Play Nice Hawthorn culture and Fagan

[dlanod]

This is going to be a very touchy subject.

There will be a very broad range of opinions about the correct way to handle this.

I'll remind everyone to post respectfully at this time - sniping at each other is not going to help.

Any continued pointless back and forth will get a day or more to cool off. If you want to avoid this fate, let it go.

 

[Sausages]

Consider for a moment, the reporter's aggressive, timely and forthright response to Eddie's "allegations" regarding the phone call/email.

Consider further the relative gravity of that in view of the statement "he's smearing my name and I won't have it."

Materially, no different to Fagan's reputation right now. The situations are markedly similar.

Yet we are extending one presumption to the reporter and applying a different, presumptive standard to Fagan.

 

[irel]

If it is settled by the legal system…then it will be an absolute s**t show…because everyone of them is and usually there are no winners - other than the lawyers - they always win regardless

Winners? I don't see any winners in this. This will be a lawyers paradise moving forward. Reputations and careers have ended. Lawyers will trawl through everything and IMO no one will escape unscathed. The alleged accused, the accusers, organisations and possibly other parties yet to emerge. It's not going to be pretty. A whole industry is being challenged here. Some may say about time.

 

[lionsrules]

Fact: Russell Jackson emailed Fagan and left a voicemail on his phone giving him 24 hours to reply before he published the story. I didn't make this up, Jackson posted it himself. I'm told 24 hours notice is standard or even generous in the news industry.

“I’m told 24 hours is standard or even generous”

Yeah …. I read the same big footy post you did. So you’re framing your arguments based on posts here? Good luck with that.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

“I’m told 24 hours is standard or even generous”

Yeah …. I read the same big footy post you did. So you’re framing your arguments based on posts here? Good luck with that.

Please, regale me with your thorough knowledge of journalistic practices in Australia and how they differ from my impression.

 

[Tom14]

Some peoples careers are their life's work. You shouldn't minimise the damage that can happen to people's lives through losing their career... arguably it is worse than imprisonment - I know people who'd rather spend a year in jail then never be allowed to work in their industry again.

You should be damn sure an accusation is true before you ruin someone's career...

A civil suit can lead to a monetary award from a court that bankrupts someone if they lose through paying the other side's legal costs. The standard for civil cases is generally 'on the balance of probabilities,' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Without knowing how the AFL panel will operate, it is logical to assume it will operate on a similar basis to civil cases.

And I'm sorry as much as damage to reputation is obviously a severe consquence, it is not the same as living in jail.

 

[Lions time]

That's how deadlines work in journalism.

Did he learn his deadline 24 hours before the story was to go to publication ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom14]

“I’m told 24 hours is standard or even generous”

Yeah …. I read the same big footy post you did. So you’re framing your arguments based on posts here? Good luck with that.

My partner works in media and has experience in legal fact-checking prior to sensitive stories being published. 24 hours is very very standard to offer someone a right of reply/opportunity to comment.

 

[Jeremiah001]

If posters are serious about the time afforded to Fagan to respond to the journo then complaints can be made at Home Somehow I dont think the complaints desk will be snowed under by irate Lions supporters.

 

[lionsrules]

Please, regale me with your thorough knowledge of journalistic practices in Australia and how they differ from my impression.

Oh? So it’s an impression ? So it’s an idea or feeling about the subject. This just gets even better. Keep going. You’re a rockstar.

 

[Brett C]

I’m sorry, but this is a common misconception. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard for a criminal trial - because the consequence is imprisonment. The consequence here is Fagan losing his job.

This gets conflated a lot, and we shouldn’t have a workplace investigation having the same standard as a criminal trial.

The problem here is that workplace investigations still have a standard called “balance of probabilities” which hasn’t happened at this point with either the Hawthorn and ABC reports.

Have you also considered that if Worksafe VIC get involved that this could rise to a criminal level?

Either way they’ve been allegations that have been emphatically denied by Clarkson and Fagan.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

My partner works in media and has experience in legal fact-checking prior to sensitive stories being published. 24 hours is very very standard to offer someone a right of reply/opportunity to comment.

Oh no I don't believe you, nobody on Bigfooty could possibly know anything about journalism. We can't believe anything we read here

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Oh? So it’s an impression ? So it’s an idea or feeling about the subject. This just gets even better. Keep going. You’re a rockstar.

Yes, because I don't claim to be a journalist myself. But you obviously have inside knowledge if you're so supremely confident that the information is incorrect, so please enlighten us.

 

[McIvor]

I don't need to answer this question, because you already put words in my mouth to answer it for me in that comedy post you made earlier.


I don't need to answer this question, because you already put words in my mouth to answer it for me in that comedy post you made earlier.


As opposed to your attitude, which is supremely condescending.


I don't care what you do. The sad thing is I quite liked your posts until you decided to be a shameless troll just now.


He was. 24 hours is an opportunity. Fagan did not take it and others cannot be blamed for that.


What am I disbelieving? I haven't disputed anything he's said.


Nobody said he must be, only that he had the opportunity.


Why should he? Are those people Chris Fagan?

