A whiff of Cordite

[Ruckedtobits]

The Judge made a very specific statement about Best's presence in court, after the event. Her comments should be read with care and an open mind because the phrasing she used can be interpreted in different ways.

[artaneboy]

So if you “have no issue with journalists asking important questions...” but you want to control how and when those questions are asked- is that it? That doesn’t wash. I’ve done plenty of raging at the actions of some hacks, but the personality or knowledge of journalists has very little to do with this.

There were legitimate questions to be asked of Best attending the trial. Not to ask those questions- and press for a real answer- would have been a abrogation of responsibility by the press. There was absolutely no legal issue with answering the question. The proof of that was Best doing just that and killing the story after the match. If he’d been let do that in the first instance we’d have had the same effect. No Joe decided he didn’t like the question- but he doesn’t get to control everything- and the reputation of Irish rugby is not his property.

And I’ve absolutely no sympathy for Browne- poor didums, having to answer some hard questions on Grobler. To be clear- I’ve no problem with the defence of the South African and his signing by Munster. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t once again a legitimate public interest. So if the IRFU think they’ve a right to control all comment and the channels for that, it’s well in its way to IOC levels of hubris.

Dave and Molloyjh have already answered this very well but it's nonsense.

No, I don't want the IRFU to control when these questions are asked, I want the journalists to have the cop on and respect to ask them through the appropriate channels. Joe is not an appropriate channel, he's a rugby coach who was announcing a team to journalists who had already been told not to ask about the trial. They could have rung or emailed the IRFU, they could have stayed in reception until they were answered...but no...someone put Joe on the spot with no respect for the sensitivities of the case and 5 days later the judge has to mention Best in court.

It would be helpful if you read posts properly. I'm not suggesting Browne shouldn't have been asked about Grobler, I'm suggesting that hijacking a sponsorship event was not the appropriate time to do it. Aviva pay a lot of money to help fund Irish Rugby, but the headlines the next day were all about Grobler.

On the substantive point- you still don’t get it. It’s not for the IRFU (or Joe) to decide how and where they/ he get asked questions. Although an obvious “appropriate” way to deal with it would be to offer a press conference/ huddle where that type of public interest stuff was addressed openly. But that wasn’t likely to happen was it?

But I’ll just say this. I find in this instance defending journalists that I often complain about- or actively dislike, more than a bit disconcerting. But the price of a free press/ society is tolerating things and supporting people that annoy you (ROC), when it’s right- and calling out people you admire- Schmidt, when they’re wrong. It may only be sports journalism, but I think we all here think that’s important.

So on your advice; oh, I read all your posts alright... sometimes several times. But thanks for the suggestion, I won’t comment on your possible failings. And that’s me done on this...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLIP]

Pray tell, exactly which freedoms are the IRFU denying the press?

[jimbobjoe]

Pray tell, exactly which freedoms are the IRFU denying the press?

Exactly none. This is why I'm siding with the IRFU. The print media can still attend press conferences, request interviews, report on games etc etc etc.

Print media just can't get their normal weekly circle jerk to make them feel special.

Edit: and the fact that this forum has 142 pages on the chyte standard of the rugby print media in ireland might be a hint why they're not getting that access anymore.

[CiaranIrl]

The sanctimoniousness has been off the charts around here lately.

"The price of a free press" my hole. He cancelled a corridor huddle with a self proclaimed special group of 9 hacks. Voltaire (Hall) is hardly spinning in his (her) grave.

[Oldschool]

The sanctimoniousness has been off the charts around here lately.

"The price of a free press" my hole. He cancelled a corridor huddle with a self proclaimed special group of 9 hacks. Voltaire (Hall) is hardly spinning in his (her) grave.

The good news is that its a condition and not a disease so it shouldn't be contagious although mass hysteria is a recognised phenomenon.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

On the substantive point- you still don’t get it. It’s not for the IRFU (or Joe) to decide how and where they/ he get asked questions. Although an obvious “appropriate” way to deal with it would be to offer a press conference/ huddle where that type of public interest stuff was addressed openly. But that wasn’t likely to happen was it?"Hey guys, screw the ongoing court case, pop over and we'll tell you everything you want to know".

But I’ll just say this. I find in this instance defending journalists that I often complain about- or actively dislike, more than a bit disconcerting. But the price of a free press/ society is tolerating things and supporting people that annoy you (ROC), when it’s right- and calling out people you admire- Schmidt, when they’re wrong. It may only be sports journalism, but I think we all here think that’s important. Another reminder that it's only the huddle that was canceled, they haven't been ostracised in every respect.

So on your advice; oh, I read all your posts alright... sometimes several times. But thanks for the suggestion, I won’t comment on your possible failings. And that’s me done on this...Well clearly not if you fail to comprehend that I'm saying the press can ask what they want as long as they go through the appropriate channels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TerenureJim]

Best attended the trial in Belfast on order of the court as a character witness. The IRFU said before the national team press conference, that there would be no comment forthcoming on said trial due to the legalities and asked the journalists not to enquire about it. Some eejit from the Spindo wouldn't play ball and insisted on putting Best and Schmidt on the spot in front of the world media two days before Ireland's first match of the 6 Nations in Paris!!! If I were Joe I too would be absolutely hoppin mad. The reaction is understandable, IMO (and I'm a journalist).

