IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

aloooof wrote: »

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:

from this:

Fair enough. Good point.

Butt let's remind ourselves of the context of the thread here to understand where I'm coming from.

Gerry Thornley goes on live radio as chairman of RWI. He says explicitly that he was told by the IRFU that they see him as their competitor. He also gives other versions of the events.

We then get told by a poster that we should be extremely skeptical of this.

Shortly afterwards someone comes on here and shares a rumour that hasn't come up anywhere else. The rumour has no stated source. And fair enough to the poster of the rumour, he's very clear in saying he can't verify it at all and I've no reason to think he's lying.

We then get told by the same poster that this rumour is "the best overview that we've got left", meanwhile completely ignoring information that has a source and is in the public domain and doesn't exist solely on this forum.

I think it's fair enough to call it extremely hypocritical at the very least.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

Maybe. It's almost as petty as trying to hang Joe Schmidt by associating him with Best's decision to attend a trial.

That was bad too... right?

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe. It's almost as petty as trying to hang Joe Schmidt by associating him with Best's decision to attend a trial.

That was bad too... right?

I've never done this?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone's accusing Thornley of lying. And I think it's unfair to charactarise that post as saying so. But there's no real context to what he reported as being said either.

I think his words were "The IRFU see themselves increasingly as a rival to us" and he gave the example of a coach being made available to the media after the captain's run and that now being restricted to the IRFU online output.

Now, I think that's a clear enough example, but that would affect all media, not just the RWI. But there's been no pushback (that I'm aware of) from other media platforms about this. And interestingly, the second captains guys were seemingly unaware of it, as were the OTB guys.

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think anyone's accusing Thornley of lying. And I think it's unfair to charactarise that post as saying so. But there's no real context to what he reported as being said either.

I think his words were "The IRFU see themselves increasingly as a rival to us" and he gave the example of a coach being made available to the media after the captain's run and that now being restricted to the IRFU online output.

Now, I think that's a clear enough example, but that would affect all media, not just the RWI. But there's been no pushback (that I'm aware of) from other media platforms about this. And interestingly, the second captains guys were seemingly unaware of it, as were the OTB guys.

Thornley said that he was told explicitly by the IRFU that they see them as a rival. He didn't just say "they see themselves as a rival" (I.E. it's not just an opinion he's stating).

Yes absolutely the other forms of media are part of that. They are pretty protected by the broadcasting contracts currently though. I know guys in that realm, they were taken completely by surprise by the whole thing, although supposedly they are getting less access as well.

There also has been pushback on both those radio shows, in that they've had RWI guys on to talk about it and given them a platform and then had Shane Horgan go on a bit of a circular rant about how Schmidt gets this all wrong and how he disagrees with the IRFU.

The online/radio guys getting squeezed out are also a concern. But the nature of their reporting is generally much shorter-form. That's changing now a little to be fair with the podcasts but usually it'd be a lot less critical in its nature and a lot more informational. The IRFU don't feel a need to try to edit that. So I'd be a little more focused on the print guys with my concern, but the whole picture is definitely important.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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?

There were very few journalists asking any questions of Kidney, until things completely imploded. Thornley fed off a very close relationship with Kidney and became an apologist for the IRFU. The notion of “hard questions” is complete BS, this isn’t politics, it’s sport, there aren’t really hard questions, just perception. The IRFU want to protect their brand, but they also need to maximize exposure. The various journalists are a conduit for that, but obviously any organization will try manage how their brand is portrayed. It would be commercial suicide not to. There is only one logical reason for ROC not saying what he did and that is, it crossed a line legally, either slander or liable. If that’s the case, then it isn’t bullying, it’s prudent for the IRFU to bring censure on him.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Thornley said that he was told explicitly by the IRFU that they see them as a rival. He didn't just say "they see themselves as a rival" (I.E. it's not just an opinion he's stating).

Yes absolutely the other forms of media are part of that. They are pretty protected by the broadcasting contracts currently though. I know guys in that realm, they were taken completely by surprise by the whole thing, although supposedly they are getting less access as well.

There also has been pushback on both those radio shows, in that they've had RWI guys on to talk about it and given them a platform and then had Shane Horgan go on a bit of a circular rant about how Schmidt gets this all wrong and how he disagrees with the IRFU.

The online/radio guys getting squeezed out are also a concern. But the nature of their reporting is generally much shorter-form. That's changing now a little to be fair with the podcasts but usually it'd be a lot less critical in its nature and a lot more informational. The IRFU don't feel a need to try to edit that. So I'd be a little more focused on the print guys with my concern, but the whole picture is definitely important.

