Others on this forum have often commented on what we Melbourne supporters certainly perceive as media bias-and I would suggest it’s more than a perception.It frequently seems like certain commentators are actively“barracking” for our opponents. This takes the form of validating highly dubious free kicks against Melbourne and being conspicuously silent when obvious kicks to Melbourne are not paid. Anything vaguely reportable by Melbourne player is often amplified in commentary. Can I point to a particular example of this? On the current AFL website there is some footage of the Stephen May incident with the caption “Reckless May hit sparks massive all-out brawl”. Of course, whether or not an action is “reckless” forms an element of whether the action is reportable and the penalty. Captioning the incident this way is clearly prejudicial. I wonder whether our club takes issue with this, especially as it seems we lower profile clubs are often seen as expendable by the MRO.

"The kozzie hit" on AFL APP.

All clubs have one-eyed supporters who believe this to be true against 'their' club. They can't all be right can they?

It's the biggest load of tosh going on.

5 minutes ago, Teufelmann said:

Others on this forum have often commented on what we Melbourne supporters certainly perceive as media bias-and I would suggest it’s more than a perception.It frequently seems like certain commentators are actively“barracking” for our opponents. This takes the form of validating highly dubious free kicks against Melbourne and being conspicuously silent when obvious kicks to Melbourne are not paid. Anything vaguely reportable by Melbourne player is often amplified in commentary. Can I point to a particular example of this? On the current AFL website there is some footage of the Stephen May incident with the caption “Reckless May hit sparks massive all-out brawl”. Of course, whether or not an action is “reckless” forms an element of whether the action is reportable and the penalty. Captioning the incident this way is clearly prejudicial. I wonder whether our club takes issue with this, especially as it seems we lower profile clubs are often seen as expendable by the MRO.

We and a few others (St Kilda comes to mind) are the media's low hanging fruit. Never mind that we have a farcically uneven competition that has very little semblance of equalization. And a Head of the AFL with no capacity or inclination to rectify it.

Edited June 28Jun 28 by Return to Glory

Sponsors I would imagine are very reluctant to deal with such a nepotistic based organisation as the AFL. More than recently it has been identified and referred to as "the the old boys club".

Indeed the presentation of the AFL Tassie venture was regarded as being somewhat short sighted and shallow in a financial sense.

With performances like today, we give them a lot of Ammunition.

2 minutes ago, Howard_Grimes said:

All clubs have one-eyed supporters who believe this to be true against 'their' club. They can't all be right can they?

It's the biggest load of tosh going on.

How long ago was it that the Umpires were convicted of betting on games, "being on the run" and actually working for Sports betting.

Gimme a break mate, or start wearing glasses.

6 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

How long ago was it that the Umpires were convicted of betting on games, "being on the run" and actually working for Sports betting.

Gimme a break mate, or start wearing glasses.

It's sports entertainment now and $$$$$$$$$ dictates everything. Fixturing and umpiring reflect this.

5 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

How long ago was it that the Umpires were convicted of betting on games, "being on the run" and actually working for Sports betting.

Gimme a break mate, or start wearing glasses.

Isn't it interesting that in our flag year, there were no threads like this?

Were the media trying to drag us down then?

I think it's more a case of some on here needing to take their glasses off..

There are some wild conspiracy theories going on in here..

18 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

With performances like today, we give them a lot of Ammunition.

100% we are our own worst enemy.

Sore losers blame media, umpires, anyone else except their own club for its incompetent performances.

The point of my topic was really to ask whether our club goes into bat for its players when there’s a justifiable basis for doing so. When the AFL media website puts up vision of the May incident using the word “reckless“ in a caption I would generally describe as inflammatory, prior to any review by the MRO, I’m suggesting it’s obviously prejudicial. And this would be true of any club not just Melbourne. So it’s not really a question of whether Melbourne supporters are lacking objectivity. Any club should push back against this form of prejudicial publicity and I hope ours does and publicise the fact that he has done so.

5 minutes ago, Howard_Grimes said:

Isn't it interesting that in our flag year, there were no threads like this?

Were the media trying to drag us down then?

I think it's more a case of some on here needing to take their glasses off..

There are some wild conspiracy theories going on in here..

Check my posts then amongst others. The difference now is ....they WERE hard running non temperamental decision maker umpires then, now they ARE participating in the rort.

They were also bombarded by Rule Changing Media maggots..

Just now, Willmoy1947 said:

Check my posts then amongst others. The difference now is ....they WERE hard running non temperamental decision maker umpires then, now they ARE participating in the rort.

They were also bombarded by Rule Changing Media maggots..

And yes they were trying to drag us down then Max, Brayshaw, Petracca and Oliver were all interviewed and written condescendingly about by rank [censored].

23 minutes ago, Howard_Grimes said:

Isn't it interesting that in our flag year, there were no threads like this?

Were the media trying to drag us down then?

I think it's more a case of some on here needing to take their glasses off..

There are some wild conspiracy theories going on in here..

Dwayne Moron was stating that Viney already was in MRO Trouble from earlier incident as though it was fact.

