nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Burkie1203

How has this come about

https://twitter.com/offtheball/status/962763672358735874

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That the journos are not reporting on their own.
If this was anyone but a journalist they would be all over each other to be the one reporting what was said

You’re asking why union members aren’t reporting on a member of their union who they perceive as being under attack by a 3rd party?

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This logic doesn’t follow whatsoever.

If it’s an honest mistake that was corrected upon request, they absolutely shouldn’t be allowed to get away with coercing it into the public domain just to make a journalist the center of the story. Same reason he probably shouldn’t have come forward and the others were declining to name him. Just as your own employer/colleagues should protect you at your own job.

So journalists should be able to publish stories without backing them up in any way is what you're saying? I mean the article was put out in the public domain with the mistake and the subsequent correction so the DP stuff isn't exactly relevant here is it? It's all technically a matter of public record.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

So journalists should be able to publish stories without backing them up in any way is what you're saying?

Why would anyone bother replying to ****e like this? Would you?

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This logic doesn’t follow whatsoever.

If it’s an honest mistake that was corrected upon request, they absolutely shouldn’t be allowed to get away with coercing it into the public domain just to make a journalist the center of the story. Same reason he probably shouldn’t have come forward and the others were declining to name him. Just as your own employer/colleagues should protect you at your own job.

But he did and now it's news and should be reported on.

I disagree with the IRFU but journalists can't just decide to avoid answering questions which they would ask of others

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You’re asking why union members aren’t reporting on a member of their union who they perceive as being under attack by a 3rd party?

What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and the kind of official stonewall which journalists would expose if they were truthful about the public's right to know

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why would anyone bother replying to ****e like this? Would you?

How else is anyone meant to read what you said? If they didn't say who the person was then they couldn't say what the article was. If they couldn't reference the article then they can't reference the mistake. If they can't reference the mistake then we have no basis on which to judge the situation. If we have no reference point for judging it then the whole story becomes a mess where the journos claim something happened but provide no real context or details around it. Which is what has happened regardless of the fact that we know the individual in question.

Once you're in a situation like that, and you accept it as being a reasonable standard, how easy would it be to start making stuff up? And is this kind of "keeping quiet" not the exact same kind of keeping quiet that the IRFU have been getting grief off these same people for in relation to the Best and Grobler issues?

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and the kind of official stonewall which journalists would expose if they were truthful about the public's right to know

If the print journalists all came out in support of a named colleague, the same people who are currently asking "why aren't they reporting on it?" would instantly change tack to "oh, look at the journalists circling the wagons, typical".

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

If the print journalists all came out in support of a named colleague, the same people who are currently asking "why aren't they reporting on it?" would instantly change tack to "oh, look at the journalists circling the wagons, typical".

Wow, crystal ball gazing again then? I mean I'm not sure how I and others aren't meant to take that personally. You're projecting onto us behaviours that not all of us, at least, would show.

If they reported on it and gave us something to actually go on I might be able to form an opinion on the matter. Assuming you know what that opinion is, is quite frankly, insulting. So please stop tarring people with a brush that you've picked up from somewhere else.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This logic doesn’t follow whatsoever.

If it’s an honest mistake that was corrected upon request, they absolutely shouldn’t be allowed to get away with coercing it into the public domain just to make a journalist the center of the story. Same reason he probably shouldn’t have come forward and the others were declining to name him. Just as your own employer/colleagues should protect you at your own job.

I made a mistake and printed “x”, wouldn’t make ROC the center of the story, anymore so than admitting he was the journalist in question would. If anything admitting that, while omitting the reason only serves to extend this and place him very much at the center.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and the kind of official stonewall which journalists would expose if they were truthful about the public's right to know

Sorry, but where is this hypocrisy exactly from RWI members? I think you're getting worked up here by a bit of a straw man, you're (or perhaps another poster I've missed) bringing this whole "public's right to know" into this as far as I can see.

