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; } } }

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

The Rape of Lucretia

stephen_n wrote: »

Print being the Irish Times, Indo etc.. new media being Balls.ie, 42.ie etc...

I follow. My point being, is the distinction not trivial these days.

stephen_n

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I follow. My point being, is the distinction not trivial these days.

Probably not to the RWI.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

The notion that the IRFU would want to narrow their potential exposure, by cutting out print media, seems a bit ridiculous. No matter how much they want to push their own platforms, they would still need both traditional and new media to give them exposure and maximize sponsorship revenue.

That’s great and all but Thornley didn’t really suggest they were trying to cut out other forms of media entirely. Just cutting them out of interviews and access to their employees outside of the minimum required by their contractual obligations.

It’s extremely worrying that they see the media as being their competitors. It’s ludicrous.

El_Duderino 09

irishbucsfan wrote:

Itâ€™s extremely worrying that they see the media as being their competitors. Itâ€™s ludicrous.

Why's it ludicrous? They have used the media to get their message out, now they can do it themselves. I doubt they give away any unintended information in those briefings so why does the public needs a middle man to deliver the party line?

I can see why the middle man would be upset that he's not needed anymore but I really don't think it's any concern for the man on the street.

irishbucsfan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why's it ludicrous? They have used the media to get their message out, now they can do it themselves. I doubt they give away any unintended information in those briefings so why does the public needs a middle man to deliver the party line?

I can see why the middle man would be upset that he's not needed anymore but I really don't think it's any concern for the man on the street.

Print journalists are not middle men. They're far more than that and they've served Irish rugby very well in the past. Both in terms of forwarding their interests from a PR perspective and in terms of asking hard, uncomfortable questions when they've been needed.

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Print journalists are not middle men. They're far more than that and they've served Irish rugby very well in the past. Both in terms of forwarding their interests from a PR perspective and in terms of asking hard, uncomfortable questions when they've been needed.

When did they ask these hard uncomfortable questions? What was the setting?

El_Duderino 09

irishbucsfan wrote:

Print journalists are not middle men. They're far more than that and they've served Irish rugby very well in the past. Both in terms of forwarding their interests from a PR perspective and in terms of asking hard, uncomfortable questions when they've been needed.

True that the relationship was symbiotic but now the IRFU can do it for themselves so they don't need the journalists help.

Media has moved on to the point that they're far too savvy to give away information just because a journalist asks for it.

I listened to Thornley on Second Captains and he said it's important for print journalists tonne able to ask tough questions like "why did the Italians score 3 tries against Ireland?". That sounds like an interesting question but in actual fact, the coach would be a fool to give a full answer to it. Attention Wales, this is how the Italians did it.

So the coach will give a bland answer that doesn't give away too much info and they will analyze it to the Nth degree behind closed doors. It's not like being asked the question by print media will prompt him to fix the problems, after being asked the same question by TV and radio.

The interesting information comes from the analysis, not from the scripted answers from the IRFU.

Tigerandahalf

Only coming across this article now after seeing it mentioned on Against the Head.
The thread title doesn't reveal much.

As for print media their offering is pretty poor. Nobody of a younger age reads papers anymore.

The Indo/Irish times are caught in the past. The Indo have an app that is an embarrassment with rugby writers of very poor quality.

The Irish Times at least has a decent app but are trying to entice people to pay for content that people don't really care to read enough.

I much prefer this forum on here. There is a good discussion on various things rugby related and you get plenty of viewpoints from people at games and at home etc.

Re online I find Murray Kinsella's articles interesting but just way too long.

The print media aren't afraid of throwing their toys out of the pram. I remember that David Kelly from the Indo (another really poor writer) having a spat on a tour in NZ and the back page was full of indignant hysteria the following day.

There are very little print/online outlets out there that are decent. I do find the guardian quite good and balanced.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

When did they ask these hard uncomfortable questions? What was the setting?

On lots of occasions over the years.

