Barrett has been quiet for a while must have realised north really aren't that flash

Barrett,Barrett where have I hird that name before ?

Stevens is the new daily [censored] !

Cannot sleep bush demon?

2.45 AM! Wow

My car horn is going off in the middle of the night. I have to jump up out of bed and disconnect the battery. Any auto-electricians around here?

The capitalised 'Melbourne' shits me. What's that Jake, he managed to make the finals multiple times at a club that has won 12 flags? We haven't always been as [censored] as 2007-now, even if we're in a drought.

I don't buy newspapers anymore although I miss the quiet 2 hours on Saturday morning with a coffee reading the paper from front to back. I don't subscribe to any online newspapers. 3 reasons why:

1) The standard of most writing, grammar, expression and general phrasing has slipped so far it is now pitched at 16 year old girls. Most written journalism is magazine/soundbyte in style.

2) Many journos now report rumour because they can't be bothered investigating sources.

3) Many journalists prefer their own fame to being silent middle men or conduits for public information.

The above three reasons scream the loudest from sports journalists, and in particular AFL people like Barrett, Wilson and co.

I have to tolerate sports journalism or I get no news at all but I just read results game info and stats. The rest of it is fairy-floss sugary carp.

Great post. Unfortunately I agree with everything you've stated in it.

Daniher's Dees were consistently inconsistent.

Reality is that had the club made the right choice after the '03 season and decided to move him on, the club would be different now: it would have been able to build a young list around experienced leaders that, as history shows, had 4-5 years left.

Daniher was at the club for four years too long. Great bloke and great coach for '08-2000, but '02 was a massive underachievement after a dismal opening against Adelaide in the semi (we'd have pushed for the flag that year had it shown up in the first 20 minutes of that match), and '03 was truly "dismal". Kept players on for longer than he should have, and seemed to lack a "plan B". The club got way too comfortable with him and it cost the club, big time.

2002 we had Robbo and Bizzell playing CHF/CHB respectively. You don't win flags with two undersized good honest players in those key positions. We would have been shown up by the Pies or Brisbane big time (even though we did get that win against the Lion that year at the Gabba).

I don't buy newspapers anymore 3 reasons why:

1) The standard of most writing, grammar, expression and general phrasing has slipped so far it is now pitched at 16 year old girls.

I reckon that comment about 16 year old girls is offensive. Given the rest of your post it is rather hypocritical too!

I'd also suggest that the vast majority of Caroline Wilson's stuff is spot on and good journalism. I know many here don't like her because she reported on the tanking fiasco but she was front and centre with what was happening and a reliable source. That we didn't like her opinion is neither here or there. Her piece in this mornings Age is a good read and very informative and she often provides information and insights others don't.

I also reckon that people should toughen up and stop taking offence at every little dig at us. You reap what you sow and until we perform I can hardly blame journo's for painting us in a poor light.

Edited February 26, 201411 yr by Baghdad Bob

I reckon that comment about 16 year old girls is offensive. Given the rest of your post it is rather hypocritical too!

I'd also suggest that the vast majority of Caroline Wilson's stuff is spot on and good journalism. I know many here don't like her because she reported on the tanking fiasco but she was front and centre with what was happening and a reliable source. That we didn't like her opinion is neither here or there. Her piece in this mornings Age is a good read and very informative and she often provides information and insights others don't.

I also reckon that people should toughen up and stop taking offence at every little dig at us. You reap what you sow and until we perform I can hardly blame journo's for painting us in a poor light.

No the reason many here dont rate her as highly as your good self is she is all but one eyed and /or blinkered in her approach to many a pet subject to say nothing of her pathological loathing of anything/anyone who dared tarnish her version of her family/clubs history.

if I throw enough darts at a board I'll get a few bulls eyes. Hardly rates me as a '180" champ

I reckon that comment about 16 year old girls is offensive. Given the rest of your post it is rather hypocritical too!

I'd also suggest that the vast majority of Caroline Wilson's stuff is spot on and good journalism. I know many here don't like her because she reported on the tanking fiasco but she was front and centre with what was happening and a reliable source. That we didn't like her opinion is neither here or there. Her piece in this mornings Age is a good read and very informative and she often provides information and insights others don't.

I also reckon that people should toughen up and stop taking offence at every little dig at us. You reap what you sow and until we perform I can hardly blame journo's for painting us in a poor light.

On this we are in total agreement BB.

Just win games and they all shut up.

It is that simple IMO.

I reckon that comment about 16 year old girls is offensive. Given the rest of your post it is rather hypocritical too!

And you spend the rest of your post pontificating about how we shouldn't be so easily offended.

Edited February 26, 201411 yr by jabberwocky

On this we are in total agreement BB.

Just win games and they all shut up.

It is that simple IMO.

When you win games they don't shut up, it's just that when you're winning you don't care.

Just point at the scoreboard and laugh, they hate it.

Edited February 26, 201411 yr by ManDee

When you win games they don't shut up, it's just that when you're winning you don't care.

It is so long ago neither of us can remember

I also reckon that people should toughen up and stop taking offence at every little dig at us.