Former Former

molloyjh wrote: »

Wow, crystal ball gazing again then? I mean I'm not sure how I and others aren't meant to take that personally. You're projecting onto us behaviours that not all of us, at least, would show.

If they reported on it and gave us something to actually go on I might be able to form an opinion on the matter. Assuming you know what that opinion is, is quite frankly, insulting. So please stop tarring people with a brush that you've picked up from somewhere else.

No crystal ball required, I'm speaking from a long experience of posting on boards.ie.

I wasn't talking about you, you may consider yourself tar-free.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

I made a mistake and printed “x”, wouldn’t make ROC the center of the story, anymore so than admitting he was the journalist in question would. If anything admitting that, while omitting the reason only serves to extend this and place him very much at the center.

Sorry, but it absolutely would. And it'd make him a target from the types of people who've been hurling insults at the journalists over this issue.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

How else is anyone meant to read what you said?

Actually reading it would be a start. If you want to do that and come back to me on the actual topic of the thread I'm all ears, I'm not arguing about something I didn't say.

phog

Former Former wrote: »

If the print journalists all came out in support of a named colleague, the same people who are currently asking "why aren't they reporting on it?" would instantly change tack to "oh, look at the journalists circling the wagons, typical".

But they have circled the wagons - or have I missed one or more of them publishing the facts as they know it, like is the full story out there somewhere for us all to read?

[Deleted User]

phog wrote: »

But they have circled the wagons - or have I missed one or more of them publishing the facts as they know it, like is the full story out there somewhere for us all to read?

Certainly what it looks like to me. Rightly or wrongly.

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

But they have circled the wagons - or have I missed one or more of them publishing the facts as they know it, like is the full story out there somewhere for us all to read?

A few of them have spoken about it yes. Supposedly Thornley spoke about it last night on 2nd Captains but I haven't heard that. Watterson's article in the IT gave a pretty decent rundown of what he knows, albeit omitting the name of the journalist or saying what the error was.

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A few of them have spoken about it yes. Supposedly Thornley spoke about it last night on 2nd Captains but I haven't heard that. Watterson's article in the IT gave a pretty decent rundown of what he knows, albeit omitting the name of the journalist or saying what the error was.

Spoke about it, yes, but actual specifics haven't been forthcoming. Thornley suggested that he couldn't say much about it for legal reasons. To me, that's the most logical reason why we haven't heard the details yet.

Ultimately, we don't know the specifics from either side so drawing conclusions either way is, in my view, premature in the extreme. And that doesn't mean I'm pro/anti-IRFU or pro/anti-Journalists in this. A point which one or 2 posters on here seem to be missing.

phog

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A few of them have spoken about it yes. Supposedly Thornley spoke about it last night on 2nd Captains but I haven't heard that. Watterson's article in the IT gave a pretty decent rundown of what he knows, albeit omitting the name of the journalist or saying what the error was.

There's more written here than any journalist or group have written on it and they're supposed to be the injured party.

irishbucsfan

Just listening to Thornley there about how things have been getting worse. He is chairman of RWI.

He said he was the one who told Brendan O'Brien that IRFU-media relations are at their lowest point ever. He said that some of the interviews they've been doing for years have been taken away and solely given to IRFU run media outlets. He has been told specifically by the IRFU that they see RWI as a direct competitor. Shane Horgan sounded pretty appalled at that and came in then to wholeheartedly support the journalists and said it's the one thing he thinks Schmidt gets wrong. He said he's petty with the media and it doesn't serve Joe well. Then he did that thing where he says the same thing 7 billion times over and over again (that Irish rugby gets a really good run from the media). Thornley said they couldn't speak specifically about the issue in Paris for "all sorts of legal reasons".

irishbucsfan

aloooof wrote: »

Spoke about it, yes, but actual specifics haven't been forthcoming. Thornley suggested that he couldn't say much about it for legal reasons. To me, that's the most logical reason why we haven't heard the details yet.

