IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Hurrache wrote: »

Unusual for a whole section of reporters to be so secretive about the cause of something that directly affects them when they admit themselves they know the reason why.

Maybe it's extremely serious in nature. That or perhaps it's embarrassingly petty.

Will have to wait until one of them decides to write about it and then decide if we believe them or not.

phog

Ha, journalists who complain about being "locked out" and still won't inform us why. Where's the truth in the news now

They're trying to look the victim here when in looks like one of them is the guilty party and the rest have rowed in behind him.

Interested Observer wrote: »

Thornley, who is the chairperson (or whatever the title is) of the RWI, he was on Second Captains yesterday and said there was an 'incident' in Paris that has lead to this. He wouldn't say what this incident was either. It was also mentioned on the podcast the the IRFU have told RWI exactly why the huddles have been cancelled.

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe it's extremely serious in nature. That or perhaps it's embarrassingly petty.

Will have to wait until one of them decides to write about it and then decide if we believe them or not.

Yeah, the was it looks now is that as you say it's something pretty dumb from the journalists side and they're staying quiet, or something more serious which may have legal repercussions somewhere down the line.

phog wrote: »

Ha, journalists who complain about being "locked out" and still won't inform us why. Where's the truth in the news now

They're trying to look the victim here when in looks like one of them is the guilty party and the rest have rowed in behind him.

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.

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,

Why haven't any journalist come out and said that's the issue, if it is?

Hurrache wrote: »

Why haven't any journalist come out and said that's the issue, if it is?

That they're trying to single out and bully a journalist? Some of them have come out and said that.

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/962776120402771968

As soon as they name the person in question, the focus becomes that person and what he did, not the actions of the IRFU.

Former Former wrote: »

As soon as they name the person in question, the focus becomes that person and what he did, not the actions of the IRFU.

He came forward and named himself on OTB.

You're completely right though, I'm not entirely convinced it was a great idea. But there's not exactly a handbook on how to handle this situation.

What he really needs is the NUJ's support. There have been dire times in the past when organisations have gone after NUJ members and the sports journos stood very closely by them and were greatly appreciated, he'll find support there if he needs it.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That they're trying to single out and bully a journalist? Some of them have come out and said that.

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/962776120402771968

They're not saying why. There's been an admission of (a) an error in an article and (b) an 'incident' in Paris and it's just getting muddier instead of clearer.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That they're trying to single out and bully a journalist? Some of them have come out and said that.

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/962776120402771968

Hang on, unless I've missed something in the last 12 hours we don't really know much more than we did yesterday evening. What we have learned is the identity of the journo involved. We still don't know what was said that caused the issue or exactly what the IRFU have actually done. If they have a grievance with a journo then barring that journo from media work is not really bullying is it? It's a normal response to a grievance between 2 parties, no? And until we know exactly what was said that caused the problem and exactly what the response was then we're still no closer to knowing how proportional the reaction was.

Also, am I the only one getting a bit confused by what has happened? I've heard now that a singular journo has been ostracised by the IRFU as a whole over an error in an article. I've heard that the IRFU have put an end to the "huddle" entirely for all journos due to wanting to control their own message. I've heard the Joe put an end to the "huddle" for all journos because he never really like it and questions over Grobler was the excuse he needed to put an end to it. I've heard that Joe put an end to the "huddle" for all journos because he never really like it and questions over the court case was the excuse he needed to put an end to it. There's been reports of an "incident" in Paris, which seems to differ again from the rest of the stuff. So what exactly is it? As prawnsambo is saying, this is getting less clear, not more clear.

prawnsambo wrote: »

They're not saying why. There's been an admission of (a) an error in an article and (b) an 'incident' in Paris and it's just getting muddier instead of clearer.

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.

Jack Kanoff

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.

As clear as mud

Yeah_Right

molloyjh wrote: »

Hang on, unless I've missed something in the last 12 hours we don't really know much more than we did yesterday evening. What we have learned is the identity of the journo involved. We still don't know what was said that caused the issue or exactly what the IRFU have actually done. If they have a grievance with a journo then barring that journo from media work is not really bullying is it? It's a normal response to a grievance between 2 parties, no? And until we know exactly what was said that caused the problem and exactly what the response was then we're still no closer to knowing how proportional the reaction was.

Also, am I the only one getting a bit confused by what has happened? I've heard now that a singular journo has been ostracised by the IRFU as a whole over an error in an article. I've heard that the IRFU have put an end to the "huddle" entirely for all journos due to wanting to control their own message. I've heard the Joe put an end to the "huddle" for all journos because he never really like it and questions over Grobler was the excuse he needed to put an end to it. I've heard that Joe put an end to the "huddle" for all journos because he never really like it and questions over the court case was the excuse he needed to put an end to it. There's been reports of an "incident" in Paris, which seems to differ again from the rest of the stuff. So what exactly is it? As prawnsambo is saying, this is getting less clear, not more clear.

I agree. The journalists aren't clearing anything up. OK, we know who was excluded but we don't know why. The fact the RWI aren't saying why makes me think he deserved the treatment he got.

