Did anyone catch the full interview?

I caught the tail end of the interview & there was a question asked of him regarding an altercation between Neeld & one of the assistants.

Neeld responded by saying, for anyone who wants to write that crap I will see you in court (Definitely not those words)

So either there is something behind the words or he is just sick to death of the media constantly trying to put out our fire? - (probably the second one)

Those words were pretty close.

The same old stuff about training, games experience got a mention as did how well the two captains lead.

Neeld gave a Neeld interview, trying not to individualise, and trying to keep a lid on everything.

Just stressing where we are at

I think, like the rest of us, he is sick to death of unfounded rumours being put in the press

I put this in another post, I reckon a journo will push the button once too often and will find themselves in court

The media is literally out of control these days. Look at the way in which The New York Post has been reporting on the Boston marathon bombing - totally outrageous.

There is also no such thing as sports journalism anymore.

You only need to watch that documentary "When We Where Kings"' about Ali to realise that the old school sports journalists being interviewed about the George Foreman fight in Zaire were quite intellectual, very considered and interesting.

Sports journos now are all absolute dolts.

Burgundy, you idiot, dolts of any description is far to kind (kidding) More and more i think Carl Ditterich was ahead of his time and an insightful media commentator, I always chuckle when I see the tag line. Reading most analysis now is utter over packaged garbage.

I have watched when we were kings maybe 6-8 times, I can't imagine wanting to listen to anything CW or MS says in the first place. if we could clone Martin Flanagan that would help, get Percy Beams and Ivor Warne-Smith out of their graves and get them to write some analysis on the club and tell everyone else to eff off.

Actually if we could resurrect the dead, I could think of some more useful things to do with them than write, probably start with the midfield.

Trouble is that the dawn of online journalism means that there is an insatiable need for content. This has meant that we now have a dirth of poor quality journalists trawling for sensational stories in order to make a name for themselves. The vacuous nature of this journalism perfectly suits an environment where news comes and goes at a rate of knots.

Compare 'old-school' types like Martin Flanagan and Patrick Smith with blokes like Damian Barrett and Matt Campbell and you see what I mean. Journalistic craft, which was a mix of carefully checked fact and experienced opinion has largely made way for speculative articles based on innuendo and supposition.

Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done about it, as news is now all about money/advertising and editors are under more pressure than ever to ensure that their stories get the most clicks.

I watch Neeld's conferences with interest - he isn't that comfortable with the press (getting better), but has been laid into from day one. It seems that he has taken Malthouse's approach, treating the gutter press with barely concealed disdain although seemingly creating relationships with more senior types like Mark Robinson, whom he seems to trust. There was a great line in the afl.com match review, describing Neeld giving his 3Q talk, while a conga-line of gloating journalists was assembling in the Members wing waiting for his sacking.

At the end of the day, you could say that Neeld is fully entitled to have an intense dislike of the press, but it's something he needs to live with and arguably get better at dealing with. But, as Teddy Roosevelt said:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "

The media is literally out of control these days. Look at the way in which The New York Post has been reporting on the Boston marathon bombing - totally outrageous.

There is also no such thing as sports journalism anymore.

You only need to watch that documentary "When We Where Kings"' about Ali to realise that - the old school sports journalists being interviewed about the George Foreman fight in Zaire were quite intellectual, very considered and interesting.

Sports journos now are all absolute dolts.

They also add the letter 'o' into words where it doesn't belong. "Time" becomes "toime". "Life" becomes "loife". Damian Barret come on down.

I think the intellectual journalists of 50 years ago are now today's media advisors to the government (but that's for another thread).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Couldn't agree more, just not sure if the quote is aimed at the press, or some of the more timid souls on the forum???

Journalists seem also to believe that they should be part of the story, I swear they seem more interested in generating scalps than telling stories.

Edit, meant to go under Ron's post.

Edited April 22, 201312 yr by ingeniokinetic

The only way to shut up journos is to win games, just look at the bombers.

The biggest [censored] of all is David King...he hates us with a unhealthy vengeance

We should recruit Shane Edwards. King never has a bad word to say about him and according to king he's almost as good as Cotchin and Martin combined. Foxtel should rename its gimmick the Shane Edwards memorial war room.

http://www.sen.com.au/audioplayer/7688

it's on their website

The only way to shut up journos is to win games, just look at the bombers.

The biggest [censored] of all is David King...he hates us with a unhealthy vengeance

He used to tear us a new one every time he played against us, and now he tears us a new one every time he talks about us. Watching him talk about Melbourne is exhausting

Trouble is that the dawn of online journalism means that there is an insatiable need for content. This has meant that we now have a dirth of poor quality journalists trawling for sensational stories in order to make a name for themselves. The vacuous nature of this journalism perfectly suits an environment where news comes and goes at a rate of knots.

