Adelaide Footy Club had a gutsful of Rucci - Sanders talks with Advertiser

[macca23]

I don't mind Capel's stuff. No idea who he supports, don't really care though.

Totaly agree. He writes impartially and just calls it as it is. Good or bad.

Wouldn't have a clue from his journalism whether he has a leaning either towards Adelaide or Port Adelaide or who he supports.


And that's the way it should be.

 

[Wallace]

I like a man who will stick up for his son.

No relation, however I may be able to challenge him on the pure ugliness of my appearance.

Jokes aside, my observation is that we Adelaide supporters just seem too bloody precious. I once heard a quote that is something along the lines of a journalist not doing his or her job right if someone is not pissed off with you. Rucci does a bloody good job.

As for all the invictive against him, I for one will be reading his article tomorrow.....

 

[- PC -]

As for all the invictive against him, I for one will be reading his article tomorrow.....

I think this is the bit that amuses me... there are many who hate him yet they still read his stuff

 

[passamore]

I am told it is not nice to gloat. But I am glad prophecy of Billy and Triggy getting the job done is taking greater force everyday. How long do you think I should chill the champagne bottle? How long before I can have a party to celebrate?
I knew I could rely on our great men at the club.
Macca23 I was working today so did not hear the know-all on radio. Did he say when he is packing up?
Go Billy!!!!!!

 

[jo172]

I am told it is not nice to gloat. But I am glad prophecy of Billy and Triggy getting the job done is taking greater force everyday. How long do you think I should chill the champagne bottle? How long before I can have a party to celebrate?
I knew I could rely on our great men at the club.
Macca23 I was working today so did not hear the know-all on radio. Did he say when he is packing up?
Go Billy!!!!!!

Well you've earnt this moment!

 

[truebelievers]

So you think it's alright for a multi-million dollar company - as all AFL clubs are - to interfere in reporting about that company and try to censor journalists cause it doesn't like what is written about it? Are you serious? Thankfully Alan Bond wasn't able to stop Four Corners writing about him for example. And are you all comfortable about how our federal government has cowered our national broadcaster into submission over the last 11 years?

You can argue about degrees of importance but the principle is the same. Freedom of the press is paramount in a democracy (not that we have an interest free press), but applauding outright censorship is appalling. I hope the editor of the Advertiser told the AFC to get stuffed as I would hope they would do to any organisation trying to control the spin.

Do you just want a load of sycophants writing about your club? I would much rather my club was put under the microscope and criticised whenever it needs to be rather than read a whole lode of froth and bubble. I reckon you're totally over the top about Rucci's bias and it borders on hysteria.

 

[passamore]

Interesting point too Nikki that Andre Capel has done the majority, if not all, of the Crows reporting in the Advertiser this week.

The Mcleod article - an excellent example of what Rucci could be if he stuck to his trade rather than his campaigns - is one notable exception.

Macca23 I am not so sure about this. I just checked my book that I am keeping in case we can ever take the $%$# to the war crimes court in Den Hague.

Monday - two stories on Crows; both by Rucci
Tuesday - he did no Crow story; was at his bast###d club
Wednesday - two stories on Crows; both by Rucci
Thursday - season preview by Rucci!!!
Friday - story on Brett Burton by Rucci
Saturday - two-page spread on McLeod by Rucci

If that is not the majority, God help us.

But I am sure Billy will deliver.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Hehehe.

 

[Crow Envy]

So you think it's alright for a multi-million dollar company - as all AFL clubs are - to interfere in reporting about that company and try to censor journalists cause it doesn't like what is written about it? Are you serious? Thankfully Alan Bond wasn't able to stop Four Corners writing about him for example. And are you all comfortable about how our federal government has cowered our national broadcaster into submission over the last 11 years?

You can argue about degrees of importance but the principle is the same. Freedom of the press is paramount in a democracy (not that we have an interest free press), but applauding outright censorship is appalling. I hope the editor of the Advertiser told the AFC to get stuffed as I would hope they would do to any organisation trying to control the spin.

Do you just want a load of sycophants writing about your club? I would much rather my club was put under the microscope and criticised whenever it needs to be rather than read a whole lode of froth and bubble. I reckon you're totally over the top about Rucci's bias and it borders on hysteria.

What you write is fair enough but you are missing the point. Rucci is a Port supporter. Who do most Port supporters hate? The Crows, and with Rucci the hatred oozes out. So he has a bias.

