Bevo unleashes on Tom Morris

[Dees2014 2,377]

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

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. 

Well l see the job of a sports reporter as having a wider definition than simply reporting on the details of a particular game. Sports reporting has a wider perview than that involving key personalities,  subsequent politics, finances, technologies, human resource management, and yes team selection even if it is just speculating on team make ups. To say as Beveridge does that to reveal team selection is a breach of trust is absurd. Sports reporters are not employed by Footscray FC, or even the AFL. They are though by media organisations whose dna is to inform the public of a range of issues, even if it makes certain vested interests (aka football clubs) uncomfortable. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Dees2014

[Neil Crompton 5,308]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Journos have been reporting on selection issues for 150 years.

I’m of the opinion that it’s only been in recent times (last 10-20 years?) that certain journos have acted in the way that Morris did - ie receiving info about team selections prior to club release. Prior to that, I only ever remember journos commenting on what clubs formerly or informally issued to the media - rarely, if ever, did “scoops” occur that clubs didn’t want known. 
And it’s our desire for instant information that has led to the breading of “journalists” such as  Morris, Barrett and Cornes, so we probably only have ourselves to blame that they even exist.           I might be old school but personally I can wait till the MFC formally issue the team news or update. I’m no better off (and my life isn’t changed) for having speculation about selection one or two days prior to its factual release. But I do know for a fact that I’d much prefer to wait for my news if it meant not having bottom feeders like Morris et al being thrust upon me. 

 

 

[Dees2014 2,377]

10 hours ago, Darkhorse72 said:

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.. :)   

 

The problem with that is that people like Morris would never reveal their real thinking so we would never know they had such backward ideas.. This is particularly pernicious for journalists as they command the bully pulpit. If these recordings had never come to light we would not have know what Morris’s true views were, and so he could insidiously feed them into our airwaves with impunity into the future. Sometimes, social media has its uses. 

[Fork 'em 6,938]

3 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

I’m of the opinion that it’s only been in recent times (last 10-20 years?) that certain journos have acted in the way that Morris did - ie receiving info about team selections prior to club release. Prior to that, I only ever remember journos commenting on what clubs formerly or informally issued to the media - rarely, if ever, did “scoops” occur that clubs didn’t want known. 
And it’s our desire for instant information that has led to the breading of “journalists” such as  Morris, Barrett and Cornes, so we probably only have ourselves to blame that they even exist.           I might be old school but personally I can wait till the MFC formally issue the team news or update. I’m no better off (and my life isn’t changed) for having speculation about selection one or two days prior to its factual release. But I do know for a fact that I’d much prefer to wait for my news if it meant not having bottom feeders like Morris et al being thrust upon me. 

 

 

Started with Mike Sheehan.
Then Caroline Wilson.

[Dees2014 2,377]

51 minutes ago, Skuit said:

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. 

It is called a “free press”. Maybe you don’t think that is a good idea either…

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

Well l see the job of a sports reporter as having a wider definition than simply reporting on the details of a particular game. Sports reporting has a wider perview than that involving key personalities,  subsequent politics, finances, technologies, human resource management, and yes team selection even if it is just speculating on team make ups. To say as Beveridge does that to reveal team selection is breaching a lack of trust is absurd. Sports reporters are not employed by Footscray FC, or even the AFL. They are though by media organisations whose dna is to inform the public of a range of issues, even if it makes certain vested interests (aka football clubs) uncomfortable. 

I'm asking you to reflect on why you think this is okay, not how you presently see it. I too see a media industry that as its goal seeks to 'uncover' and reveal information. But for whose interests, and is it worth it? Neil Crompton is spot on - it's all our faults. I read every juicy detail of Hunter being left out. I fuel the cycle like many others. But if it means hurting people, maybe I should consider not contributing to that and wonder out loud if we could perhaps reframe what the media should be?

[Fork 'em 6,938]

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

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. 

Depends.

Do we allow Jack Elliot for eg to rort the salary cap?
Essendon to use performance enhancing substances on their players.
Reckon they'd want those things kept in house.

Double edged sword.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Fork 'em

[Dees2014 2,377]

7 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I'm asking you to reflect on why you think this is okay, not how you presently see it. I too see a media industry that as its goal seeks to 'uncover' and reveal information. But for whose interests, and is it worth it? Neil Crompton is spot on - it's all our faults. I read every juicy detail of Hunter being left out. I fuel the cycle like many others. But if it means hurting people, maybe I should consider not contributing to that and wonder out loud if we could perhaps reframe what the media should be?

Why is it “hurting” people to speculate do team selections? Inconvenient to control freaks like Beveridge yes, but truly hurt l don’t think so. I think there are much more serious things which truly hurt people, both physically and mentally. Just   ask the Ukrainians!

Edited March 19, 2022 by Dees2014

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

It is called a “free press”. Maybe you don’t think that is a good idea either…

You clearly have no understanding of what a 'free press' means and its central tenets, which is particularly galling in the current global political climate. A free press doesn't refer to reporters having carte blanche to dig up and write on whatever they want without consideration to journalistic ethics. It means 'free' from government and institutional constraints. Like, you know, what the media is Russia isn't right now. 