Compare 'old-school' types like Martin Flanagan and Patrick Smith with blokes like Damian Barrett and Matt Campbell and you see what I mean. Journalistic craft, which was a mix of carefully checked fact and experienced opinion has largely made way for speculative articles based on innuendo and supposition.

Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done about it, as news is now all about money/advertising and editors are under more pressure than ever to ensure that their stories get the most clicks.

I watch Neeld's conferences with interest - he isn't that comfortable with the press (getting better), but has been laid into from day one. It seems that he has taken Malthouse's approach, treating the gutter press with barely concealed disdain although seemingly creating relationships with more senior types like Mark Robinson, whom he seems to trust. There was a great line in the afl.com match review, describing Neeld giving his 3Q talk, while a conga-line of gloating journalists was assembling in the Members wing waiting for his sacking.

At the end of the day, you could say that Neeld is fully entitled to have an intense dislike of the press, but it's something he needs to live with and arguably get better at dealing with. But, as Teddy Roosevelt said:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "

Agree Dee

Your first paragraph covers it all mate

The media is literally out of control these days. Look at the way in which The New York Post has been reporting on the Boston marathon bombing - totally outrageous.

There is also no such thing as sports journalism anymore.

You only need to watch that documentary "When We Where Kings"' about Ali to realise that - the old school sports journalists being interviewed about the George Foreman fight in Zaire were quite intellectual, very considered and interesting.

Sports journos now are all absolute dolts.

sports jounalism has almost turned into 'Days of our lives',,, they seem to be just gossip wrags.

fortunately these days we have quality toilet paper, otherwise we'd need baby powder as well to overcome the acidic rash.

Trouble is that the dawn of online journalism means that there is an insatiable need for content. This has meant that we now have a dirth of poor quality journalists trawling for sensational stories in order to make a name for themselves. The vacuous nature of this journalism perfectly suits an environment where news comes and goes at a rate of knots.

<snip>

Exactly! Online journalism means they try to get it out ASAP to be "first" and no longer spend the day confirming sources etc. for the article in the following days paper...

I heard the interview live.

Might well be my imagination but I thought that was the best interview I have heard from him.

Normally bores me to death But I liked him this morning for the first time ever.

I put this in another post, I reckon a journo will push the button once too often and will find themselves in court

And wouldn't that be great. Journos need to be accountable for what they write. Yet, it's all about the number of hits an article has, not the balance of the piece. In the past, I've emailed and written in to papers calling on them to justify misleading or poorly researched articles, only to be given some lame excuse of editors or sub editors modifying content.

Given that the media creates the perception and hype that we eagerly devour, defamation proceeding could work against us if they take greater offence than they do now. But I'd love to see them taken to task.

And wouldn't that be great. Journos need to be accountable for what they write. Yet, it's all about the number of hits an article has, not the balance of the piece. In the past, I've emailed and written in to papers calling on them to justify misleading or poorly researched articles, only to be given some lame excuse of editors or sub editors modifying content.

Given that the media creates the perception and hype that we eagerly devour, defamation proceeding could work against us if they take greater offence than they do now. But I'd love to see them taken to task.

Is that possible?

Compare 'old-school' types like Martin Flanagan and Patrick Smith with blokes like Damian Barrett and Matt Campbell

The former are actually journalists. The others are not.

I heard the interview live.

Might well be my imagination but I thought that was the best interview I have heard from him.

Normally bores me to death But I liked him this morning for the first time ever.

Neeld has learnt very quickly about how not to get savaged in the media - for him, it's all about harm minimisation.

He is giving them nothing, and I love that.

They've lowered their reporting to hearsay, conjecture and sensationalism.

Putting his coaching aside, he is one quick learner.

Neeld has learnt very quickly about how not to get savaged in the media - for him, it's all about harm minimisation.

He is giving them nothing, and I love that.

They've lowered their reporting to hearsay, conjecture and sensationalism.

Putting his coaching aside, he is one quick learner.

He's had the best lesson, material and practical experience at press conferences at the coal face (ie. best circumstances) to learn from....

what article were they reffering to with the alleged arguement?

who was it allegedly with?

good on neeld fighting back, would love nothing more than to see the club take a few of these fictional story tellers to court

It was in the herald sun yesterday. Mark Robinson wrote Neeld and Rawlings had words. Tell me any senior coach who doesnt have words with there assistants. Anyway going by Neeld there is no truth about it.

Loved his answer when Maher and Watson asked him about it and Neeld just said if people continue to write things untrue I will see them in court. Or something to that effect. They got the message.

I guess he was pretty hurt by that rumour last year about him. Which is understandable. he is no pushover. It would be nice to see him put King back in his place.