You brought the comparison of companies into this, well how do you think it would look if a journalist was continually writing negative stories about Coles, but the journalist was a shareholder of Woolworths? Would it be fair to say he had a hidden agenda? And dont forget Rucci is a Port member. So do you think its fair then that he is allowed to write what he wants about the Crows?

 

[crows4always]

Just heard it on 5AA. KG hinted at it, Cornesy followed it up, Rucci admitted it.

The Adelaide Football Club have taken offence at Rucci's reporting and requested his remval from reporting on the Crows.

See next post for more detail.

Its about time the club told Rucci what they thought of him & his biased articles,never writes a Port story that has a slant against them eg, the front page one against Brogan the other day.

 

[crows4always]

If you guys could select any South Australian journalist (non Crows Supporter) to write Crows related articles/match reports who would you pick??
P.S Springy:- Goers and N. Cornes do not apply!

I have been hoping for quite sometime that Andrew Capel would take over writing the A.F.C. stories.

 

[truebelievers]

What you write is fair enough but you are missing the point. Rucci is a Port supporter. Who do most Port supporters hate? The Crows, and with Rucci the hatred oozes out. So he has a bias.

You brought the comparison of companies into this, well how do you think it would look if a journalist was continually writing negative stories about Coles, but the journalist was a shareholder of Woolworths? Would it be fair to say he had a hidden agenda? And dont forget Rucci is a Port member. So do you think its fair then that he is allowed to write what he wants about the Crows?

But you can't write what you like - you have to do it within quite strict defamation laws. And you have to have reliable sources if you're claiming truth. I doubt whether many journo's would hold shares of much value as they're paid so little - and they would have to be declared. But Rucci is not profiting monitarily by what he writes so I don't think the comparison is valid.

I'm not missing the point I'm trying to make my own point that companies or AFL clubs should not be trying to so blatently influence what is written about them (although I have not doubt that they do) and I'm suprised that those who believe in a free press should think the principle is wobbly and shouldn't apply in some cases. Going to the editor and saying we don't want Rucci to report on the Crows is censorship. What other way is there to describe it? Especially if there is an implied threat of cutting off access (I don't know if this is the case or not).

And big deal if he hates the Crows - are you so insecure that you can't cope with that? What exactly is the problem? He writes critical articles about the Crows? Criticise the work he produces but rejoicing over the AFC asking for a journalist to be censored is unprincipled in my opinion - it doesn't matter whether you like his work or not.

 

[crows4always]

But you can't write what you like - you have to do it within quite strict defamation laws. And you have to have reliable sources if you're claiming truth. I doubt whether many journo's would hold shares of much value as they're paid so little - and they would have to be declared. But Rucci is not profiting monitarily by what he writes so I don't think the comparison is valid.

I'm not missing the point I'm trying to make my own point that companies or AFL clubs should not be trying to so blatently influence what is written about them (although I have not doubt that they do) and I'm suprised that those who believe in a free press should think the principle is wobbly and shouldn't apply in some cases. Going to the editor and saying we don't want Rucci to report on the Crows is censorship. What other way is there to describe it? Especially if there is an implied threat of cutting off access (I don't know if this is the case or not).

And big deal if he hates the Crows - are you so insecure that you can't cope with that? What exactly is the problem? He writes critical articles about the Crows? Criticise the work he produces but rejoicing over the AFC asking for a journalist to be censored is unprincipled in my opinion - it doesn't matter whether you like his work or not.

Never writes a bad word about Port,which they deserve.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

But you can't write what you like - you have to do it within quite strict defamation laws. And you have to have reliable sources if you're claiming truth. I doubt whether many journo's would hold shares of much value as they're paid so little - and they would have to be declared. But Rucci is not profiting monitarily by what he writes so I don't think the comparison is valid.

I'm not missing the point I'm trying to make my own point that companies or AFL clubs should not be trying to so blatently influence what is written about them (although I have not doubt that they do) and I'm suprised that those who believe in a free press should think the principle is wobbly and shouldn't apply in some cases. Going to the editor and saying we don't want Rucci to report on the Crows is censorship. What other way is there to describe it? Especially if there is an implied threat of cutting off access (I don't know if this is the case or not).

