7 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Completely agree, I wasn’t saying spare Tom Morris, he couldn’t continue in his role after the audio was leaked. 
My point was, people should just reflect on comments they’ve made in the past before passing judgement. 

In my mind Morris clearly said the wrong thing, yet it was a different "case" so to speak with regards to Bevo and his rant. Whilst now Morris probably deserved his punishment I can see Bevo laughing out loud now as he has made his point and he won in the end. So sad.

 

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

Why is this the accepted societal standard of journalism? (And I ask that as basically a journalist myself). There is a difference between 'in the public's interest' and what some of the public may be interested in.

Others trying to hide stuff? Like most people, as part of my job I'm privy to confidential commercial information. Are my efforts to keep that private akin to me 'hiding stuff'? Or is all information open slather for the public? 

Do football coaches not have some right to go about their already high-pressured jobs without other people constantly sniffing around trying to undermine that process? Who knows if Hunter had even been told of his demotion yet.

That's where mental health may have come in. There are probably numerous protocols at clubs nowadays for how to support players being demoted, which is a publicly-broadcast set-back to one's career and ambitions. 

And breaching that is for what? So that people who are interested in other people chasing a ball around can get their fix a few hours earlier than the official team release? And so that someone can build their own public profile? 

How do you reckon Goody would have felt if Nathan Jones found out he wasn't playing in the grand final through the media before Simon had a chance to discuss it with him personally? Leakers are only one part. 

Our premiership coach recently talked about the strain that he had been under. Journalism need to move on from recognition for point-scoring to celebration of accuracy and good writing and factual reporting. 

However wayward the content, I fully support Beveridge having the opportunity to take a swipe at a journalist in return, especially one who wants to be in the public conversation by taking swipes in the other direction. 

 

 

I agreed with this so much I retrieved my long forgotten account to like it.

Thanks Skuit

As I teach my students ,Morris failed the grandma test..for digital posting

Basically if you wont show or say it to your grandma don't put it online... its an easy rule.

Though a few of my students used to retort of how wild and inappropriate their grandma was and would love it.. :)   

 

10 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I am not in favour of anyone. I just know that I would hate our coach to behave like that. It’s unprofessional and it takes away the focus from what he should be doing, which is working out how to beat us. 

I wouldn't advocate for the full bevo but if Goody decided to give Mick Warner or another HUN reporter a bake during a press conference i wouldn't mind one bit

8 hours ago, BoBo said:

I cannot make my position any clearer to you. And at this point I can only assume you’re deliberately missing my point?
 

The content of the conversations, is much, much, much, much worse in the cop situation. Obviously.

I’m not comparing the severity of what they spoke about. 
 

*I’m criticising you, for saying that Tom Morris isn’t responsible for outing his co-worker, because he was having a private conversation*
 

You’re using the action of a private conversation as a defence of Morris. Just like some people used the action of the UK met police, having a private conversation, as a defence. This is what the comparison is. Using the actions, which are the same, as a defence. 

You can’t defend Morris’ action, without defending the UK cops action. They’re exactly the same. 

You have said, that Tom Morris, isn’t responsible for outing a co-worker because, he was having a private conversation. Even though I’ve pointed out that he’s a journalist that would have extensive training in all forms of media. His job, is to find the very kinds of audio files, like the one he himself made and shared, (yes privately, which doesn’t matter if you’re a public identity), report it and write it up like has been done to him. 

The irony of a journalist losing their job by being exposed by the very thing a journalist in his field would be looking for, cannot be lost on you. 
 

I’m highlighting, that the actions, of having a private conversation about their job, in which the content is professionally damaging to himself and personally damaging to his co-worker that he outed (again, not comparable in what they were saying, but evidently both professionally damaging) doesn’t excuse a cop, or a journalist, from responsibility when, the predictable outcomes of their actions, come to fruition. 

What is incorrect about this?

Please don’t say that I’m comparing what Tom Morris said and what the cops said. I’ve already dealt with this twice. 
 