His exact words on it are as follows:

"But I think also that if you look at it, this is part of a trend whereby the IRFU would see themselves almost as a rival now to the media because of their own online coverage, because of their own social media content... [stuff about caoch not being made available after captain's run] And they said that to us, that they see us, you know, increasingly as a rival now"

Not specifically disagreeing with you, just that it's not as explict as "they see us as a rival" without any equivocation.

What I mean by that is that as the IRFU have their own outlets, and as they increase in volume and take-up, so does their competition with the other media platforms.

prawnsambo wrote: »

His exact words on it are as follows:

"But I think also that if you look at it, this is part of a trend whereby the IRFU would see themselves almost as a rival now to the media because of their own online coverage, because of their own social media content... [stuff about caoch not being made available after captain's run] And they said that to us, that they see us, you know, increasingly as a rival now"

Not specifically disagreeing with you, just that it's not as explict as "they see us as a rival" without any equivocation.

What I mean by that is that as the IRFU have their own outlets, and as they increase in volume and take-up, so does their competition with the other media platforms.

That could just as easily be taken as Thornley putting words in the IRFU's mouth..

Who is it on here that hates when people do that?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That could just as easily be taken as Thornley putting words in the IRFU's mouth..

Who is it on here that hates when people do that?

Another suggestion of people lying. Still never a bit of proof. While accepting stuff with absolutely no source as truth.

Who was it who was waiting for some concrete facts before making their mind up?

Deleted User wrote: »

That could just as easily be taken as Thornley putting words in the IRFU's mouth..

Who is it on here that hates when people do that?

Also, the context is important and we just don't have it. For example, when was this said? It's being assumed that this was said during the current contretemps, when it could have been said at any time. There's also an element of "well d'uh" about it, given the IRFU's presence on their website and social media over the years.

stephen_n wrote: »

There were very few journalists asking any questions of Kidney, until things completely imploded. Thornley fed off a very close relationship with Kidney and became an apologist for the IRFU. The notion of “hard questions” is complete BS, this isn’t politics, it’s sport, there aren’t really hard questions, just perception. The IRFU want to protect their brand, but they also need to maximize exposure. The various journalists are a conduit for that, but obviously any organization will try manage how their brand is portrayed. It would be commercial suicide not to. There is only one logical reason for ROC not saying what he did and that is, it crossed a line legally, either slander or liable. If that’s the case, then it isn’t bullying, it’s prudent for the IRFU to bring censure on him.

You say that this is sports and not politics. But here are politics in sport. In a huge way.

And some people dedicate most of their time to the sport.

The IRFU are the NGB for the sport. Existing off subsidies, grants and tax-breaks. They are judge jury and executioner on some important issues that make genuinely important differences to some people’s lives.

So dismissing people’s concerns I think belies a misunderstanding of just how important some people in the IRFU are.

This weird thing about Kidney (who absolutely was criticised from some corners) is not nearly as relevant as actual reporting into issues where the people involved have very few other outlets or rights of reply. And very often when there is no coverage you end up with a very authoritarian stance that can often take the sport down the wrong path. In recent times I’ve seen a direct example where that has happened and was corrected following coverage in the press.

So you have to consider here that what you’re saying here is almost entirely wrong. Including the bit about ROC.

prawnsambo wrote: »

His exact words on it are as follows:

"But I think also that if you look at it, this is part of a trend whereby the IRFU would see themselves almost as a rival now to the media because of their own online coverage, because of their own social media content... [stuff about caoch not being made available after captain's run] And they said that to us, that they see us, you know, increasingly as a rival now"

Not specifically disagreeing with you, just that it's not as explict as "they see us as a rival" without any equivocation.

What I mean by that is that as the IRFU have their own outlets, and as they increase in volume and take-up, so does their competition with the other media platforms.

Yes, I’m not really disagreeing with that at any point though.

I said exactly that. I just also said it’s an extremely bad thing if the free press is squeezed out to be replaced by Pravda.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Also, the context is important and we just don't have it. For example, when was this said? It's being assumed that this was said during the current contretemps, when it could have been said at any time. There's also an element of "well d'uh" about it, given the IRFU's presence on their website and social media over the years.

Also he hasn't attributing the quote to anyone. Just the "IRFU" said "X". Who in the IRFU said it and in what context. Did they say it in jest or was it communicated formally as the new position of the IRFU.