That was a very stupid thing to do by whatever journalist did it. But I thought that the issue resulted from an incorrect online article that caused a lot of offence to someone?

Either way, I can understand the frustration that Joe / IRFU must feel when they are being inappropriately used as bait for sensationalism.

Anyone know what the offending article was?

[simonokeeffe]

Would love to know what the article was too and the pre huddle incident in Paris

OK theres a bit of a vicious circle of hostility between print media and Leinster/Ireland players and coaches but a lot of the stuff from print media can be classed as being hostile and then wondering why things arent friendly

Telling bit from Sarries thread indo piece: Understandably, he Heaslip has been sparse with information about what he considers a private medical matter.

[Dexter]

What did we miss on Monday morning a result of the "corridor huddle" not happening? Did anyone even notice a difference?

[TheBear]

What did we miss on Monday morning a result of the "corridor huddle" not happening? Did anyone even notice a difference?

What we lost in insightful analysis, we more than gained in snide remarks about Joe hating the press.

[Dexter]

What did we miss on Monday morning a result of the "corridor huddle" not happening? Did anyone even notice a difference?

What we lost in insightful analysis, we more than gained in snide remarks about Joe hating the press.

Well yeah, that's true - though I assume you're being sarcastic about insightful analysis

[molloyjh]

On the substantive point- you still don’t get it. It’s not for the IRFU (or Joe) to decide how and where they/ he get asked questions. Although an obvious “appropriate” way to deal with it would be to offer a press conference/ huddle where that type of public interest stuff was addressed openly. But that wasn’t likely to happen was it?

Really? The media prior to this had 6 entry points to the IRFU, the coaches and the players in which they could ask questions. In one of those they were asked not to. And not only did they chose to ignore that request and save the question for 1 of the 5 other opportunities they had, they made sure to ask the questions during the live video stream of the team announcement rather than the specific section designed for print media. To me the IRFU would have every reason to be pissed about that. And when told they couldn't answer the question they asked again. Why? They had been told before the event that they wouldn't get an answer, then they were told at the event they wouldn't get an answer. So what was the point in asking the question again?

But I’ll just say this. I find in this instance defending journalists that I often complain about- or actively dislike, more than a bit disconcerting. But the price of a free press/ society is tolerating things and supporting people that annoy you (ROC), when it’s right- and calling out people you admire- Schmidt, when they’re wrong. It may only be sports journalism, but I think we all here think that’s important.

I'm not sure I get the "free press" angle tbh. They have never been prevented from reporting on anything. They have never been completely black listed. There hasn't been a media black out from the IRFU. All that happened was that they were asked to save a particular line of questioning for a different event and 1 of 6 opportunities to interview the coaches and players was removed from them. It's not ideal, it may even have been petty and wrong (I've no idea tbh) but it isn't somehow stifling the free press.

[arsebiscuits1]

On this free speech malarky and IRFU censorship I personally think it is completely [CENSORED]

After all let's not forget [CENSORED]

Realistically the papers have to [CENSORED]

[CENSORED] really needs to [CENSORED]

[ALL HAIL SUPREME MEDIA CONTROLLERS FREE SPEECH IS A LIE]

[LeRouxIsPHat]

[simonokeeffe]

What did we miss on Monday morning a result of the "corridor huddle" not happening? Did anyone even notice a difference?

What we lost in insightful analysis, we more than gained in snide remarks about Joe hating the press.

Pretty much

Gotta people with nothing to say but arent being allowed to say it somehow

[CiaranIrl]

Balls.ie say this is what caused the original fuss with Ruadhrai O'Connor.

We understand that the issue related to a piece written in the build-up to the game, which quoted an assistant coach calling on referee Nigel Owens to protect the Irish players in the wake of bruising encounters. It is thought that Irish management took issue with the referee being made part of the narrative of the build-up to the game.

[fourthirtythree]

"It is thought" is it? By whom and when. Otherwise it's unattributed spin being peddled for access.

I know it's just sport and not that important but Irish media have really low standards for granting anonymity to figures in or speaking for power.

That and conflicts of interest.

[simonokeeffe]

Balls.ie guessing what ROC did; theres not enough pinches of salt in the world

[curates_egg]

Whatever about the deficiencies of rugby correspondents (and broadcast journalists) in the country, balls.ie is a whole nother level of cordite.

My major criticism of the D4 meeja over the years has been the fact that it is way too much part of the establishment. It has done a major disservice to the national side, particularly during the Kidney regime. Dexy's, beyond his penchant for flowery fahrden language, has never, ever rocked an establishment boat in his time. This thread is named after him and his lyrical waxings, but I consider his and other's PR work for the IRFU and the Munster Branch a far more grievous sin against journalism.

So, while I don't think ROC is suddenly a Bob Woodward of Irish rugby, I am very happy we finally have correspondents not afraid to ask difficult questions, also in public fora. In a democracy, a free media should serve as a gadfly to the establishment, and not act as its PR arm.

In the horror, drawn-out Kidney endgame, it was only blogs like WOC and Hugo's that were saying it as it is. Jeff also joined the party before the meeja finally buckled.
These days, the IRFU like to keep the well-read blogs sweet, so they won't rock the boat either. In that kind of an environment, we need journalists asking difficult questions.