The Chazz

I expect us to make finals, but I wouldn't be "safely assuming it" just quite yet. With the extra injuries that we have picked up this weekend, it's going to be a huge test for us this Friday night. We drop it, we don't necessarily drop back ladder positions, but we become part of the big group of teams just one game ahead of those outside the 8. While last week was a huge win, a win this week is vital on so many levels.

You can write your own ending. I was just giving you the chapters leading up to it.

Just did the predictor. Had us finishing 5th, to play Essendon in the first week. We beat them, then had to play Power in Adelaide, then back up the next week to beat Adelaide over there in the prelim. We then went on and beat GWS in the GF. It is an amazingly even season, where a loss one week could see us drop to 7th, then win the following week and be top 4. Great for the competition, but not for our nerves!

It makes sense. We have constantly talked about how we have prepared for this run of 6 day breaks. He could play this Friday night, then have an 8 day break until the Carlton game. The reports of his hour-long (or so) individual training session on Friday sounded that it was quite intense. From the brief footage they showed, he looked pretty sharp too. And to top it off, it's Friday night footy. Hoges loves the big stage. Time to unleash him.

To be fair though, Oliver gave away about 5 free kicks in the 3rd quarter that were all there. He lost control a bit, but I do think it may have been a way of him getting back in to the game after the hard tag in the first half, as well as the "incident" at half time. There was a run of about 20 minutes where the Eagles were running all over us, we were undisciplined, and the 50/50 ones weren't going our way. Roughly from half way through the 3rd, to about 10 minutes in to the 4th.

Jones is a big out. It will then be up to how Goody decides to fill that void. Does he throw Salem in to that role, meaning we have to replace Salem? Or does Tyson play it? Jones has been starting a lot on the wing this year. Could that mean Stretch comes in? Or will Lewis play Jones' role, meaning we have a spot on the HBF, which could be where Trengove slots in to (which is a different HPF role to what Wagner plays). Will be interesting to see, but it's something I have great confidence in our FD making the right decision.

For Stretch to come back in, who makes way for him? We haven't lost a game for the past 4 weeks. Pretty hard to bring in Stetch just to add some pace, when realistically, it hasn't been a concern in the past month. Different story with the likes of Max coming straight back in. Even given our current form, Hogan will be an upgrade on someone when he is ready to come back.

6. Goodwin 5-1. Team effort

Boring.

They are the slowest team in the league. I expect them to lose tonight, and while it's still a little way until September, will expect them to go out in straight sets in the finals (whether that's 1 final they play or 2). They aren't much good. The would not have won their past 3 if those games were played on bigger grounds.

I would be wary of bringing Gawn back this weekend. Etihad is notorious for being harsher on soft tissue, so I'd rest him for another week at least, and potentially the week after, so his first game back is the Sydney game on the MCG. Same with Hoges. Spencer is more than adequate for the next two weeks.

General belief on this thread is that Flanagan will pick up work elsewhere. So, a top journo being pushed out of one gig, but expected to land another. Now what thread have I read that on lately?

While the ladder position is most important at the end of Round 23, with the Dogs losing last night, the winner of our game will end the round in either 6th or 7th position (6th if Brisbane can beat Freo, which is quite possible). The loser will be in 10th (but still just 1 game out of the 8). For us to be sitting in 6th after Round 12, and just 1 game and % outside the Top 4, I would've taken that at the start of the season.

I've read Dept of Employment data that tells a different story, as well as job forecast data that shows job prospects for journalists isn't all doom and gloom, especially for those that aren't so precious about where they start their careers.

Suprisingly GV, the amount of grad jobs remains very similar. Part of the issue of grads without jobs boils down to a key point you made. There are also jobs in the bush where grads can cut their teeth, the problem is a lot of them don't want to move there. Many industries areally the same. Primary teaching is another that generally requires country time before landing that gig in a nice school in a nice location. In Victoria there are something like 50 Midwifery grad jobs each year. One uni in Melbourne has some 70 grads themselves. The point is, if you are good at what you do, you will likely pick up the job you want. If you are willing to work in the bush, your odds increase. If you are willing to do other things to build up your experience and reputation, then you will make it at some stage.