And big deal if he hates the Crows - are you so insecure that you can't cope with that? What exactly is the problem? He writes critical articles about the Crows? Criticise the work he produces but rejoicing over the AFC asking for a journalist to be censored is unprincipled in my opinion - it doesn't matter whether you like his work or not.

Stop stirring snowflake. Just read my lips.

10 articles read 10 articles on the Goodwin saga.

No one is saying the AFC should demand anything from him except balanced unbiased stories that relate to what the actual story is. You can write pages and pages of dribble without defaming anyone. You just have to rehash a story thats been told over and over and over and over and over and over.

Don't give me that free press stuff. This organisation is run by the Murdoch family and you have to toe the party line if you want to continue working for them.

Free press, give me a break. The Washington Post the Ragvatiser is not.

Nor is the LeCornu Weekly.

 

[truebelievers]

Stop stirring snowflake. Just read my lips.

10 articles read 10 articles on the Goodwin saga.

No one is saying the AFC should demand anything from him except balanced unbiased stories that relate to what the actual story is. You can write pages and pages of dribble without defaming anyone. You just have to rehash a story thats been told over and over and over and over and over and over.

Don't give me that free press stuff. This organisation is run by the Murdoch family and you have to toe the party line if you want to continue working for them.

Free press, give me a break. The Washington Post the Ragvatiser is not.

Nor is the LeCornu Weekly.

I think I qualified what I was saying about a free press by saying it is certainly not interest free, and of course is subject to masses of influence. I'm in the Chomsky camp as far as that goes.

So the principles of a free press shouldn't apply to the 'tiser cause it's a crap paper? The problem with this town is that crap paper has way too much influence on the opinions of the state - being the one and only newspaper and a bad one at that. So really the quality of the paper shouldn't come into it.

And what the AFC think is balanced and unbiased is a highly subjective opinion. That's why is not up to it to decide what coverage it gets.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

I think I qualified what I was saying about a free press by saying it is certainly not interest free, and of course is subject to masses of influence. I'm in the Chomsky camp as far as that goes.

So the principles of a free press shouldn't apply to the 'tiser cause it's a crap paper? The problem with this town is that crap paper has way too much influence on the opinions of the state - being the one and only newspaper and a bad one at that. So really the quality of the paper shouldn't come into it.

And what the AFC think is balanced and unbiased is a highly subjective opinion. That's why is not up to it to decide what coverage it gets.

You've lost me what you are trying to say.

 

[King Elvis]

So you think it's alright for a multi-million dollar company - as all AFL clubs are - to interfere in reporting about that company and try to censor journalists cause it doesn't like what is written about it? Are you serious? Thankfully Alan Bond wasn't able to stop Four Corners writing about him for example. And are you all comfortable about how our federal government has cowered our national broadcaster into submission over the last 11 years?

You can argue about degrees of importance but the principle is the same. Freedom of the press is paramount in a democracy (not that we have an interest free press), but applauding outright censorship is appalling. I hope the editor of the Advertiser told the AFC to get stuffed as I would hope they would do to any organisation trying to control the spin.

Do you just want a load of sycophants writing about your club? I would much rather my club was put under the microscope and criticised whenever it needs to be rather than read a whole lode of froth and bubble. I reckon you're totally over the top about Rucci's bias and it borders on hysteria.

Journalists are meant to present facts, not their opinions.

If he wants to do editorials or write a column, let him, but articles are meant to be reporting of fact.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Journalists are meant to present facts, not their opinions.

If he wants to do editorials or write a column, let him, but articles are meant to be reporting of fact.

Even the editorials were slightly anti AFC a few years ago and the editor had to come onto the radio to explain that they had to be balanced. But it was the Ayres era.

 

[passamore]

I think I qualified what I was saying about a free press by saying it is certainly not interest free, and of course is subject to masses of influence. I'm in the Chomsky camp as far as that goes.

So the principles of a free press shouldn't apply to the 'tiser cause it's a crap paper? The problem with this town is that crap paper has way too much influence on the opinions of the state - being the one and only newspaper and a bad one at that. So really the quality of the paper shouldn't come into it.

And what the AFC think is balanced and unbiased is a highly subjective opinion. That's why is not up to it to decide what coverage it gets.

The Adelaide Football Club is the greatest organisation in South Australia. That some communist from Port Adelaide decides to criticise it is enough for me to suggest he not only be run out of the Advertiser but out of this state. How dare he criticise the Crows. This is why I have been saying Billy and Triggy would take care of it. The sooner the better.