[titan_uranus 24,559]

13 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'm happy to open up a discussion on the standard of journalism in this country, particularly AFL journalism.

But the case here of Morris reporting on team selection shouldn't fall foul of the issues above.

The idea that a player being dropped shouldn't be reported on because of mental health issues is IMO ridiculous. Let's assume Hunter is going through a tough time in some way. His being dropped was always going to be reported on, whether before the team was announced or the moment the teams dropped. He was always going to be a focus of the media.

Every week for the last few years journalists have reported on team selection issues hours or days prior to the official announcements. Just like they also report on injuries suffered, sometimes before the club formally announces it.

There is in my view very little wrong with a journalist reporting on team selection early, and Beveridge's response to it was wholly disproportionate.

If Beveridge was actually having a go at Morris for other issues (e.g. because of the way Morris handles himself generally, or maybe for the sorts of things the Whatsapp leak subsequently revealed), the way he did it was inappropriate.

[Fork 'em 6,938]

5 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

Why is it “hurting” people to speculate do team selections? Inconvenient to control freaks like Beveridge yes, but truly hurt l don’t think so. I think there are much more serious things which truly hurt people, both physically and mentally. 

And as if Goodwin would give a sheet whether or not Hunter was playing.
Bont or Naughton maybe, Hunter ... No.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Fork 'em said:

Depends.

Do we allow Jack Elliot for eg to rort the salary cap?
Essendon to use performance enhancing substances on their players.
Reckon they'd want those things kept in house.

Double edged sword.

Not sure why I continue to argue this point. As even you know full well what might be considered in the public's genuine interest by the examples you've given and what is simply gratuitous reporting for the satisfaction of some. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm happy to open up a discussion on the standard of journalism in this country, particularly AFL journalism.

There is in my view very little wrong with a journalist reporting on team selection early, and Beveridge's response to it was wholly disproportionate.

I agree that Beveridge's response seems wholly disproportionate, but have given examples of why that might have occurred. I keep asking a simple question though. Why do we see it as a journalist's job to reveal any and all private information, and why does the public believe that it's entitled to this information, especially when it concerns a ball-game or some 'celebrity'? 

[Dees2014 2,377]

33 minutes ago, Skuit said:

You clearly have no understanding of what a 'free press' means and its central tenets, which is particularly galling in the current global political climate. A free press doesn't refer to reporters having carte blanche to dig up and write on whatever they want without consideration to journalistic ethics. It means 'free' from government and institutional constraints. Like, you know, what the media is Russia isn't right now. 

Tell me what journalistic ethics are breached by a reporter speculating on AFL team selection? U know Beveridge (and perhaps you) would love to think he could control what is published about his team but fortunately in this country we have a free wheeling press where they publish what they like within journalistic ethics, but tell me the ethic that says AFL coaches should be able to control what is published about their team?

[Dees2014 2,377]

26 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I agree that Beveridge's response seems wholly disproportionate, but have given examples of why that might have occurred. I keep asking a simple question though. Why do we see it as a journalist's job to reveal any and all private information, and why does the public believe that it's entitled to this information, especially when it concerns a ball-game or some 'celebrity'? 

There are numerous examples of people in public life who seek to stop publication  of material including under breach of journalistic ethics. Fortunately publishers like the Age and the ABC are prepared to spend $m’s to protect their ability to publish in the public interest.
 

It is interesting when you examine who challenges this. It is usually those with something to hide? I would much rather we err on the side of a freer press where the contest is in the court of the public opinion rather than one where the contest is in the Courts in William Street. You cannot have this if the public is not informed.

Perhaps you do not agree? That is your right, or do you wish to take that away as well?

[Cranky Franky 1,814]

51 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I agree that Beveridge's response seems wholly disproportionate, but have given examples of why that might have occurred. I keep asking a simple question though. Why do we see it as a journalist's job to reveal any and all private information, and why does the public believe that it's entitled to this information, especially when it concerns a ball-game or some 'celebrity'? 

The issue you continually ignore is that powerful organisations like Clubs & the AFL want to manage media stories & only ever want positive stories.

As long as journos tell the truth its fine by me.

If Collingwood supporters had been better informed about what was happening at their Club instead of what Eddie McGuire had wanted them to hear then the Club may not have imploded when it did.

 

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

 Why do we see it as a journalist's job to reveal any and all private information

I've not see anyone state that's their job or that's what they want though?

There's clearly boundaries to that, and IMO someone being not selected due to form is purely a football matter and not a personal one. Had he been not selected due to mental health reasons or any other personal matter then fair enough, probably not going to be ok in most cases and better to let the club handle it.

 

[Dr. Gonzo 23,683]

2 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

I’m of the opinion that it’s only been in recent times (last 10-20 years?) that certain journos have acted in the way that Morris did - ie receiving info about team selections prior to club release. Prior to that, I only ever remember journos commenting on what clubs formerly or informally issued to the media - rarely, if ever, did “scoops” occur that clubs didn’t want known. 
And it’s our desire for instant information that has led to the breading of “journalists” such as  Morris, Barrett and Cornes, so we probably only have ourselves to blame that they even exist.           I might be old school but personally I can wait till the MFC formally issue the team news or update. I’m no better off (and my life isn’t changed) for having speculation about selection one or two days prior to its factual release. But I do know for a fact that I’d much prefer to wait for my news if it meant not having bottom feeders like Morris et al being thrust upon me. 