I’m going hard on this because the outcome of Morris’ behaviour as a high profile journalist, has meant the outing of a persons sexuality for an entire nation to see. The mental health repercussions of this, could be devastating for a person. It’s not a joke and it’s not just mates having a chat. 
 

Morris is not the victim here. His co-worker is.

I had a few last night. I was pretty antagonising. Apologies 

8 hours ago, Skuit said:

Why is this the accepted societal standard of journalism? (And I ask that as basically a journalist myself). There is a difference between 'in the public's interest' and what some of the public may be interested in.

Others trying to hide stuff? Like most people, as part of my job I'm privy to confidential commercial information. Are my efforts to keep that private akin to me 'hiding stuff'? Or is all information open slather for the public? 

Do football coaches not have some right to go about their already high-pressured jobs without other people constantly sniffing around trying to undermine that process? Who knows if Hunter had even been told of his demotion yet.

That's where mental health may have come in. There are probably numerous protocols at clubs nowadays for how to support players being demoted, which is a publicly-broadcast set-back to one's career and ambitions. 

And breaching that is for what? So that people who are interested in other people chasing a ball around can get their fix a few hours earlier than the official team release? And so that someone can build their own public profile? 

How do you reckon Goody would have felt if Nathan Jones found out he wasn't playing in the grand final through the media before Simon had a chance to discuss it with him personally? Leakers are only one part. 

Our premiership coach recently talked about the strain that he had been under. Journalism need to move on from recognition for point-scoring to celebration of accuracy and good writing and factual reporting. 

However wayward the content, I fully support Beveridge having the opportunity to take a swipe at a journalist in return, especially one who wants to be in the public conversation by taking swipes in the other direction. 

 

 

Can't believe that you are actually supporting a grub like Bevo after his despicable comments including about Morris being a Melbourne "stooge". Ironically even Bevo disagrees with you because he issued an apology.

You are also forgetting Bevo has form - he attacked Kane Cornes & others for their comments last year & famously threatened Damian Barrett in 2015.

 

Fair to say Bevo has had the last laugh but next weeks presser will be interesting. Journos may be to scared to ask a question. 

25 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Fair to say Bevo has had the last laugh but next weeks presser will be interesting. Journos may be to scared to ask a question. 

No he didn't or shouldn't.

He's as culpable as Morris in that he initiated a chain of events that put the Fox reporter into the public domain likely against her wishes and is now a troll target. The morons that leaked the audio also are in that group.

Bevo, Morris and the leakers are all disgraceful.

Dogs will never be my second team till Beveridge is Gawn.

Tom Morris has paid a huge price and deserves to. He will likely never get work in the industry again and the impact on his life is enormous so you do worry about his mental health. He will need support to get through this. I must admit I am someone who believes in second chances and the possibility of redemption.

A ‘what if’ moment. If the Bulldogs had won I wonder if Bevo would have made his outburst? I don’t think so. I believe Bevo was frustrated that his side was just as impotent as in the GF and had to project his frustration on Morris who as well as being a focus of annoyance is a Melbourne supporter and a soft target to receive his wrath. 

Edited March 19, 20223 yr by John Crow Batty

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

Can't believe that you are actually supporting a grub like Bevo after his despicable comments including about Morris being a Melbourne "stooge". Ironically even Bevo disagrees with you because he issued an apology.

You are also forgetting Bevo has form - he attacked Kane Cornes & others for their comments last year & famously threatened Damian Barrett in 2015.

 

I support his right to respond openly to a niggling journalist who is deliberately undermining the coach's job for his own personal gain. What Bevo said was mostly nonsense, because he was clearly upset and under pressure - something a lot of people seem to celebrate simply because he is an opposition coach. Why are journalists but not coaches protected species?

You critically respond to my post on here, and I defend it. Imagine either of us were denied that right due to some odd societal norms? A lot of people are also talking about the embarrassment of Beveridge lashing out: I would have loved it if Bailey or someone in the club told Caroline Wilson to GAGF when she made it her mission to hammer us over alleged tanking.  