It's strange that it's so intentionally vague and yet is being pointed to as the reason for relations being at an "all time low".

El_Duderino 09

irishbucsfan wrote:

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

I think it is. Media management is clinical at this point. Eddie Jones is a great example though he takes a different approach than JS. Jones just talks nonsense in interviews which renders anything he says useless because it could have been ironic or sarcastic or nonsense or serious. He can't be held to anything he says.

JS is so precise in what he says that he makes sure he only sticks to the IRFU script. So it doesn't matter to me whether the IRFU tells me or Thornley tells me. It's the same bland answer in any case. Thornley can still do his analysis which can be interesting. But I don't think print media needs special time to ask the same questions forma 3rd time.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also he hasn't attributing the quote to anyone. Just the "IRFU" said "X". Who in the IRFU said it and in what context. Did they say it in jest or was it communicated formally as the new position of the IRFU.

It's strange that it's so intentionally vague and yet is being pointed to as the reason for relations being at an "all time low".

He attributed the quote to the IRFU.

You’ve just this morning explained that our best view of things is entirely based on an unverified anonymous internet rumour. Now you’re complaining that a quote was attributed to an organization and not someone specifically in that organisation? Why the double standards?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So you have to consider here that what you’re saying here is almost entirely wrong. Including the bit about ROC.

Just on this and maybe we don't want to continue down this line too far, but Thornley didn't want to get into a discussion on the near cancellation of the Paris 'huddle' because of "a lot of legal reasons".

There aren't too many of those surrounding Irish rugby at the moment.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it is. Media management is clinical at this point. Eddie Jones is a great example though he takes a different approach than JS. Jones just talks nonsense in interviews which renders anything he says useless because it could have been ironic or sarcastic or nonsense or serious. He can't be held to anything he says.

JS is so precise in what he says that he makes sure he only sticks to the IRFU script. So it doesn't matter to me whether the IRFU tells me or Thornley tells me. It's the same bland answer in any case. Thornley can still do his analysis which can be interesting. But I don't think print media needs special time to ask the same questions forma 3rd time.

OK, but what you’re referring to here are issues that are specifically related to JS discussing his own issues with the media.

We’re talking here about the media being squeezed out across the board and claiming they feel relations are at their worst point ever. There is far more important that gets asked about than issues that pertain directly to the Irish team.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Just on this and maybe we don't want to continue down this line too far, but Thornley didn't want to get into a discussion on the near cancellation of the Paris 'huddle' because of "a lot of legal reasons".

There aren't too many of those surrounding Irish rugby at the moment.

You’re making a big jump here to try to bring this all back to the trial again?

The legal issues could entirely be down to him talking in public about the actions of a newspaper that rival his employer, especially if he found that out through his union.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You’re making a big jump here to try to bring this all back to the trial again?

The legal issues could entirely be down to him talking in public about the actions of a newspaper that rival his employer, especially if he found that out through his union.

He could have said what's already in the public domain. That an error was made in an article and was subsequently corrected. The journalist in question had already admitted to it. So he could have quite readily said that and stopped at the point where any further identification of the error would be made and then said that he didn't want to cross the same line as the journalist in question.

prawnsambo wrote: »

He could have said what's already in the public domain. That an error was made in an article and was subsequently corrected. The journalist in question had already admitted to it. So he could have quite readily said that and stopped at the point where any further identification of the error would be made and then said that he didn't want to cross the same line as the journalist in question.

Had ROC already admitted to it when they were recording that interview? It would have been around the same time I don't know.

Also don't think it'd be a good idea to have gotten into anything like that.

We still don't know what this mistake was, no?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, I’m not really disagreeing with that at any point though.

I said exactly that. I just also said it’s an extremely bad thing if the free press is squeezed out to be replaced by Pravda.

That's a bit of a leap right there. Firstly, there is absolutely nothing the IRFU can do to prevent the press reporting on anything they feel is of importance to the rugby following public. They may curtail access to press 'huddles' or other 'exclusive' press opportunities, but that doesn't stop questions being asked in other fora. They are a governing body, not the government. Secondly, they rely on government funding as you rightly pointed out above and that funding may well dry up if any impropriety is discovered and subsequently stonewalled. It's not like Sport Ireland or the governmemnt doesn't wield the big stick when they feel like it.