In 2017 specifically you had the fiasco of the mismanagement of women's rugby in Ireland, leading to a protest against the IRFU that went international (mostly led by Cummiskey). Initially the concerns were completely dismissed, but eventually after the story wasn't permitted to just peter away like the IRFU wanted it ended up with the formation of the current committee with Sue Carty. Then you had the IRFU's shockingly poor response to the questions about the signing of dopers and the IRFU's completely hollow drugs policy, exacerbated by Brown's inability to answer questions on the subject coherently, eventually leading him to suggest no similar signings would be allowed in future (ROC was leading the charge there).

A very good example of the absolutely shameful behavious the IRFU will try to get away with, they announced in the build up to the World Cup that they were increasing funding to women's rugby by a huge amount, in order to maximise the goodwill they were getting out of hosting the world cup. That was not true. Journalists have to hold them to account for that. If you are happy to swallow up their propaganda through Irish Rugby TV you will get a completely false story about how Irish rugby is really being run. And remember, that is the IRFU's most important role.

irishbucsfan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

True that the relationship was symbiotic but now the IRFU can do it for themselves so they don't need the journalists help.

Media has moved on to the point that they're far too savvy to give away information just because a journalist asks for it.

Nah, this is just not true I'm afraid.

Yeah_Right

Sorry IBF, I wasn't clear in what I was asking. I meant physically where. Like was it at a press conference? Was it in an exclusive interview? Did they ring someone up? Did they wait outside and ambush them?

The stories you mentioned are all valid stories but would they have not been written under the new situation? If not, why not?

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Sorry IBF, I wasn't clear in what I was asking. I meant physically where. Like was it at a press conference? Was it in an exclusive interview? Did they ring someone up? Did they wait outside and ambush them?

The stories you mentioned are all valid stories but would they have not been written under the new situation? If not, why not?

But this is exactly why stories of access being cut across the board is extremely bad. This is exactly why the IRFU telling the chairman of RWI that they consider them their competitors is extremely bad. This is why it's far more concerning to hear that this is just the latest in a pattern from the IRFU. It means their access is being cut down across the board. They'll just stop commenting altogether and replace it with fluff pieces about how wonderful they're doing. If journalists aren't getting opportunities to actually meet these people face to face any more it will cut down on their opportunities to ask these questions. And the worst part is, if some people are to believed, its exactly the most productive reporting that is causing the IRFU to do this.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Print journalists are not middle men. They're far more than that and they've served Irish rugby very well in the past. Both in terms of forwarding their interests from a PR perspective and in terms of asking hard, uncomfortable questions when they've been needed.

You mean like the hard uncomfortable questions Thornley asked of Kidney when things were going to ****?

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

You mean like the hard uncomfortable questions Thornley asked of Kidney when things were going to ****?

I don't get your point here. I don't really remember, are you trying to make an ironic post here and the truth is that Thornley didn't ask harder questions of Kidney? Because others did...

Your complaint surely can't be that not every single journalist agrees with you about every single important issue, and you're holding one issue with one journalist over the head of every other one... can it?

Hurrache

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Re online I find Murray Kinsella's articles interesting but just way too long.

Reminds me of the comments about his anaylsis of the phases leading up to Sexton's drop goal in his article on The Journal (why do I read them?). A lot of them were too long, didn't read.

And people then complain about print media. A problem with people brought up in the digital age is that they expect things to be simplified for them and summarised into a couple of sentences, anything more than that and their attention span drifts away.

slingerz

Print media do themselves no favours with their carry on. You would respect anybody who asks the pertinent questions and plays the role of a fair mediators in all instances.

however some journos peddle their own agendas and wonder why the IRFU and its subsidary organisations would get their backs up at that and restrict their access as a result. no reason for the IRFU to entertain these types as there as plenty who will report on the facts and findings in a fair and balanced manner

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But this is exactly why stories of access being cut across the board is extremely bad. This is exactly why the IRFU telling the chairman of RWI that they consider them their competitors is extremely bad. This is why it's far more concerning to hear that this is just the latest in a pattern from the IRFU. It means their access is being cut down across the board. They'll just stop commenting altogether and replace it with fluff pieces about how wonderful they're doing. If journalists aren't getting opportunities to actually meet these people face to face any more it will cut down on their opportunities to ask these questions. And the worst part is, if some people are to believed, its exactly the most productive reporting that is causing the IRFU to do this.