11 hours ago, Skuit said:

Why is this the accepted societal standard of journalism? (And I ask that as basically a journalist myself). There is a difference between 'in the public's interest' and what some of the public may be interested in.

Others trying to hide stuff? Like most people, as part of my job I'm privy to confidential commercial information. Are my efforts to keep that private akin to me 'hiding stuff'? Or is all information open slather for the public? 

Do football coaches not have some right to go about their already high-pressured jobs without other people constantly sniffing around trying to undermine that process? Who knows if Hunter had even been told of his demotion yet.

That's where mental health may have come in. There are probably numerous protocols at clubs nowadays for how to support players being demoted, which is a publicly-broadcast set-back to one's career and ambitions. 

And breaching that is for what? So that people who are interested in other people chasing a ball around can get their fix a few hours earlier than the official team release? And so that someone can build their own public profile? 

How do you reckon Goody would have felt if Nathan Jones found out he wasn't playing in the grand final through the media before Simon had a chance to discuss it with him personally? Leakers are only one part. 

Our premiership coach recently talked about the strain that he had been under. Journalism need to move on from recognition for point-scoring to celebration of accuracy and good writing and factual reporting. 

However wayward the content, I fully support Beveridge having the opportunity to take a swipe at a journalist in return, especially one who wants to be in the public conversation by taking swipes in the other direction. 

 

 

I think l have been misunderstood. The quote above from me was written before the details of the recordings had become clear. Subsequent to that l posted a number of items making it very clear that the misogyny and racism exhibited by what Morris said in his recordings had no place in our game (indeed in our society) and was more than enough for him to be fired from all media. Behaviour like this should never be tolerated in the media (indeed in society in general). Sadly it is, although it looks like the right outcome has now come to pass. The good guys fortunately win sometimes!

20 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I support his right to respond openly to a niggling journalist who is deliberately undermining the coach's job for his own personal gain.

Rubbish. Reporting on potential team changes happens before pretty much every single game. I can't recall any coach ever saying that 'undermines' their job (aside from Bevo of course). 'Personal gain'? It's his job to report on footy.

  

20 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Why are journalists but not coaches protected species?

I mean, Bevo still has a job, Morris not so much...

  

20 minutes ago, Skuit said:

You critically respond to my post on here, and I defend it. Imagine either of us were denied that right due to some odd societal norms?

 You realize that if posters make overly personal comments or attacks here they very much are denied the right to comment?

  

20 minutes ago, Skuit said:

A lot of people are also talking about the embarrassment of Beveridge lashing out: I would have loved it if Bailey or someone in the club told Caroline Wilson to GAGF when she made it her mission to hammer us over alleged tanking.  

Sure, but you do it professionally. You don't go for a personal attack on someone who is doing their job.

 

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Rubbish. Reporting on potential team changes happens before pretty much every single game. I can't recall any coach ever saying that 'undermines' their job (aside from Bevo of course). 'Personal gain'? It's his job to report on footy.

 

Great. Go back to my original post asking the question of why society accepts our current standards of journalism as 'reporters just doing their job'? And what that means for the people being reported on?  I'm a journalist. I come into privileged information all the time. I don't feel the need to report on 'breaking stories' when it regards confidential information for the sake of building my own career. 

4 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Great. Go back to my original post asking the question of why society accepts our current standards of journalism as 'reporters just doing their job'? And what that means for the people being reported on?  I'm a journalist. I come into privileged information all the time. I don't feel the need to report on 'breaking stories' when it regards confidential information for the sake of building my own career. 

I made this example on Twitter in response to a similar question:

Imagine two sources. One leaks to the bookies and one leaks to a journalist. The bookies adjust the odds for profit and the journalist reports it, ensuring the public doesn’t get conned into making an unfavourable bet. Just one example.

Journalists sniffing out leaks to get ahead in their careers by publishing what should be private/confidential information is not always morally on the up and up, but I'd prefer it to those leaks being gathered purely for profit.

2 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Great. Go back to my original post asking the question of why society accepts our current standards of journalism as 'reporters just doing their job'? And what that means for the people being reported on?  I'm a journalist. I come into privileged information all the time. I don't feel the need to report on 'breaking stories' when it regards confidential information for the sake of building my own career. 