Also they mention a minor mistake in an article that was cleared up. No further info. I seen plenty of examples where newspapers clear up mistakes from sensational front page articles by putting a clarification/retraction in 3 lines on page 10.

I don't see this as a freedom of the press issue. I see it as an issue between 2 organisations who currently disagree on how they should do business.

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.

Can you post what was confirmed in The Times? I went looking for it and couldn't find it and then hit my article limit.

As for the corrected mistake, again, any one individual may not have seen it or noted it (me being one such individual). But the IRFU clearly saw it and complained about it and it was corrected. We don't know who else saw it or what damage it may have done in the meantime. So we don't know (as molloy says) whether the IRFU response in banning the guy from a press briefing was proportional or not.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I agree. The journalists aren't clearing anything up. OK, we know who was excluded but we don't know why. The fact the RWI aren't saying why makes me think he deserved the treatment he got.

Also they mention a minor mistake in an article that was cleared up. No further info. I seen plenty of examples where newspapers clear up mistakes from sensational front page articles by putting a clarification/retraction in 3 lines on page 10.

I don't see this as a freedom of the press issue. I see it as an issue between 2 organisations who currently disagree on how they should do business.

Probably because if you write something incorrect about a person in a newspaper you can be defaming them and they can sue you. These kind of retractions help in those cases. We don't even know what the mistake was in this case so a retraction could have been unnecessary.

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.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That they're trying to single out and bully a journalist?

No, definitively wrote about the reasons that they all know for cancellation of the briefing.

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.

It would be very worrying if it wasn't rugby, as its rugby I really couldn't care less.

Christy42

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.

Did he ask the wrong questions? I have heard of an error that required a correction and an 'incident'. Anything else appears to speculation.

I am a big believer in freedom of the press but I really need actual information here. So far I have the journalists annoyed one of their members was excluded for 'reasons'. If it was just the IRFU withholding the reasons I would agree 100% with the journalists but they seem to be withholding it as well and that is a red flag to me that I should not jump to conclusions.

AdamD wrote: »

It would be very worrying if it wasn't rugby, as its rugby I really couldn't care less.

There's no precedent being set here. Sports organisations have refused to talk to press (beyond absolute necessity) since time immemorial.

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.

To be fair, we don't even know that. We've had two different characterisations of what it was that got him a one match ban. If we go with the original 'error' explanation and that's from the horse's mouth, it really depends on how serious that error was. In cases where such errors cause reputational damage, the courts are usually the method of righting such wrongs. If that's the top end of the sacle, surely a temporary ban is further down the scale and quite possibly proportionate to whatever damage was caused?

Christy42 wrote: »

Did he ask the wrong questions? I have heard of an error that required a correction and an 'incident'. Anything else appears to speculation.

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?

Christy42 wrote: »

I am a big believer in freedom of the press but I really need actual information here. So far I have the journalists annoyed one of their members was excluded for 'reasons'. If it was just the IRFU withholding the reasons I would agree 100% with the journalists but they seem to be withholding it as well and that is a red flag to me that I should not jump to conclusions.

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.

AdamD wrote: »

It would be very worrying if it wasn't rugby, as its rugby I really couldn't care less.

To be clear, I don't particularly care about it either. Even when the press do get access, everything the players and coaches say is so coached, bland and anodyne that it barely counts as news.

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.

Former Former wrote: »

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.

I think that's just an assumption you're making though? If this is the reason, or the main reason at least, you can be sure fellow journalists would be all over it, making a big deal for reasons such as press freedom. The IRFU has low credit with many people these days, their joint statement with Munster on the Grobler thing the weekend was ill judged, so you can be sure the journalists know they would get a lot of public support. Similarly to how that eejit of an Irish soccer manager (name escapes me!) has behaved with Tony O'Donoghue. O'Donoghue has received a lot of public support from fellow journalists and media alike.

Former Former wrote: »

This confusion suits the IRFU down to the ground.

But it's the journalists job to clear this up, and they know how to, but aren't. Why?

Jack Kanoff

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.

It's been happening in sport for decades...it's nothing new, just maybe to a few here I suspect

thomond2006

I welcome our DPRK TV Irish Rugby TV Overlords!

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.

I think we all recognise that. Especially these days with the treatment of the press in the USA. But press freedom comes with responsibilities. And part of the reason for the situation in the US is because of irresponsibility in the past. It gives oxygen to those who would undermine such freedoms.

As an example (and I'm not conflating this with the point under discussion - it's just the most recent example), people don't seem to understand how unusual and worrying it was to have a judge make a statement about certain events that were widely reported. That's as close as you can come to affecting a criminal trial without actually getting there. It's not unprecedented, but it's very rare.

There are certain things the press cannot do during their reportage of a trial. Some we know, some are less well known. For example, during a trial, no photograph may be published showing the defendant in handcuffs. Even if that's how they arrive and depart from the court.

Murray Kinsella has put a GIF up of the post-match presser from Saturday