She not a journalists little toe... Shes a shoddy fiction writer. Worthy of a new idea competition...almost !!

  On 13/02/2013 at 22:25, Akum said:

Seems to me that DM's article was entirely for the benefit of "members and supporters".

In my view, Caro's just doing her job. If she'd written a factual balanced article that was fair to all parties, we'd all go "yeah, good article" and move on to something else. As it is, she's generated a huge amount of anxiety & fear - and chatter - both here and Bummerbitz. In the media, the Mae West principle applies - the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Her job is to get attention and provoke a reaction, not to be fair and factual, and lately she's been far too successful in this.

The club's only broken its strategy of "no comment" because it's picked up the amount of fear among "members and supporters", generated by Caro's article, that our defence to the AFL is in trouble. He's telling us that our response is far more crafted and effective than the objections of most supporters to the charges, which Caro rightly pointed out would be a very poor defence.

I also get the strong message that it's clear to the club that while Caro and her ilk may be generating a lot of fear among members and supporters, they have no influence where it counts within the AFL, so the club's not worried about what she prints as far as the AFL is concerned. But it did want to convey to "members and supporters" that it's got the situation well in hand.

I'm no fan of Caro, but to me she's just doing her job, which is to get attention for her paper by being provocative. The number of posts and amount of anxiety on D'land (and almost certainly elsewhere) shows that she's got far more attention than she deserves.

When people distort the facts, that will happen. If some wish to subscribe to the old journalist's axiom of never letting the facts get in the way of a good story, then good luck to ya.

But for those who are old enough to remember Peter Finch, in the movie, "the Network:; I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". All journalists supposedly are required to adhere to a code of conduct. If CW does, then that credo obviously is as hollow as a rotten log.

And one more cliche for good measure, good news simply doesn't sell. CW is well aware of that imperative.

  On 13/02/2013 at 22:25, Akum said:

Seems to me that DM's article was entirely for the benefit of "members and supporters".

In my view, Caro's just doing her job. If she'd written a factual balanced article that was fair to all parties, we'd all go "yeah, good article" and move on to something else. As it is, she's generated a huge amount of anxiety & fear - and chatter - both here and Bummerbitz. In the media, the Mae West principle applies - the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Her job is to get attention and provoke a reaction, not to be fair and factual, and lately she's been far too successful in this.

The club's only broken its strategy of "no comment" because it's picked up the amount of fear among "members and supporters", generated by Caro's article, that our defence to the AFL is in trouble. He's telling us that our response is far more crafted and effective than the objections of most supporters to the charges, which Caro rightly pointed out would be a very poor defence.

I also get the strong message that it's clear to the club that while Caro and her ilk may be generating a lot of fear among members and supporters, they have no influence where it counts within the AFL, so the club's not worried about what she prints as far as the AFL is concerned. But it did want to convey to "members and supporters" that it's got the situation well in hand.

I'm no fan of Caro, but to me she's just doing her job, which is to get attention for her paper by being provocative. The number of posts and amount of anxiety on D'land (and almost certainly elsewhere) shows that she's got far more attention than she deserves.

It was Oscar Wilde. I only raise this minor pedantry because I'd resist any mention of the intrepid girl reporter in the same breath as the magnificent Mae.

  On 13/02/2013 at 22:54, Cards13 said:

Did the Hun print it?

As a now current sponsor, I reckon we could call them HS, the small paper, or something. Don't bite the hand that feeds etc.....

I've worked with The Age editorial staff in the past, and I'm well aware of their legal obligations. As far as Caro's opinion pieces go, the club cannot sue as it's a corporation. She has been careful on her naming of individuals, only going as far as to mention what certain people are accused of. She has been hard on the club as a whole. Her pieces would have been rigorously proofed by the legal team, who I'm sure would have made amendments and told her to tone it down. It may also have encouraged her to publish these pieces if she was able to demonstrate her knowledge on the issue.

So it's interesting that she published these pieces, because The Age is generally far more particular with its statement of fact and opinion and maintaining a balance. It does it better than anyone. It wouldn't have published these pieces if it didn't stand behind what Caro had to say.

Not to say the club is in the wrong, but it is worth considering what is driving this entire thing.

  On 13/02/2013 at 22:49, RobbieF said:

I would have thought that her job was to print the truth, not her view of what may happen in her dreams. If a reporter or opinion writer just prints whatever comes to their head, whether it's true or not, they effectively become a Troll, which she now appears to be.

Have journalistic "standards" declined so much?

You either want to be a person who comments and whose opinions are respected or you want to be Jason Akermanis - you cant have it both ways.