You have totally overreacted. In my comment (which wasn't actually my comment), the point was made that it was a very simplistic way of looking at journalism. For fun, I have googled "what is journalism", the simplistic definition of it is "the activity of preparing news to be broadcast". When you post something on Instagram (as an example social media platform that was used in this presentation), it's generally taking a photo of "news" (it's newsworthy for the user), then preparing an article (i.e. "post"), that is then broadcasted to the poster's followers. The other similarity about it is the speed in which the news item is being broadcast. It (Instagram, etc) is instantaneous. Online news reports now are instantaneous. It's part of the reason (note, part of, not THE) that print media is struggling. Why would we wait to read something on paper tomorrow, when we can generally read about it online minutes after it happened? I'm sure you can now see why the comparison was made. It made sense to me, but perhaps it was simplistic enough for me to understand. Your comparisons with churches, potatoes and bandaids is childish, and this will be the last time I acknowledge them in our discussion.

Hogan not playing, and Spencer likely to return via Casey.

What is "journalism" then, LG?

Your first point is a blanket statement that is plain wrong. Many graduates get jobs in journalism, many graduates do a journalism degree with no intention of doing it as a career. The ones that do want to be journalists have to be creative in where they look for jobs. The ratio of graduate programs at Fairfax, etc, compared to the amount of graduates isn't balanced. That's why graduates wanting to be journalists are being encouraged to do freelancing work, working for non-profit organisations, universities themselves, and online-only producers. I will answer your second point honestly. Fairfax still employ graduates. I'm really enjoying this conversation, 55, and would love to continue it - I don't work in media but do have my finger on the pulse on these sort of things. But can I suggest we do so via DM, so that we don't clog up a thread about non-footy related stuff!

Amazingly, job prospects for journalists are a lot better now than what they were 5 years ago. The ever-increasing platforms that journalists can have their work displayed will ensure this. You will find every university that offers a communication/journalism degree will direct their students down the non-traditional journalism outlets because that's where the journalism jobs are, and will be in the future. The more traditional media outlets, such as print media, this is where job prospects are lot more shaky. These outlets have needed to adjust to modern times, or they found themselves going backwards at a great rate of knots. Reality is, there will always be journalists. When you want to be specialised in a certain area of journalism, that's when you can suffer from industry downturn or industry changes (i.e. technology). But I say it again, if you are very good in your specialty, then you will find work elsewhere. This is the same with many higher skilled professions. Unfortunately, industries like those mentioned earlier (i.e. Alcoa, Ford, etc), they are in great danger. But every industry is the same (and more than ever does this apply in modern times), if you think you just go to uni, get a degree, then get a job and live happily every after, you will become replaceable very quickly. The need to value-add to an employer has never been more important. That's part of the reason why a lot of the sports journos are involved in other forms of media. An interesting take on journalism - I heard an industry expert say that journalism is one of the most practiced careers of teenagers. They take a photo, post it on Instagram, write an "article" about what the story is. A very simplistic way of looking at journalism, but the foundations are basically the same.

She's inviting it because a. some of her comments were absolutely disgraceful, b. she chose to have a social media account that was accessible by the general public, and c. she chose not to block any "trolls". Do I think that it's right? Hell no. But it's how society is, and if you are a public figure that has mental health concerns, platforms like Twitter aren't a great place for you to be.

The problem with those workers at Ford, Alcoa, etc, is that a lot of them have been doing the same job for 30-odd years, and they are often low skill jobs. In recent times, a lot of these jobs have since been taken over by automation or from being shipped offshore. These workers are in a terrible situation when job cuts are being made. In a "profession" such as journalism, if you are made redundant from one place, you won't stay unemployed for long, especially if you are a decent one. And given RoCo has other income-generating gigs, I'm sure that would ease the pain somewhat (especially compared to those industries you mentioned).

For me it is their need to find/create/develop a story, and the lengths that they will often go to to do so. It is also their inconsistencies in the reporting of a range of issues, depending on who can or will be impacted from doing so. They thrive on the smell of blood, then lobby together when it's their own bleeding.

Doesn't faze me. If I put it out there for people to read, I expect that some won't agree. Are you a journalist?

I've said it before, and will say it again. As soon as we started making sports journalists "celebrities", the quality of the articles and the TV coverage turned to shite. While he is far from the worst in it, RoCo is just another of the ambulance chasers that makes me cringe. A majority of them are headline-chasing scum. They lack accountability, and are nothing but hypocrites. It's not just sports related either. I remember that Charlotte Dawson being on a Brownlow Red Carpet "special" absolutely slating what some of the WAGS were wearing. All of a sudden, she's being "trolled" on social media, which led to her taking her own life. The outcry from all the do-gooders and tree-huggers was amazing. Slobbo made his Twitter comments about Fasolo with zero consequence, yet would be up any player if they made the exact same comment. If you don't like people doing it to you, perhaps start by not doing it to others, and using your apparent "fame" as a platform to do so. As Cards said, the only ad thing about RoCo taking a voluntary redundancy is that we will have to put up with more of him on other outlets.