I'm trying to understand where your outrage is coming from but I'm struggling. Some journalists from the RWI wrote some pieces that the IRFU didn't like and now they're reducing the access that the RWI has to the employees of the IRFU. Correct?

I don't see what the issue is. That's what I would expect any organisation to do. Why would you give your harshest critics free access to your people so they can write more critical pieces about you? It would be stupid. Of course the IRFU want to put out fluff pieces and use their own PR instruments to make themselves look good.

What this means is that the RWI are going to have get off their holes and go do some work. They absolutely should keep writing indepth, critical stories about the IRFU and keep asking them hard, uncomfortable questions. They shouldn't expect the IRFU to give them the keys to the building and the combo to the safe. If these guys want to be rugby's answer to Woodward and Bernstein, then put the work in.

OldRio

Having studied in great detail all the posts on this thread I've come to the following conclusion.
I couldn't give a fecking damn. Two posters frothing at the mouth over what?

[Deleted User]

I think this is all hilariously petty if what is being reported and suspiciously not reported is to be believed.

Cummisky, O'Conner and Thornley kicking up a stink about having to share desk space and a coffee machine with some lowly cretin bloggers and so they give the IRFU an ultimatum stating they will boycott the press huddle that the IRFU voluntarily take part in. IRFU absolutely correct to give them the two fingers and cancel the whole thing.

As for Ruairi O'Conner, I'm frankly amazed that the adage "paper never refused ink" suddenly fails to apply when it comes to press unprofessionalism being reported.

And this notion that the media needs special access for interview and huddles to be able to provide the public services of reporting on IRFU f'ups is nonsense. The various scandals that have hit Irish Rugby the last few years (all of which I view the IRFU as being completely on the wrong side of) were ably reported on without press huddles in the Aviva.

That members of the print media are airing their grievances whist shielding the full story from the light of day is shameful if true. The notion that the IRFU are 'bullying' journalists is certainly starting to look like absolute tosh.

Happy to wait and see if the full story comes to light but at this stage it looks like the above overview is what we are left with.

irishbucsfan

There you go. Gerry Thornley says on the public record something he was told directly by the IRFU:

"Woah woah woah, we should take this with a grain of salt, he might be lying"

Someone on an internet forum gives a rumour from a completely unnamed and unreferenced source that hasn't been reported anywhere of note:

"Well, that's it then! This is hilariously petty! The IRFU were in the right all along!"

Good thing we waited for proper evidence I guess.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm trying to understand where your outrage is coming from but I'm struggling. Some journalists from the RWI wrote some pieces that the IRFU didn't like and now they're reducing the access that the RWI has to the employees of the IRFU. Correct?

I don't see what the issue is. That's what I would expect any organisation to do. Why would you give your harshest critics free access to your people so they can write more critical pieces about you? It would be stupid. Of course the IRFU want to put out fluff pieces and use their own PR instruments to make themselves look good.

What this means is that the RWI are going to have get off their holes and go do some work. They absolutely should keep writing indepth, critical stories about the IRFU and keep asking them hard, uncomfortable questions. They shouldn't expect the IRFU to give them the keys to the building and the combo to the safe. If these guys want to be rugby's answer to Woodward and Bernstein, then put the work in.

Maybe you hold the IRFU to lower standards than I do. But they are not any organisation. This isn't some private football club owned by decrepid billionaires, this is the national governing body of the sport who thrive on the back of tax-breaks and grants and whose primary function is to look after the sport.

