WJ your comment above suggests you expect a balanced account from the Murdoch media.

Of course I accept the proposition that Murdoch is responsible for everything evil in the world, but in this case what is "the Murdoch agenda"? Particularly when Smith and Robinson both have red and black beanies in their wardrobes, and seem to have been singing a different song all along.

Of course I accept the proposition that Murdoch is responsible for everything evil in the world, but in this case what is "the Murdoch agenda"? Particularly when Smith and Robinson both have red and black beanies in their wardrobes, and seem to have been singing a different song all along.

There may or may not be a Murdoch agenda on this issue. Some people have suggested possible motives. But even without one, it is the way the Murdoch media work to take a position and bat for it regardless of the facts and certainly regardless of any 'balance'. If Murdoch doesn't have a position, then they will go for whatever populist position they think will outrage the public and generate interest and thus $. They just do it from habit, it's just the way they work. They mistakenly think they are journalists.

So yes, always 'evil'. They degrade the public conversation on almost every issue, even in cases when you agree with their position. Real democracy requires a properly informed public. With News Ltd near monopoly position, democracy is increasingly a farce.

You've noticed I don't like them by now.....

Tonight I'm going to watch AFL360 on Fox Footy Channel at 7.30pm.

When it's over, I will turn over to Channel 10 to watch a new programme called "Secrets and Lies".

I have a feeling that at some time during the evening I won't know which one's which.

Of course I accept the proposition that Murdoch is responsible for everything evil in the world, but in this case what is "the Murdoch agenda"? Particularly when Smith and Robinson both have red and black beanies in their wardrobes, and seem to have been singing a different song all along.

In all honesty Rupert wouldn't give a fat rats clacker. It's more a question of media organisation wanting to run the agenda, something that News Limited papers have perfected after years of practice. The HUN is simply following the formula. Early in the piece the paper decided to take a subjective approach to this story and chose to champion the Essendon cause. Yobbo may have or may not have had some influence in this decision . What is of concern is that this leaked information has existed for some time and is now only being released. As for Smith I doubt the Australian cares less what happens in the world of AFL.

My apologies

no need to. similar looking words i guess

just wanted to clear it up

Paul Roos on AFL360.

I didn't see that coming!

Of course I accept the proposition that Murdoch is responsible for everything evil in the world, but in this case what is "the Murdoch agenda"? Particularly when Smith and Robinson both have red and black beanies in their wardrobes, and seem to have been singing a different song all along.

its all very odd really isnt it

In all honesty Rupert wouldn't give a fat rats clacker. It's more a question of media organisation wanting to run the agenda, something that News Limited papers have perfected after years of practice. The HUN is simply following the formula. Early in the piece the paper decided to take a subjective approach to this story and chose to champion the Essendon cause. Yobbo may have or may not have had some influence in this decision . What is of concern is that this leaked information has existed for some time and is now only being released. As for Smith I doubt the Australian cares less what happens in the world of AFL.

Rupert's a Melbourne supporter...OK maybe not a close follower of the club but that's his declared allegiance.

Watched Robbo tonight on AFL 360, discussing his paper's outing of the players. He outdid himself in the idiot stakes. He looked and sounded like a complete fool.

Watched Robbo tonight on AFL 360, discussing his paper's outing of the players. He outdid himself in the [censored] stakes. He looked and sounded like a complete fool.

Not much an accomplishment really...has such a head start on most

Paul Roos on AFL360.

I didn't see that coming!

It is what it is ...

It is what it is ...

truesy

truesy

As in "If it is said by Roosy, then it is ... "

too hard to swim in whats he's in, he better hope he can wade well. & not slip up in that poo.

I suggest he needs to learn when to keep his mouth shut...whether swimming or writing

Tonight I caught the end of an item on Ch9 news about AFL captains in SA for the season launch and they collectively said they deplored the HUN publishing the Essendon player names this week.