Agreed. Too many are being overly precious.

I reckon that comment about 16 year old girls is offensive. Given the rest of your post it is rather hypocritical too!

I'd also suggest that the vast majority of Caroline Wilson's stuff is spot on and good journalism. I know many here don't like her because she reported on the tanking fiasco but she was front and centre with what was happening and a reliable source. That we didn't like her opinion is neither here or there. Her piece in this mornings Age is a good read and very informative and she often provides information and insights others don't.

I also reckon that people should toughen up and stop taking offence at every little dig at us. You reap what you sow and until we perform I can hardly blame journo's for painting us in a poor light.

i will take notice of Wilson as a journalist and Chief Football writer when i see her watching a game.

Too many times i have seen her leave during a first quarter.

She has her sources. But no feel for the game. But then i recall reading Alf Brown and Percy Beams as a young kid. They were great football writers.

i will take notice of Wilson as a journalist and Chief Football writer when i see her watching a game.

Too many times i have seen her leave during a first quarter.

She has her sources. But no feel for the game. But then i recall reading Alf Brown and Percy Beams as a young kid. They were great football writers.

I'll stop reading her when she watches games and reports on them.

But each to their own.

I'll stop reading her when she watches games and reports on them.

But each to their own.

so you acknowledge writing about football is a secondary occupation to her?

No the reason many here dont rate her as highly as your good self is she is all but one eyed and /or blinkered in her approach to many a pet subject to say nothing of her pathological loathing of anything/anyone who dared tarnish her version of her family/clubs history.

if I throw enough darts at a board I'll get a few bulls eyes. Hardly rates me as a '180" champ

My issue with CW is she is quite a clever writer in that she mixes a pinch of fact and mixes it with lashings of speculation, opinion and fantasy and represents the whole thing as fact.

Having said that, I read her and mostly enjoy what she writes because I am aware of her embellishments.

(edit - at least with CW she exudes some sort of intelligence - The likes of Denham and Barrett - come across as rank amateurs

Edited February 26, 201411 yr by nutbean

I have been following most of the papers, and on the whole, there are a mix of quality journalism. However there are three things that baffle me.

How can editors & journalists allow/enable bad English (just an anecdotal assessment but News seems to be the biggest culprit). This includes bad spelling and of course grammar

How can the Herald sun's latest information about Melbourne include (Click on the Melbourne icon) that we are 17th, with one win, and seven losses. Last year I saw articles about Dean Bailey (as coach).

How can The Age (continue to employ Caroline Wilson, sorry I digress) have all the teams in the drop down list in alphabetic order... except Melbourne which is below North Melbourne! Even Kangaroos should be after Demons - the last time I checked the Alphabet.

My heart bleeds.

I'll stop reading her when she watches games and reports on them.

But each to their own.

Agree.

so you acknowledge writing about football is a secondary occupation to her?

LOL.

I reckon that comment about 16 year old girls is offensive. Given the rest of your post it is rather hypocritical too!

I'd also suggest that the vast majority of Caroline Wilson's stuff is spot on and good journalism. I know many here don't like her because she reported on the tanking fiasco but she was front and centre with what was happening and a reliable source. That we didn't like her opinion is neither here or there. Her piece in this mornings Age is a good read and very informative and she often provides information and insights others don't.

I also reckon that people should toughen up and stop taking offence at every little dig at us. You reap what you sow and until we perform I can hardly blame journo's for painting us in a poor light.

When she treats every club the same she can be classed as a good journalist until then she's nothing but a nasty [censored] with a pen in her hand.

I'd also suggest that the vast majority of Caroline Wilson's stuff is spot on and good journalism. I know many here don't like her because she reported on the tanking fiasco but she was front and centre with what was happening and a reliable source.

Well, I don't know what the 'many' don't like about her but my objections to her reporting were the misrepresentations that were made in her reporting; the 'vault' that was the code name of the meeting specifically called to discuss tanking the season in which threats were made to staff.

THE AFL has uncovered a secret meeting involving at least 15 members of the Melbourne football department in which coaches were reminded of the importance of forfeiting matches in order to gain early draft picks.

Former Melbourne football boss Chris Connolly addressed the 2009 meeting, which it is believed was code-named ''the vault''.

The term vault relates to where the meeting took place - in the tin shed that runs between the two stands at Melbourne's old training ground at the Junction Oval. It is understood 15 people attended what began as a match committee meeting after the club's round 15 win over Port Adelaide, which was its second win in succession and lifted its tally for the year perilously close to its planned limit of four wins.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/senior-demons-drove-tanking-20121030-28h3c.html#ixzz2uZ4sLCcC

The above is the beginning of her article with the sentences in italics added in the online version after her 'facts' were found wanting. Probably due to her ego, the previous two lines - those bolded - remained.

These lines directly contradict each other (1. The codenamed Vault meeting that wasn't codenamed, and 2. The 'secret meeting' that was a match committee meeting) and underline why I was so 'offended' by her reporting. She made us look diabolically conspiratorial not hamfisted and tactless, which would be the better descriptor.

