss it. That's fair enough and I wouldn't ask you to do that. But have a bit more respect for people who don't have your insight and are struggling to comprehend the issue.

And from where I'm sitting, I find it very difficult to make any sense of it. There's far too much opacity and all involved are being pretty coy about the issues.

Thanos

I normally love reading the post of you folks on here, insights and thoughts but the last few pages are killing me......

thomond2006 wrote: »

It's disappointing that this impasse has manifested itself but the sense of entitlement / self-importance amongst the media is a tad nauseating.

Yeah, it's not like the IRFU have banned any and all media relations here. We're talking about 1 format that it seems Joe was never really a fan of. There are other opportunities for journos to interview players and coaches. This is just 1 of them. Something happened that pissed Joe off and he decided he was going to stop doing the "huddle". In the meantime the IRFU have been working with journos to find alternatives for them and neither could agree on one. This isn't the scandal some are making it out to be.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm fairly happy that I know what's going on.

But there's enough stated publicly for people to make their own minds up. Some people I guess are just always going to circle the wagons and put their hands over their ears.

And others are happy to reserve judgement until they have a better handle on what they are judging. Which is perfectly reasonable.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's gas. A post on boards.ie from people scrambling to defend the IRFU with anything they can muster is no more definitive than statements or articles from RWI.

That's a very unfair characterisation of people's motives. No one has (that I'm aware of) categorically said that the IRFU are correct in their actions. They've just been slow to jump to the opposite conclusion because they clearly don't have the same information that you have. I've asked you a couple of questions on this, this morning and the questions have been ignored in favour of thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think that probably draws a good line under this issue for me. Some people don't want to know.

And this is just mind-boggling superiority writ large.

Christy42

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.

I have no idea what is going on even after that article. A press format was banned and a journalist not admitted entry. Maybe there are good reasons the public should not know, I obviously don't know.

Without any actual information I really can't make a call on this in either direction. If the journalists want the public on their side they need to provide further information. Otherwise it is between them and the IRFU as far as I am concerned. No other conclusion can really be drawn from the information I have seen.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's gas. A post on boards.ie from people scrambling to defend the IRFU with anything they can muster is no more definitive than statements or articles from RWI.

I think that probably draws a good line under this issue for me. Some people don't want to know.

I've only seen one person scrambling to defend anyone and it's not the IRFU.

Everyone else is taking a wait and see approach whilst pointing out that the media have a vested interest in pushing their narrative on this.

I've stated repeatedly that I'm completely open to the IRFU being on the wrong side of this.

If you know something then spit it out. If you aren't prepared to do that then stop with the dismissiveness towards people who are in the dark and keeping an open mind.

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

And others are happy to reserve judgement until they have a better handle on what they are judging. Which is perfectly reasonable.

When and how is that going to happen though?

Unless the IRFU choose to come out and discuss this, and I'd be shocked if they do, then the only ones left are the media.

But since people don't trust the media, how can the debate move on?

And that's what the IRFU want. They want their twitter feed and facebook to be the source of information about Irish rugby. They want to control their own narrative. Don't believe me? They were adamant that they absolutely could not discuss Best's attendance at court - except then they did, but only when it suited them and only in the way that suited them.

And look, if this was one journo or one publication in a feud with the IRFU, then I'd say fair enough, it's a guy with an axe to grind. That is very much not the case here though.

Former Former wrote: »

When and how is that going to happen though?

Unless the IRFU choose to come out and discuss this, and I'd be shocked if they do, then the only ones left are the media.

But since people don't trust the media, how can the debate move on?

I'm sceptical of the media, that doesn't mean I consider every word a lie. But this is a direct issue between the media and the IRFU and as a party that disagreement the media might not be the best source of information on this one. At the very least their publications should be read with this context in mind.

Former Former wrote: »

And that's what the IRFU want. They want their twitter feed and facebook to be the source of information about Irish rugby. They want to control their own narrative. Don't believe me? They were adamant that they absolutely could not discuss Best's attendance at court - except then they did, but only when it suited them and only in the way that suited them.

This is an example of the opposite of what you are saying. In this specific instance they have to be very careful to control what is being said. This is the sort of instance where them controlling what is said is exactly the responsible thing to do.

Former Former wrote: »

And look, if this was one journo or one publication in a feud with the IRFU, then I'd say fair enough, it's a guy with an axe to grind. That is very much not the case here though.

It's not uncommon in these kinds of circumstances for an attack against one to be viewed as an attack against all. Again without concrete information it's speculation as to what motives are at play here.

awec

People saying "we can't pass judgement without the facts" or "we need concrete information" are missing the point entirely.