Yeah_Right

This is not a freedom of the press issue. The press/RWI are free to report on whatever they want (legally) about rugby and the IRFU. It just now appears that they aren't going to be able to do it from a privileged position on the inside. They have to do it as outsiders looking in. So they should do things like cultivate sources on the inside, find whistleblowers, do research, find ways around the gatekeepers. You know, journalist stuff.

The IRFU can put out their PR stuff and I think most people will see it as that.

@IBF, do you think the story about the women's game would have been broken in the current climate without all the "inside" access that RWI writers had back then?

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You say that this is sports and not politics. But here are politics in sport. In a huge way.

And some people dedicate most of their time to the sport.

The IRFU are the NGB for the sport. Existing off subsidies, grants and tax-breaks. They are judge jury and executioner on some important issues that make genuinely important differences to some people’s lives.

So dismissing people’s concerns I think belies a misunderstanding of just how important some people in the IRFU are.

This weird thing about Kidney (who absolutely was criticised from some corners) is not nearly as relevant as actual reporting into issues where the people involved have very few other outlets or rights of reply. And very often when there is no coverage you end up with a very authoritarian stance that can often take the sport down the wrong path. In recent times I’ve seen a direct example where that has happened and was corrected following coverage in the press.

So you have to consider here that what you’re saying here is almost entirely wrong. Including the bit about ROC.

Yes there are politics in sport and in nearly every walk of life, that involves people working together. But those politics are not the same as the politics I’m sure you are aware of, that I was referring to.

Yes people do dedicate huge time to sports, not just rugby. But what you think that has to do with my point, I’m not sure at all.

So what hard questions are journalists asking about these decisions the IRFU are making, that affect people’s lives? Please give examples, since you clearly have them.

Criticism though and important part of allowing public opinion to be aired, does not equate to asking hard questions of either the coach or the organization. There are always critics, in this country we have no shortage of them. If the IRFU excluded every journalist the criticized the team, the coaches or the organization, Joe would be talking to himself.

So strawman, strawman, strawman, you’re wrong about ROC?

aloooof

I've just re-listened to that section of Second Captains again. Something stuck out to me.

Gerry Thornley:
In Paris, there was an incident which meant to daily huddle nearly didn't go ahead, and for a lot of legal reasons I can't really go into the details of that case, but anyway in the short of it all, we met with the IRFU Press Officer during the week in Carton House, and following that meeting they came back to us on Saturday morning to inform us that the daily huddle would be no more and no reason was given.

After the segment with Thornley on it, Eoin said they approached the IRFU for a statement and received the following:

IRFU statement:
Reasons for discontinuing the additional access post-match were clearly communicated to RWI Rugby Writers of Ireland during the week. All 5 days per week of media access to team are unaffected.

It seems to me like there's a contradiction there (unless the reasons were communicated separately after Saturday morning and before the Second Captains statement)?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Had ROC already admitted to it when they were recording that interview? It would have been around the same time I don't know.

Also don't think it'd be a good idea to have gotten into anything like that.

Yeah. I was basing this on the Johnny Watterson column that you posted which was published on Monday morning. Since that was in the IT, Thornley would have been aware of it before he went on Second Captains (although we don't know exactly when that was recorded - it was released at half four on Monday afternoon). ROC admitted it was his article on OTB that evening.

aloooof wrote: »

It seems to me like there's a contradiction there (unless the reasons were communicated separately after Saturday morning and before the Second Captains statement)?

As I said above, the Second Captains podcast was released on Monday afternoon, so 'during the week' couldn't really be interpreted as referring to that day (the first of this week).

Zzippy

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?

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.

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 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!

Deleted User wrote: »

That could just as easily be taken as Thornley putting words in the IRFU's mouth..

Who is it on here that hates when people do that?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Another suggestion of people lying. Still never a bit of proof. While accepting stuff with absolutely no source as truth.

Who was it who was waiting for some concrete facts before making their mind up?

Will the two of you cop on and start acting like the adults you supposedly are. Thread will be locked if this keeps up

prawnsambo wrote: »

As I said above, the Second Captains podcast was released on Monday afternoon, so 'during the week' couldn't really be interpreted as referring to that day (the first of this week).

I think they meant it was the week before.

To be fair they might have told RWI and then the members might not have found out. Could be completely down to communcation between RWI themselves. I do believe the journalists who said they only found out on the day of the match (because of the tweets they sent), but that doesn't necessarily mean the IRFU didn't tell anyone. Brendan O'Brien did say that it had been an issue the whole week.