Now this is the part I am not certain of, but they cut to Robbo and the question was asked would you do it again and I thought he sheepishly said NO.

Im not like most it seems

whats wrong with naming names ?

They asked robbo if he would do anything differently and he said no

They asked robbo if he would do anything differently and he said no

Thanks I was not certain of the question.

Watched Robbo tonight on AFL 360, discussing his paper's outing of the players. He outdid himself in the [censored] stakes. He looked and sounded like a complete fool.

I'm not sure if it's the use of italics, my poor quality screen or my even poorer eyes, but I'm struggling with the last word. Does it start with an f or a t?

Not that it matters.

I made the initial criticism and I didn't misread it. I think you're wrong.

EVERY news report about the issue has identified either the Herald Sun specifically or News Corp's Sunday papers generally as the source of the named players.

Is every reporter wrong? I doubt it. Why have you singled out Caro? Seemingly because of some personal bias.

Again, I suggest that you don't know what poor journalism is.

You're free to disagree, this is an opinion forum. I do think you are still missing my point though. What irks me is the implied moral high ground when she states that SHE won't name the players, but tells us exactly where to find those names anyway. It seems hypocritical to me. Why not simply stick to her guns and say "we won't name them"?

To answer your question, no, I don't think other journalists are wrong to name a competing paper that named the players if they did so. Unless they too, like Caro, attempted to rise above that competitor in some sort of bid for moral and journalistic superiority. This is what sticks my craw.

She was singled out because I read The Age and hers was the article discussing the issue. If I had read another paper and that author had made the same comments I would have posted the same criticism.

Edit: I actually studied journalism at Monash University, so yes I do feel I know what poor journalism is. In fact my course in journalism ethics was taught by a writer from The Age. This doesn't make me an expert, but it does make me sensitive to these issues when they arise.

Edited March 6, 201411 yr by Choke

You're free to disagree, this is an opinion forum. I do think you are still missing my point though. What irks me is the implied moral high ground when she states that SHE won't name the players, but tells us exactly where to find those names anyway. It seems hypocritical to me. Why not simply stick to her guns and say "we won't name them"?

To answer your question, no, I don't think other journalists are wrong to name a competing paper that named the players if they did so. Unless they too, like Caro, attempted to rise above that competitor in some sort of bid for moral and journalistic superiority. This is what sticks my craw.

She was singled out because I read The Age and hers was the article discussing the issue. If I had read another paper and that author had made the same comments I would have posted the same criticism.

Edit: I actually studied journalism at Monash University, so yes I do feel I know what poor journalism is. In fact my course in journalism ethics was taught by a writer from The Age. This doesn't make me an expert, but it does make me sensitive to these issues when they arise.

In this instance Players could go after the Hun for slander at a later date if found not guilty....The Age have covered their tracks on this one issue.

In this instance Players could go after the Hun for slander at a later date if found not guilty....The Age have covered their tracks on this one issue.

I'd say they might be going after their own club as well for a breach of duty of care.

This whole thing is unbelievably messy, and I can't help but feel it's just going to get worse.

Should have been a lawyer.

In this instance Players could go after the Hun for slander at a later date if found not guilty....The Age have covered their tracks on this one issue.

I think that the HUN have documents to suggest that they are at no risk of litigation. They have not claimed the guilt of players just that they have been named. Messy journalism, but when ASADA is finished with EFC this whole HUN episode will probably be forgotten. No problem with slander when you tell the truth.

In this instance Players could go after the Hun for slander at a later date if found not guilty....The Age have covered their tracks on this one issue.

Don't think you understand.

The Hun has printed a part of an Interim Report that was supposed to be confidential.

The Hun has not said these players are guilty of anything. Being found "not guilty" is irrelevant.

I'd say they might be going after their own club as well for a breach of duty of care.

That could be more to the point, except that they want to keep playing and it might be a bit difficult to sue Essendon and expect the club to keep contracting them.