 

 

I seriously don't see why it's even an issue. The issue is someone at the Dogs leaking, not reporters reporting on it

[Fork 'em 6,938]

16 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I've not see anyone state that's their job or that's what they want though?

There's clearly boundaries to that, and IMO someone being not selected due to form is purely a football matter and not a personal one. Had he been not selected due to mental health reasons or any other personal matter then fair enough, probably not going to be ok in most cases and better to let the club handle it.

 

So do they let De Goey do De Goey stuff or let Collingwood keep it in house?

[Dees2014 2,377]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm happy to open up a discussion on the standard of journalism in this country, particularly AFL journalism.

But the case here of Morris reporting on team selection shouldn't fall foul of the issues above.

The idea that a player being dropped shouldn't be reported on because of mental health issues is IMO ridiculous. Let's assume Hunter is going through a tough time in some way. His being dropped was always going to be reported on, whether before the team was announced or the moment the teams dropped. He was always going to be a focus of the media.

Every week for the last few years journalists have reported on team selection issues hours or days prior to the official announcements. Just like they also report on injuries suffered, sometimes before the club formally announces it.

There is in my view very little wrong with a journalist reporting on team selection early, and Beveridge's response to it was wholly disproportionate.

If Beveridge was actually having a go at Morris for other issues (e.g. because of the way Morris handles himself generally, or maybe for the sorts of things the Whatsapp leak subsequently revealed), the way he did it was inappropriate.

I can accept that Beveridge’s behaviour would have been far more excusable if it has been in response to Morris’s rather 19th century social attitudes, particularly about women and race issues. But he was very specific about what was annoying him ie revealing selection “secrets”. If it was about those other things then he should have said so and he would have been seen as the socially progressive coach he was previously perceived as.

[Demon17 5,039]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm happy to open up a discussion on the standard of journalism in this country, particularly AFL journalism.

But the case here of Morris reporting on team selection shouldn't fall foul of the issues above.

The idea that a player being dropped shouldn't be reported on because of mental health issues is IMO ridiculous. Let's assume Hunter is going through a tough time in some way. His being dropped was always going to be reported on, whether before the team was announced or the moment the teams dropped. He was always going to be a focus of the media.

Every week for the last few years journalists have reported on team selection issues hours or days prior to the official announcements. Just like they also report on injuries suffered, sometimes before the club formally announces it.

There is in my view very little wrong with a journalist reporting on team selection early, and Beveridge's response to it was wholly disproportionate.

If Beveridge was actually having a go at Morris for other issues (e.g. because of the way Morris handles himself generally, or maybe for the sorts of things the Whatsapp leak subsequently revealed), the way he did it was inappropriate.

At last a sensible comment in the later parts of this thread which has become a treatise on the pros and cons of jounalistic protocols.Thanks Titan.

Having experienced personally bullying from a News Corp paper by a journalist covering a story, him ignoring the facts and clearly following editorial policy of NewsCorp (you know- Coalition -good - ALP and anyone else - bad) I find the Hunter dropped just a story so trivial in the context of sporting reporting. Bevo is to blame here for that escalation.

 

Morris also confirmed it wasn't for discipline - which on Hunter's  history readers may have jumped to that conclusion. So Morris acieved something, and hence Bevo playing the mental health card was/is a red herring and a disgrace. Its not something to trivialise.

Everyone is missing and /or ignoring the real issue here - the downright trashing of the Fox reporter referred to in the audio. 

Beveridge, Morris and the Leaker should think about what they unleashed here. Bevo owes her a call.IMO. He won't though.

Pedantic arguments on journalism belong on another site or give it its own thread. 

[BoBo 2,912]

10 hours ago, DubDee said:

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

All good. No stress. 

[Demonland 70,238]

 

[DEE fence 4,923]

Journalists are so precious - next idiotic question to a coach should be followed with the retort 'have you deleted your chat history'.

Caro wants Bevo on a cross, totally over the top, and seriously they worry about his moustache, who are they going after next, Merv, Lillee? They want to turn everything into Disney, it's bloody Australia, chill out Brussel sprout - the Front Bar made more sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW5C9oDb3rQ

Timestamp 47m21s onwards - comment at 49m

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by DEE fence
adding time stamp

[Fork 'em 6,938]

Morris said something about a workmate he probably shouldn't have in a workplace.
Should have been handled privately by their employer.
Instead the audio got released by someone with a axe to grind and the media in their wisdom thought it appropriate to release it for public consumption.
Poor Megan got caught in the crossfire and should talk to her lawyers about who thought it appropriate to release the audio.
Saw her on daytime tv today looking like someone who hadn't slept for a few days.
 Her employers and the media also have alot to answer for here.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Fork 'em