Depends on your definition of 'doing their job'. Breaking a story about team lineups would very much fall within the journalistic boundaries of an AFL reporter IMO.

I'm no Morris fan, but he merely said Hunter wouldn't play due to form. That's 100% footy news. Sure, if there were personal issues or the like it's a different scenario, but that's a very vanilla footy story. Morris even made a point of mentioning it wasn't anything 'discipline related'.

58 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Dogs will never be my second team till Beveridge is Gawn.

Well Bevo has started on the facial hair.

11 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

I think l have been misunderstood. The quote above from me was written before the details of the recordings had become clear. Subsequent to that l posted a number of items making it very clear that the misogyny and racism exhibited by what Morris said in his recordings had no place in our game (indeed in our society) and was more than enough for him to be fired from all media. Behaviour like this should never be tolerated in the media (indeed in society in general). Sadly it is, although it looks like the right outcome has now come to pass. The good guys fortunately win sometimes!

You haven't been misunderstood Dees2014. It's not about a stance taken against any single given event. It's my questioning of why people accept journalism in its current form, that our job is to effectively muck-rake. Why do that unless we want to elevate ourselves? 

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Depends on your definition of 'doing their job'. Breaking a story about team lineups would very much fall within the journalistic boundaries of an AFL reporter IMO.

I'm basically someone in the industry saying the definition of 'doing our job' is not cool. Considering the current global climate, people 'just doing their jobs' is not okay. 

3 minutes ago, Skuit said:

You haven't been misunderstood Dees2014. It's not about a stance taken against any single given event. It's my questioning of why people accept journalism in its current form, that our job is to effectively muck-rake. Why do that unless we want to elevate ourselves? 

Although l have no time for Morris’s subsequent behaviour and he deserved to be fired, his initial behaviour of speculating on team line ups were straight out of a good sports reporter’s DNA. It is what their jobs should be about. It was the subsequent revelations about his 19th century social attitudes to race and gender which led to his justifiable sacking. There is no place for that in our media, and l applaud Foxtel for acting so swiftly on this.

5 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I'm basically someone in the industry saying the definition of 'doing our job' is not cool. Considering the current global climate, people 'just doing their jobs' is not okay. 

It's a blanket statement though.

Plenty of journalists 'doing their job' with integrity and ethics.

 

12 hours ago, Skuit said:

There is a difference between 'in the public's interest' and what some of the public may be interested in.

Brilliant post. In particular this ⬆️ 

 

3 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

Although l have no time for Morris’s subsequent behaviour and he deserved to be fired, his initial behaviour of speculating on team line ups were straight out of a good sports reporter’s DNA. It is what their jobs should be about. It was the subsequent revelations about his 19th century social attitudes to race and gender which led to his justifiable sacking. There is no place for that in our media, and l applaud Foxtel for acting so swiftly on this.

Why? Have you not read one of my posts? Why is this the definition of a good sports' reporter?  Why should a 'good' sports reporter harass sporting organisations for news they don't want revealed yet. For the benefit of some privileged fans? If I was a sports reporter I would concentrate on bringing the game to life through words, for the fans who couldn't be there - you know, like someone reporting on sports. Not someone inclined to bring down the coach of any given club for my own gain. 

40 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Great. Go back to my original post asking the question of why society accepts our current standards of journalism as 'reporters just doing their job'? And what that means for the people being reported on?  I'm a journalist. I come into privileged information all the time. I don't feel the need to report on 'breaking stories' when it regards confidential information for the sake of building my own career. 

Journos have been reporting on selection issues for 150 years.

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Journos have been reporting on selection issues for 150 years.

Great. And for 150 years before that we had slavery. I'm questioning the current climate of what is accepted as a sports journalist's role. No one wants to address that. Should their job be to cultivate leaks and report on stuff that clubs don't want revealed? For whose benefit? The fans and the gambling industry? Because it has been that way is no argument for why it should be that way.