( in answer to your last line - yes...yes they have)

  On 13/02/2013 at 23:04, Cudi_420 said:

I've worked with The Age editorial staff in the past, and I'm well aware of their legal obligations. As far as Caro's opinion pieces go, the club cannot sue as it's a corporation. She has been careful on her naming of individuals, only going as far as to mention what certain people are accused of. She has been hard on the club as a whole. Her pieces would have been rigorously proofed by the legal team, who I'm sure would have made amendments and told her to tone it down. It may also have encouraged her to publish these pieces if she was able to demonstrate her knowledge on the issue.

So it's interesting that she published these pieces, because The Age is generally far more particular with its statement of fact and opinion and maintaining a balance. It does it better than anyone. It wouldn't have published these pieces if it didn't stand behind what Caro had to say.

Not to say the club is in the wrong, but it is worth considering what is driving this entire thing.

My observation is The Age has moved its position, and that they have lowered their standards to the point where there is little difference in the quality of work by either of the major Melbourne papers.

  On 13/02/2013 at 23:04, Cudi_420 said:

Her pieces would have been rigorously proofed by the legal team, who I'm sure would have made amendments and told her to tone it down.

Toned down !!! Yikes - i would have loved to seen what the non toned down version looked like (not).

  On 13/02/2013 at 23:04, Cudi_420 said:

I've worked with The Age editorial staff in the past, and I'm well aware of their legal obligations. As far as Caro's opinion pieces go, the club cannot sue as it's a corporation. She has been careful on her naming of individuals, only going as far as to mention what certain people are accused of. She has been hard on the club as a whole. Her pieces would have been rigorously proofed by the legal team, who I'm sure would have made amendments and told her to tone it down. It may also have encouraged her to publish these pieces if she was able to demonstrate her knowledge on the issue.

So it's interesting that she published these pieces, because The Age is generally far more particular with its statement of fact and opinion and maintaining a balance. It does it better than anyone. It wouldn't have published these pieces if it didn't stand behind what Caro had to say.

Not to say the club is in the wrong, but it is worth considering what is driving this entire thing.

what you are ignoring is that the age of the past is just that....the past

they have noticeably changed to a more tabloid direction supposedly for economic survival reasons.....sad

I suggest to anybody that is having a go at Caroline Wilson and her ilk, to not throw stones....in this age of instant communication, you need to try anything to stay ahead of the game......look at some of the 'facts' that are broadcast on this board.......a lot of the stories start in the 'social media sphere' I think that is what it is called........you reap what you sow

  On 13/02/2013 at 11:14, Outside fifty said:

I'm surprised that people continue to hang off her every word as if she's the Oracle of bloody Delphi. Who by the way was a mad woman experiencing hallucinations caused by a gas leak from a volcanic vent.

Not fair! The Oracle of Apollo was respected for a thousand years. The priestess a peasant woman with no experience of the world, who somehow came up with the goods. One late report of her going troppo under the influence of prophesying, but the vapour story pretty well discredited. Big mystery, the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi.

Unlike madam wilson. Venting and leaks and madness would be notions associable with madam wilson in a way they are not with the humble pythia of Delphi. But this Fairfax fake is not going to be listened to for long, one would imagine, unlike the Oracle of history. I don't know that too many people would still be hanging off wilson's every word unless they are just infotainment-addicted and idling in mental neutral.

  On 13/02/2013 at 23:35, Satyriconhome said:

I suggest to anybody that is having a go at Caroline Wilson and her ilk, to not throw stones....in this age of instant communication, you need to try anything to stay ahead of the game......look at some of the 'facts' that are broadcast on this board.......a lot of the stories start in the 'social media sphere' I think that is what it is called........you reap what you sow

are you flaming?

  On 13/02/2013 at 22:49, RobbieF said:

I would have thought that her job was to print the truth, not her view of what may happen in her dreams. If a reporter or opinion writer just prints whatever comes to their head, whether it's true or not, they effectively become a Troll, which she now appears to be.

Have journalistic "standards" declined so much?

Sadly, her job is to make money for The Age, they will be getting a lot more hits on their website and selling a lot more papers by her writing this.

  On 13/02/2013 at 23:35, Satyriconhome said:

I suggest to anybody that is having a go at Caroline Wilson and her ilk, to not throw stones....in this age of instant communication, you need to try anything to stay ahead of the game......look at some of the 'facts' that are broadcast on this board.......a lot of the stories start in the 'social media sphere' I think that is what it is called........you reap what you sow

Seems to me CW got most of that last article from this board.