Umpires, like players, make mistakes.

Fans always remember with anger the decisions that go against their team and conveniently forget those that favour their side.

It's called human nature.

I feel like on the Kayo broadcast Gerard Healy goes into bat for us and has a bit of love for (one of) his ex-teams but just about everyone else d-rides the opposition.

11 minutes ago, Wizard of Koz said:

Dwayne Moron was stating that Viney already was in MRO Trouble from earlier incident as though it was fact.

He definitely will be, slung Rowell whose head slammed the ground.

I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has a view on what I wrote i.e.about the prejudicial nature of the Afl website in this instance (rather than the myriad of other issues which have attached themselves to what I actually wrote).

Your first sentence set the scene. You suggested the bias is more than just perception.

Except it isn't. It's what you are perceiving vs someone else.

I am a die hard Melb supporter and disagree with what you've said entirely.

It's just a convenient way for ppl to dump emotionally after a loss and divert blame from the club/coaches/players.

As far as the May headline goes... Welcome to the world of click bait media. And of course there will be more emphasis put on sensationalising a headline when it involves a player who has a checkered history with the MRO.

Would this happen to other players who like May, have a history?

Of course.

Are one-eyed Melb supporters thinking about this?

Of course not.

My point of principle is that it is unduly prejudicial and should not be allowed on the AFL website. The fact that it is done as click bait is of course no form of justification.The AFL strictly controls what coaches,players etc are able to say in the media. Why should its own media platform be permitted to effectively prejudge an issue before its officially independent MRO has assessed the matter? I accept that I am engaged because it involves Stephen May but I reiterate my earlier point that it should not be done to any player, irrespective of the club.

1 hour ago, Howard_Grimes said:

Your first sentence set the scene. You suggested the bias is more than just perception.

Except it isn't. It's what you are perceiving vs someone else.

I am a die hard Melb supporter and disagree with what you've said entirely.

It's just a convenient way for ppl to dump emotionally after a loss and divert blame from the club/coaches/players.

As far as the May headline goes... Welcome to the world of click bait media. And of course there will be more emphasis put on sensationalising a headline when it involves a player who has a checkered history with the MRO.

Would this happen to other players who like May, have a history?

Of course.

Are one-eyed Melb supporters thinking about this?

Of course not.

Two off the top of my head;

Tom Hawkins.

Patrick Dangerfield.

Prolific dangerous acts and outright striking incidents, but to this day have an unblemished record as far as media is concerned and almost as clean when it comes to suspensions and fines.

Plus some guy I can't recall the name of at a club that isn't very important, who sends an opponent to hospital with a head injury roughly every 30 games, but still apparently smells like frangipannis and freshly baked bread.

2 hours ago, Teufelmann said:

I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has a view on what I wrote i.e.about the prejudicial nature of the Afl website in this instance (rather than the myriad of other issues which have attached themselves to what I actually wrote).

Personally I think that particular headline is a reflection of the frenetic clickbait nature of all AFL journalism. Every discussion is turned up to 11, every tiny incident is scrutinised & magnified. They all trade in hyperbole and drama. I don’t think they target MFC specifically but as we’re going badly we’re giving them plenty of cheap touches

regarding any MRO type incidents the media, in particular the commentators, seem to want to be judge and jury. Today [censored] Dwayne had Viney cited and suspended despite the umpire calling play on (though in this case Jackie might be in trouble😂). Same applies to the McVee bump against Port, they were talking like he was suspended before the game had even finished

lol.

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He definitely will be, slung Rowell whose head slammed the ground.

Viney may well be cited, but the point was this was announced as a fact.

At the time we had two players out of the game with concussion, but neither incident (and both may have been incidental) received any attention from the broadcast. Which of itself might be just another moment in a pretty miserable afternoon's footy... were it not for the impression that the match review does seem to respond to the "newsworthy incidents".

(Note that the goal review which happened to highlight a throw on the goal line was forgotten the moment after it happened; not to say (as the rules stand) that it should have been recalled or a free awarded, but if this happened to the club currently at the top of the ladder you would expect multiple replays, ill unfurnished comments from the host broadcaster ("you'd hate to see a grand final decided...") and a grovelling response from AFL house.)

2 hours ago, Teufelmann said:

My point of principle is that it is unduly prejudicial and should not be allowed on the AFL website. The fact that it is done as click bait is of course no form of justification.The AFL strictly controls what coaches,players etc are able to say in the media. Why should its own media platform be permitted to effectively prejudge an issue before its officially independent MRO has assessed the matter? I accept that I am engaged because it involves Stephen May but I reiterate my earlier point that it should not be done to any player, irrespective of the club.

4 hours ago, Teufelmann said:

I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has a view on what I wrote i.e.about the prejudicial nature of the Afl website in this instance (rather than the myriad of other issues which have attached themselves to what I actually wrote).

And I agree 100% with this point. It cannot be acceptable for the organisation that it charges with running the competition to run on its official platform opinion pieces. It compromises the actions of the organisation across the board (if they were not already compromised).

Edited June 28Jun 28 by Alex No Fancy-name