The ideal is to 'write when you get it right,' not re-write when you get caught.

Well, I don't know what the 'many' don't like about her but my objections to her reporting were the misrepresentations that were made in her reporting

This is an interesting post in that it probably identifies why I like her and many here don't.

What we learned from the article you've identified was that there was a meeting of members of the football department where Connolly addressed the importance of losing and pressed for us to tank (joke or not). That was the core piece of information and to my knowledge was the first time it became public, It was central to the penalty that was finally handed down and it lead to the downfall of Connolly, Schwab and McLardy. To me that was an insightful and very interesting article, a must read for those interested in the tanking investigation. I didn't like it but that's not the point. The big picture was right and that is what interests me.

You,amongst other things, didn't like that she either knowingly or unknowingly said the meeting was believed to be code named "the vault" when in fact "the vault" was the venue of the meeting and not the name of the meeting.

IMO this error is of no substance. It doesn't change the primary information. It had no bearing on outcome or issues. But you like picking up on these errors because you have some pedantry characteristics. That's not meant as a negative but merely recognizing things as they are. I dislike pedantry because it blurs the main issues and alters focus. I like big picture, you like detail.

CW gave us the information ahead of anyone else. She was right about most things. Her editorial was very negative because she believes the game is lessened in an environment where clubs try to lose and she expressed her view strongly. I can live with that. I really like that on the big issues she is usually first and is usually right. That she bungles a few minor facts and uses emotive language bothers me not a dot. I must say it was rather funny reading Demonland as she was ripping into James Hird and some peoples attempts to reconcile her unreasonable treatment of us and her pursuit of Hird.

She'll also get it wrong now and again. So what. She's the first footy journalist I read.

Edited February 28, 201411 yr by Baghdad Bob

was it an error indeed...or an intention sentationalised slur to beat up things?

Those who summise she happens upon a few snippets of actual relevant info and then dresses it up with dross are for mine closer to the mark.

Ans where were her insightful and as damaging pieces on her beloved Tigers ?

yep shes a balanced and unbiased reporter for sure..............not

This is an interesting post in that it probably identifies why I like her and many here don't.

What we learned from the article you've identified was that there was a meeting of members of the football department where Connolly addressed the importance of losing and pressed for us to tank (joke or not). That was the core piece of information and to my knowledge was the first time it became public, It was central to the penalty that was finally handed down and it lead to the downfall of Connolly, Schwab and McLardy. To me that was an insightful and very interesting article, a must read for those interested in the tanking investigation. I didn't like it but that's not the point. The big picture was right and that is what interests me.

You,amongst other things, didn't like that she either knowingly or unknowingly said the meeting was believed to be code named "the vault" when in fact "the vault" was the venue of the meeting and not the name of the meeting.

IMO this error is of no substance. It doesn't change the primary information. It had no bearing on outcome or issues. But you like picking up on these errors because you have some pedantry characteristics. That's not meant as a negative but merely recognizing things as they are. I dislike pedantry because it blurs the main issues and alters focus. I like big picture, you like detail.

CW gave us the information ahead of anyone else. She was right about most things. Her editorial was very negative because she believes the game is lessened in an environment where clubs try to lose and she expressed her view strongly. I can live with that. I really like that on the big issues she is usually first and is usually right. That she bungles a few minor facts and uses emotive language bothers me not a dot. I must say it was rather funny reading Demonland as she was ripping into James Hird and some peoples attempts to reconcile her unreasonable treatment of us and her pursuit of Hird.

She'll also get it wrong now and again. So what. She's the first footy journalist I read.

It does significantly change the perception though and influences the public/media pressure on the AFL to hand down a punishment. I don't know whether it was done purposefully or she had just failed to double-check her facts but each sin is as bad as the other in her profession.

Overall I do like Wilson - she does report on many things others won't and clearly has people high up in the AFL leaking her info however I don't like the fact that she editorialises her reports with emotional hyperbole ("pathetic and disgusting") and seems reluctant to divulge any info that may paint her Tigers in a bad light. I also don't like the fact she will mount arguments based on facts that she refuses to discuss and expects people to take her word on certain things, something she does often on Footy Classified and on 3AW in particular.

IMO this error is of no substance. It doesn't change the primary information. It had no bearing on outcome or issues. But you like picking up on these errors because you have some pedantry characteristics. That's not meant as a negative but merely recognizing things as they are. I dislike pedantry because it blurs the main issues and alters focus. I like big picture, you like detail.

Do you have Aspergers, or something similar? I don't want to offend, but you have casually called me a pedant for taking what is written in the first two sentences as factual. I take exception to that.

I can see the bigger picture, and details are what makes up the bigger picture, the fact that she got some intrinsic details wrong set up a conspiratorial bigger picture that wasn't true and wasn't fair to the club or the individuals involved.

You say it is of no substance but what if you were accused of ordering a secret meeting that you code named explicitly to discuss tanking. That misrepresentation directly affects how you are seen in this story. And it directly affected how we as a club were seen.

If you change the context, it affects the story.

If you get your facts wrong, you are going to get criticised.