The last paragraph is incredibly unfair. Noone has said anything like that, you're putting words in my mouth there. Incredibly ignorant to suggest these guys need to get off their holes, I am certain you haven't a clue about that so I don't understand why you'd be so aggressive about them. I think a lot of people are conflating the wider press with the rugby writers.

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The last paragraph is incredibly unfair. Noone has said anything like that, you're putting words in my mouth there. Incredibly ignorant to suggest these guys need to get off their holes, I am certain you haven't a clue about that so I don't understand why you'd be so aggressive about them. I think a lot of people are conflating the wider press with the rugby writers.

About as ignorant as screeching about bullying and calling the IRFU a disgrace without having a clue as to what actually happened.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

About as ignorant as screeching about bullying and calling the IRFU a disgrace without having a clue as to what actually happened.

If you're referring to me, you're mistaken.

Interesting the different levels of information you'll require before making up your mind depending on the subject though. Not sure what'd be more convincing for you, a picture of Phillip Browne holding a signed note saying "I did it" with a copy of today's paper standing over the body of Malachy Clerkin before you might reach a conclusion... or just a blog post from Ciprianilover2006 on MySpace.

EDIT: By the way, the IRFU are certainly not a disgrace. They're capable of disgraceful behaviour. That's two very, very different things.

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Interesting the different levels of information you'll require before making up your mind depending on the subject though.

He specifically said the following within his post:

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this is all hilariously petty if what is being reported and suspiciously not reported is to be believed....

....Happy to wait and see if the full story comes to light but at this stage it looks like the above overview is what we are left with.

irishbucsfan

aloooof wrote: »

He specifically said the following within his post:

He said this.

Deleted User wrote: »

Cummisky, O'Conner and Thornley kicking up a stink about having to share desk space and a coffee machine with some lowly cretin bloggers and so they give the IRFU an ultimatum stating they will boycott the press huddle that the IRFU voluntarily take part in. IRFU absolutely correct to give them the two fingers and cancel the whole thing.

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

EDIT: By the way, the IRFU are certainly not a disgrace. They're capable of disgraceful behaviour. That's two very, very different things.

Former Former wrote: »

The IRFU are a disgrace. Petty and cowardly.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Spot on

You seemed to think they were at the outset of the thread. Has something caused you to reign back on that opinion?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

You seemed to think they were at the outset of the thread. Has something caused you to reign back on that opinion?

Why don't you quote the entire post instead of taking me out of context?

I agreed with a long post, not that sentence. This is fairly childish stuff.

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why don't you quote the entire post instead of taking me out of context?

I agreed with a long post, not that sentence. This is fairly childish stuff.

I apologise. You quoted the entire post by Former Former and said "spot on" as the entirety of your reply.

I took this to mean that you agreed with the entire post but it's quite clear now that you only agreed with the parts that weren't going to be quoted back at you at a later date.

So silly of me, won't happen again!

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He said this.

I don't want to get into a quoting-battle, but my reading was that the first sentence set the context (i.e. ".. if what is being reported and suspiciously not reported...") and the rest expounded on it, in that context.

But again, in short, I don't see how anyone can get this:

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Interesting the different levels of information you'll require before making up your mind depending on the subject though.

from this:

Deleted User wrote: »

Happy to wait and see if the full story comes to light but at this stage it looks like the above overview is what we are left with.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I apologise. You quoted the entire post by Former Former and said "spot on" as the entirety of your reply.

I took this to mean that you agreed with the post but it's quite clear now that you only agreed with the parts that weren't going to be quoted back at you at a later date.

So silly of me, won't happen again!

I did agree with the post. But what you're doing is taking someone else's words and putting them in my mouth. It's extremely petty to get down to a level here where suddenly agreeing with a post on an internet forum means you agree with every single word that was in it, rather than the point of the post.

Let's cut out this ****e and stick to what we've actually said. It's extremely desperate stuff.