Thankfully she appears to know exactly what we do. Nothing at all.

  On 13/02/2013 at 23:04, Cudi_420 said:

So it's interesting that she published these pieces, because The Age is generally far more particular with its statement of fact and opinion and maintaining a balance. It does it better than anyone. It wouldn't have published these pieces if it didn't stand behind what Caro had to say.

Not to say the club is in the wrong, but it is worth considering what is driving this entire thing.

CW has a long standing position of aggression towards anything Cameron Schwabb ( as well as some notable others including James Brayshaw ) - rumour, inuendo abound in her articles - interesting to hear Tim Watson's comments on SEN this morning - would suggest little respect for work or approach

  On 13/02/2013 at 23:56, Clint Bizkit said:

Sadly, her job is to make money for The Age, they will be getting a lot more hits on their website and selling a lot more papers by her writing this.

In the past she may have been able to sell papers with big headlines - but once she becomes known as someone who compromises the truth ( as is happening with Melbourne right now) sales will dry up

We wouldn't have grounds for complaint if her columns were headed "Opinion" or " My View" or "Comment" but she persists in holding herself out to be an investigative journalist presenting facts that she has managed ( through her contacts) to unearth. But she oscillates between fact ( occasionally), supposition, hearsay - and opinion - in a manner which must surely fall outside the ethics of her ( increasingly grubby) profession

Interesting that the Age are no longer sponsors - our initiative or theirs?

If they don't ( esp Gary) throw the book at her on F Classified tonight .............. I won't watch it again.

  On 14/02/2013 at 00:20, hoopla said:

If they don't ( esp Gary) throw the book at her on F Classified tonight .............. I won't watch it again.

I don't think FC is back on till late march

  On 13/02/2013 at 22:25, Akum said:

Seems to me that DM's article was entirely for the benefit of "members and supporters".

In my view, Caro's just doing her job. If she'd written a factual balanced article that was fair to all parties, we'd all go "yeah, good article" and move on to something else. As it is, she's generated a huge amount of anxiety & fear - and chatter - both here and Bummerbitz. In the media, the Mae West principle applies - the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Her job is to get attention and provoke a reaction, not to be fair and factual, and lately she's been far too successful in this.

The club's only broken its strategy of "no comment" because it's picked up the amount of fear among "members and supporters", generated by Caro's article, that our defence to the AFL is in trouble. He's telling us that our response is far more crafted and effective than the objections of most supporters to the charges, which Caro rightly pointed out would be a very poor defence.

I also get the strong message that it's clear to the club that while Caro and her ilk may be generating a lot of fear among members and supporters, they have no influence where it counts within the AFL, so the club's not worried about what she prints as far as the AFL is concerned. But it did want to convey to "members and supporters" that it's got the situation well in hand.

I'm no fan of Caro, but to me she's just doing her job, which is to get attention for her paper by being provocative. The number of posts and amount of anxiety on D'land (and almost certainly elsewhere) shows that she's got far more attention than she deserves.

What you say about CW would be okay if she stopped claiming to be something she's not and admitted that she's not at all interested in fairness or ethical reporting; that she's just after a bit of attention for herself and her ailing paper. My problem with her is that she portrays herself as a knowledgeable, respected journalist with access to accurate inside information and gets all offended when her integrity is questioned; even when she is proven to be wrong. Give me a break.

Go DEES!

Those apologists for CW, grounding their comments on 'just doing her job... selling papers... getting a reaction... ' arguments, are wrong; there's much more to her pieces, as has been pointed out often enough. There's real malice, a malice combined with wishful thinking, an intrusion of very personal emotions, in her diatribes against the MFC, which goes far beyond what the apologists are now saying in this thread.

CW's 'journalism' is extremely shoddy, and making the argument that this is the age of 'social media', 'sound bytes' and instant gratification in no way explains or excuses the plummeting standards of CW or The Age - its online version is 'disgusting', to quote one of CW's own epithets for the alleged actions of the MFC, and the paper edition is little better.

One only has to read again her various articles to sense the intense and malicious nature of her feelings about the MFC and certain individuals within it; CS is the case in point. Here, there is obviously a very personal vendetta being pursued, regardless of CS's ability, performance or ethics. It's likely this goes back to a rivalry or falling-out between CW's father and CS's, in the history of the Richmond FC.