Ultimately, we don't know the specifics from either side so drawing conclusions either way is, in my view, premature in the extreme. And that doesn't mean I'm pro/anti-IRFU or pro/anti-Journalists in this. A point which one or 2 posters on here seem to be missing.

Yes, I'd say you're right.

Also, completely fair enough with your 2nd point, not forming an opinion is absolutely fair enough. Noone has to form an opinion at all. However there's one way of doing that, which I'd say is your way and also the way of others here, which is absolutely fair enough. There's another way, which is to attack the integrity of the writers, which isn't quite "not taking a side". Neither is criticising those who have decided they're happy enough with the evidence to form an opinion.

Yeah_Right

Wait. The journalists are refusing to say anything due to legal reasons!! Does anyone else find that hilarious?

phog

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Just listening to Thornley there about how things have been getting worse. He is chairman of RWI.

He said he was the one who told Brendan O'Brien that IRFU-media relations are at their lowest point ever. He said that some of the interviews they've been doing for years have been taken away and solely given to IRFU run media outlets.

This sounds like the RWI are peeved that the IRFU are promoting their own business primarily through their media outlets and making money from it - cry me a river

Thornley said they couldn't speak specifically about the issue in Paris for "all sorts of legal reasons"

poacher turned gamekeeper

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Wait. The journalists are refusing to say anything due to legal reasons!! Does anyone else find that hilarious?

Why is that hilarious exactly?

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

This sounds like the RWI are peeved that the IRFU are promoting their own business primarily through their media outlets and making money from it - cry me a river

The IRFU is a non-profit NGB. If they shutter up it's a very, very bad thing for Irish rugby. Maybe you can't see the potential repercussions of the IRFU not being held to account, but you will when unscrutinised decisions start filtering down to a part of the game that you're fond of and there's nothing pushing back against them.

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why is that hilarious exactly?

Think about it. IRFU ask the journalists not to bring up something due to legal matters, journos ignore them, IRFU tell them to cut it out or the press conference is over, IRFU and their employees then gets grief in the newspapers about the whole thing.

Now the same journalists can't talk about this incident due to legal reasons. The hypocrisy makes me laugh.

Hurrache

Former Former wrote: »

If the print journalists all came out in support of a named colleague, the same people who are currently asking "why aren't they reporting on it?" would instantly change tack to "oh, look at the journalists circling the wagons, typical".

That's a massive, and incorrent, presumption to make. You still hold the belief that those not instantly insisting the IRFU are our next dictatorship then we're automatically IRFU fanboys.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Think about it. IRFU ask the journalists not to bring up something due to legal matters, journos ignore them, IRFU tell them to cut it out or the press conference is over, IRFU and their employees then gets grief in the newspapers about the whole thing.

Fantasy.

Neil3030

I want an independent press reporting on rugby. But I also want to know exactly what ROC printed, and what events followed, before I make my mind up on whether the IRFU cancelling a media session was out of line. There is more to this than anyone knows right now.

aloooof

phog wrote: »

This sounds like the RWI are peeved that the IRFU are promoting their own business primarily through their media outlets and making money from it - cry me a riverr

Reluctant to wade in further on this, as I've said as much as I want to say on it above, but I have to ask, would you rather be getting your Irish Rugby news from members of the RWI or a sanitised version from the IRFU?

Press briefings are ultimately as much a platform to address the fans as the journalists.

I've stated above that I don't want to make any conclusions until I know the specifics, which have not yet been forthcoming. But I can equally see that the RWI having reduced access is not a good thing.

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

I want an independent press reporting on rugby. But I also want to know exactly what ROC printed, and what events followed, before I make my mind up on whether the IRFU cancelling a media session was out of line. There is more to this than anyone knows right now.

Well Thornley said that he was told specifically in his role as Chairman that the IRFU see RWI as a direct competitor. That's worrying enough as it is.

It may be that ROC did something horrible and intentional (which means he's lying and it'll ultimately see him removed from the union, as others before him have discovered). If that's the case then fair enough. But it's still deeply worrying to hear what Thornley has said.