Don't Cry for Melbourne

[ThePuppetMaster]

That is ridiculous. I dont even know where to start about what an erroneous statement that is.

Give up on the victim mentality, it doesn't suit you. Paranoia is a bad look

please do start, because you are completely ignorant if you think the afl won't have someone 'filtering' the articles on their page to make sure they are appropriate

let me make this clear, i don't give a **** about what they are writing, that's all been said before

i just don't think it's the afl's place to have an piece like that on their website

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

we get it falchoon. melbourne cheated to get jeff white

please get the **** over it

 

[Lance Uppercut]

please do start, because you are completely ignorant if you think the afl won't have someone 'filtering' the articles on their page to make sure they are appropriate

let me make this clear, i don't give a **** about what they are writing, that's all been said before

i just don't think it's the afl's place to have an piece like that on their website

oh I'm ignorant, am I? lol

 

[Falchoon]

we get it falchoon. melbourne cheated to get jeff white

please get the **** over it

you need a dictionary lesson on the word we



Personally I'd rather Scully and all of Melbourne's current crop stay at Melbourne and Melbourne become a serious contender.

Melbourne (and Richmond) up and about can only be good for football.

 

[irukandji]

I'm a Dees supporter, and I'm not suspicious.

Just because the articles appear on the AFL website does not mean Andy D has given them his personal imprimatur. They would have, at the site, an editorial team that would, in my view (and I've worked for an online news team at a major Melbourne newspaper), be entirely disconnected with the AFL administration.

Content is everything for online news sites, and this is what this is.

It's just journos, doing what they do. Speculating. And more often than not coming up with bullshit.

Relax brahs

And the tooth fairy left you $2?

When was the last time there was an article critical of the AFL on their site? N-E-V-E-R!!!

If "it's just journos, doing what they do. Speculating." then this wouldn't be the case - there'd be articles questioning AFL policy from time to time.

You're making an unrealistic comparison between the AFL site and newspaper sites. A more realistic comparison would be between the newspaper's corporate internet site e.g. www.fairfax.com.au and the AFL site - when was the last time you saw a critical article on a corporate internet site?

Everything on that site is biased to the AFL position and has Andy's and Adrian's finger-prints all over it. There is a high probability that the article expresses the AFL view despite the disclaimer at the foot.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

And the tooth fairy left you $2?

When was the last time there was an article critical of the AFL on their site? N-E-V-E-R!!!

If "it's just journos, doing what they do. Speculating." then this wouldn't be the case - there'd be articles questioning AFL policy from time to time.

You're making an unrealistic comparison between the AFL site and newspaper sites. A more realistic comparison would be between the newspaper's corporate internet site e.g. www.fairfax.com.au and the AFL site - when was the last time you saw a critical article on a corporate internet site?

Everything on that site is biased to the AFL position and has Andy's and Adrian's finger-prints all over it. There is a high probability that the article expresses the AFL view despite the disclaimer at the foot.

I guess it was too much to hope that most Melbourne supporters would be sensible rather than paranoid and confused. At least some of your brethren aren't idiots

 

[Higgs Boson]

And the tooth fairy left you $2?

When was the last time there was an article critical of the AFL on their site? N-E-V-E-R!!!

If "it's just journos, doing what they do. Speculating." then this wouldn't be the case - there'd be articles questioning AFL policy from time to time.

You're making an unrealistic comparison between the AFL site and newspaper sites. A more realistic comparison would be between the newspaper's corporate internet site e.g. www.fairfax.com.au and the AFL site - when was the last time you saw a critical article on a corporate internet site?

Everything on that site is biased to the AFL position and has Andy's and Adrian's finger-prints all over it. There is a high probability that the article expresses the AFL view despite the disclaimer at the foot.

And when was the last time you saw the Herald Sun criticizing News Ltd? You don't; of course you don't diss your boss. But to think Demetriou is filtering news articles on AFL.com is ridiculous. The brief of the news site is to create content, content which will be looked at and which will, therefore, drive revenue.

 

[irukandji]

And when was the last time you saw the Herald Sun criticizing News Ltd? You don't; of course you don't diss your boss. But to think Demetriou is filtering news articles on AFL.com is ridiculous. The brief of the news site is to create content, content which will be looked at and which will, therefore, drive revenue.

Your example is flawed because HS content is not primarily media analysis - they're not generally in the business of commentating on News Ltd's business, whereas the AFL site's primary content is, not surprisingly, about the AFL. There's is NO WAY an article gets on that site without AFL imprimatur.

The brief of the news site is to create sympathetic content, content which will be looked at and which will, therefore, drive revenue

 

[Higgs Boson]

Your example is flawed because HS content is not primarily media analysis - they're not generally in the business of commentating on News Ltd's business, whereas the AFL site's primary content is, not surprisingly, about the AFL. There's is NO WAY an article gets on that site without AFL imprimatur.

The brief of the news site is to create sympathetic content, content which will be looked at and which will, therefore, drive revenue

About AFL, yes, but not about the AFL Commission or its machinations.

In any event, agree to disagree.

Personally, I'm not going to lose any sleep wondering about what might be the ramifications of some pissant article on AFL.com - I'll wait to see what happens in fact.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

you need a dictionary lesson on the word we



Personally I'd rather Scully and all of Melbourne's current crop stay at Melbourne and Melbourne become a serious contender.

Melbourne (and Richmond) up and about can only be good for football.

haha fair point

 

[Slattery_20]

it was intended to be discuss the ethics of this article being published on the afl website etc...

should the afl allow a piece such as this discussing an issue of an afl club (which any of the afl should attempt to support) ?

It does seems an odd timing for a defence of the rules
Reading between the lines, could this be really saying "we changed the rules for Ablett but we're not going to do it again".

tbh, i'm not sure i like the way the afl is run... with past players predominant

Look up Hamish McLachlan's list of "achievements" and who (keeping in mind Gillon is his brother) decided where the AFL should put the hall of fame.
Interesting, altho not past players.

 

[Father Jack]

About AFL, yes, but not about the AFL Commission or its machinations.

In any event, agree to disagree.

Personally, I'm not going to lose any sleep wondering about what might be the ramifications of some pissant article on AFL.com - I'll wait to see what happens in fact.

Exactly the way to handle it.