If CW were a decent or proper journalist, she would have researched as well as possible the evidence of so called 'tanking' for picks over the last 13 years, and analysed the degree to which this can be attributed to, and even sanctioned by, the AFL itself. Let's call it the 'big picture'. That there's a clear dearth of such investigative and analytical journalism in Melbourne speaks volumes for the very low quality of the people writing or speaking about 'sport' in our mass media; like those who are supposed to write seriously about politics, they content themselves with rumours, gossip, tweets, the bleeding obvious, polls, personalities, tedious repetition: group-think in other words. Note how Pierik's articles kept repeating ad nauseum 'facts' which had indeed been inferred from CW's wishful thinking. We perhaps can't expect any better of a woman who has so much at stake personally in this affair. I don't think for one moment that she is capable of the smallest degree of detachment and irony which would mark the work of someone simply stirring up a storm.

  On 14/02/2013 at 00:22, binman said:

I don't think FC is back on till late march

It is definately on tonight at 9.40 binman.

A special about the drugs issue

  On 13/02/2013 at 23:36, robbiefrom13 said:

Not fair! The Oracle of Apollo was respected for a thousand years. The priestess a peasant woman with no experience of the world, who somehow came up with the goods. One late report of her going troppo under the influence of prophesying, but the vapour story pretty well discredited. Big mystery, the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi.

Unlike madam wilson. Venting and leaks and madness would be notions associable with madam wilson in a way they are not with the humble pythia of Delphi. But this Fairfax fake is not going to be listened to for long, one would imagine, unlike the Oracle of history. I don't know that too many people would still be hanging off wilson's every word unless they are just infotainment-addicted and idling in mental neutral.

I stand corrected and humbly apologise to the Oracle of Apollo for the outrageous slur that I have cast upon her good character.

  On 14/02/2013 at 00:20, hoopla said:

In the past she may have been able to sell papers with big headlines - but once she becomes known as someone who compromises the truth ( as is happening with Melbourne right now) sales will dry up

We wouldn't have grounds for complaint if her columns were headed "Opinion" or " My View" or "Comment" but she persists in holding herself out to be an investigative journalist presenting facts that she has managed ( through her contacts) to unearth. But she oscillates between fact ( occasionally), supposition, hearsay - and opinion - in a manner which must surely fall outside the ethics of her ( increasingly grubby) profession

Interesting that the Age are no longer sponsors - our initiative or theirs?

If they don't ( esp Gary) throw the book at her on F Classified tonight .............. I won't watch it again.

I am staggered that some can be so sure of this comment.

Who will be the ones sitting back saying "I told you so"? The minority, or the majority. While I'm not in the majority, my money is on them - I was in the minority camp for $cumdog, so my form isn't great!!!

I dont know how Gary Lyon can work with her.

She hates his football club,continually publishing lies about them.

She hates his good mate James Brayshaw as well.

  On 13/02/2013 at 22:25, Akum said:

Seems to me that DM's article was entirely for the benefit of "members and supporters".

In my view, Caro's just doing her job. If she'd written a factual balanced article that was fair to all parties, we'd all go "yeah, good article" and move on to something else. As it is, she's generated a huge amount of anxiety & fear - and chatter - both here and Bummerbitz. In the media, the Mae West principle applies - the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Her job is to get attention and provoke a reaction, not to be fair and factual, and lately she's been far too successful in this.

The club's only broken its strategy of "no comment" because it's picked up the amount of fear among "members and supporters", generated by Caro's article, that our defence to the AFL is in trouble. He's telling us that our response is far more crafted and effective than the objections of most supporters to the charges, which Caro rightly pointed out would be a very poor defence.

I also get the strong message that it's clear to the club that while Caro and her ilk may be generating a lot of fear among members and supporters, they have no influence where it counts within the AFL, so the club's not worried about what she prints as far as the AFL is concerned. But it did want to convey to "members and supporters" that it's got the situation well in hand.

I'm no fan of Caro, but to me she's just doing her job, which is to get attention for her paper by being provocative. The number of posts and amount of anxiety on D'land (and almost certainly elsewhere) shows that she's got far more attention than she deserves.

This depresses me immensely. To think that people actually believe this is the role of Journalism. Woodward and Bernstein would be turning over in their graves, if they were dead. I would love to see The Rages HR departments Job description for the position of Journalist. " Must be able to get attention and provoke a reaction" To me that describes "EBOLA VIRUS".

  On 14/02/2013 at 00:42, old dee said:

It is definately on tonight at 9.40 binman.

A special about the drugs issue

Really? There has hardly been any real developments since last week so what on earth will they be able to say?

My understanding is....My sources tell me.......Hird has to go....What about the role of Bomber?......How will they prove it......So how many clubs are actually vulnerable to illicit drugs.........blah blah blah.........