 

[Leaping Lindner]

I think my favourite thing about the avatar is the hard ball gets thing. Reilly beats Salo in 1st possession, hard ball gets and clearances and DESTROYS him in tackles and 1%'s.

Back to Rucci. Port supporters, imagine Outback Jack was writing articles on the Power, that's what it's like. Did anyone hear Rucci on JJJ a year or so ago? Was one of the most disgraceful performances I've heard from someone in a long time, was one of the most hate filled spews against the Crows I'd ever heard.

Was that in the lead up to the "dream" final?

 

[Crow Envy]

And big deal if he hates the Crows - are you so insecure that you can't cope with that? What exactly is the problem? He writes critical articles about the Crows? Criticise the work he produces but rejoicing over the AFC asking for a journalist to be censored is unprincipled in my opinion - it doesn't matter whether you like his work or not.

Did you hear the Advertiser has a new journo? His name is Leanardo Futsi and he is an avid Crows supporter. He will be dedicating 10 articles to the Brogan and Burgoyne scandals. He will then write a piece on Ports pathetic efforts in 2006, he will then write the same story under different headings another 10 times. When someone has a go at him, he will write more stories and claim he is the only one prepared to tell it as it is. He will even try to sign up members for the Crows under their campaign "Got lots but want more to piss Port off" and write an article about it. He will phone the AFL when a Port player seems to have gotten away with a lenient penalty. He will write a weekly column called Leanardos lunch and make up letters from Port hierachy and players and poke fun at them. Would all of this annoy you?

 

[Eggzoi]

Was that in the lead up to the "dream" final?

Possibly, it was on Hack and they had a hardcore Crows supporter on too. I was surprised Canaine (spelling?) didn't call Rucci out on the whole aren't you meant to be an unbiased journalist thing.

 

[Jarmayhem]

[/i]

Did you hear the Advertiser has a new journo? His name is Leanardo Futsi and he is an avid Crows supporter. He will be dedicating 10 articles to the Brogan and Burgoyne scandals. He will then write a piece on Ports pathetic efforts in 2006, he will then write the same story under different headings another 10 times. When someone has a go at him, he will write more stories and claim he is the only one prepared to tell it as it is. He will even try to sign up members for the Crows under their campaign "Got lots but want more to piss Port off" and write an article about it. He will phone the AFL when a Port player seems to have gotten away with a lenient penalty. He will write a weekly column called Leanardos lunch and make up letters from Port hierachy and players and poke fun at them. Would all of this annoy you?

That name alone makes this post awesome.

 

[macca23]

[/I]

He will phone the AFL when a Port player seems to have gotten away with a lenient penalty. He will write a weekly column called Leanardos lunch and make up letters from Port hierachy and players and poke fun at them. Would all of this annoy you?

This man you speak of - the Messiah - might have even rung the AFL to warn them that a father/son prospect in Ebert was not genuinely eligible for Port Adelaide.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Stop stirring snowflake. Just read my lips.

10 articles read 10 articles on the Goodwin saga.

But Mark, isn't that the flipside of the AFC supporters' argument that they are the biggest deal in town - commercial decision I think I've heard mentioned a few times recently? Biggest membership, biggest supporter base, etc. It's like Bob McLean used to say, there's only one thing that the media like better than a Port Adelaide story and that's a negative Port Adelaide story. Now that's partly because we were the biggest (SANFL) target in town, and partly because of the Establishment nature of the old Advertiser and the 'aggressive' reporting of The News.

How big a target are the crows when it comes to numbers? Now for all the protests, Roy Morgan Research shows that the tisers readership is up from 2005 to 2006 - for both the weekday and Saturday (even moreso) editions. Yet in the same time the Sunday Mail has fallen. And during this time they have increased their interweb presence. So are they getting the results they want? We live in an era where the highest rating story on the once reasonably serious current affairs reporting of 60 Minutes was Ralph Fiennes shagged an air hostess. Can anyone really be surprised that the tiser is going down the aggressive, sensationalist reporting path? You only have to have seen some of the complaints about it on Mediawatch in recent times - especially around 'that' Brimble photo - to see what's happening.

Don't give me that free press stuff. This organisation is run by the Murdoch family and you have to toe the party line if you want to continue working for them.

Are you saying he is or isn't toeing the party line tho?