Put words in your mouth - hardly. How am I being condescending; refuting that someone as busy as a head coach must respond to every single voicemail, email missed call, check spam folders in a 24our period is reasonable? Laughable. Not for a second have you even accepted that Fagan may not have seen or heard this reporters call. And Im trolling you? Why can't you accept that it may not be unreasonable that Fagan doesn't see / hear this reporters missed call, voicemail, email? I think you're being unnecessarily obstinate for no reason.

I have not ever said that what happened at Hawthorn didn't happen or that Fagan isn't in the wrong and don't disagree with many of your posts other than I think your stance that Fagan didn't respond is deliberate (maybe it deliberate, which I have also admitted) but if it wasn't, I don't get your stance or why you think I am being condescending. I have only posted on this subject with respect and will continue to do so, but your political type responses above are rather juvenile.

 

[SizeMatters]

So speculation is the player involved is Garlett, a player who was found by a court to be addicted by meth his entire career and only one club would take a punt on.

Hawthorn put him with hodge to try to straighten him out. I trust fages

Shouldn't be speculating on who it is plus throwing in undertones of victim blaming here.

 

[Sausages]

Who is this prosecution?

Ahaha, you needn't be obtuse

There is a view at the moment, in which we are already in the throes of prosecutorial necessity, namely - either a crime has taken place in or around 2012-2014, or one is taking place right now, with one or both requiring civil (or criminal) settlement.

 

[martinson]

A lot of words being said containing the word truth.

There is never one inalienable truth.

So don't think you'll ever get it in an historical case where the alleged perpetrators have come out and categorically denied the allegations.

As far as the 24 hour thing why on earth are people wasting the time on that . Whether the journo was justified or not is immaterial now that allegations have been published ,there's an inquiry set up and those accused have denied it occurred.

When has a journo ever wanted a response from anyone they were going to skewer ? Not to my knowledge.

 

[Required]

So Johnny Bannanas - you gave this post a thumbs down - so I can only assume that you do answer every call / email in a 24 hour period, answer every single call from private or unknown numbers, never get emails in your spam folder? About as credible as the reporter if you say you do all of those things and that the majority of people do particulay a senior AFL coach who probably has 50+ missed calls a day and just as many voice messages. Hell I get 200-300 emails per day; I may as well tell family see you later if I am held to a standard that I must reply or view eery single email in a 24 hour period. Just laughable the standard you expect of busy people.

I dont think any reasonable person would deny the possibility of someone overlooking an email in a 24 hour period. Or the posibility of an email going to junk mail and not be caught for a day or two?

The same reasonable person may be of the opinion many journalists are little more than 'weapons of mass destruction'....
.

 

[Sausages]

A civil suit can lead to a monetary award from a court that bankrupts someone if they lose through paying the other side's legal costs. The standard for civil cases is generally 'on the balance of probabilities,' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Without knowing how the AFL panel will operate, it is logical to assume it will operate on a similar basis to civil cases.

And I'm sorry as much as damage to reputation is obviously a severe consquence, it is not the same as living in jail.

With all due respect Tom, the reputation damage occurs as a consequence in either outcome. It's simply that in the latter, jail, one accesses that through proven criminality, as opposed to simply negative, public perception.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Put words in your mouth - hardly.

How am I being condescending; refuting that someone as busy as a head coach must respond to every single voicemail, email missed call, check spam folders in a 24our period is reasonable? Laughable.

I don't recall saying he must respond, only that he had the opportunity.

Not for a second have you even accepted that Fagan may not have seen or heard this reporters call.

Now that's where you're wrong. I accepted that from the beginning. It's not my problem if you couldn't be bothered reading what I wrote or even asking a clarifying question to understand my view.

And Im trolling you?

Yes.

Why can't you accept that it may not be unreasonable that Fagan doesn't see / hear this reporters missed call, voicemail, email?

I already did.

I think you're being unnecessarily obstinate for no reason..

And I think you're tiresome and disrespectful to other posters so I'm putting you on ignore. Adieu.

 

[McIvor]

I don't recall saying he must respond, only that he had the opportunity.


Now that's where you're wrong. I accepted that from the beginning. It's not my problem if you couldn't be bothered reading what I wrote or even asking a clarifying question to understand my view.


Yes.


I already did.


And I think you're tiresome and disrespectful to other posters so I'm putting you on ignore. Adieu.

Heartbroken.

 

[bungalow_bill]

So how long do you want a journalist to sit on a story for, twiddling their thumbs by the phone, waiting for a call? In the general forum thread yesterday, people with some knowledge of the news media industry said that journalists rarely give more than 24 hours notice, sometimes 12 hours, sometimes less.

That's beside my point which is it's quite easy to not see an email in a 24 hour period. How long a journalist should twiddle their thumbs for is up to them.

 

[Albi_Mangler]

Most likely the club advised him not to reply

100%. Legal advice would have been not to comment on the story. Then respond at your own time and choosing as he has done today via the club.

 

[dlanod]

I've stickied my warning for people to remember.

Any constant sniping between posters will result in at least a day off from this thread.

 

[Elixuh]

The point about whether the journalist offered 24 hours or a week or w/e is irrelevant. No one would cooperate with a journalist in these circumstances. You are only going to cooperate with a formal process like the one the AFL is running. I'm not sure why people are getting hung up on the journalist thing.

 

[Paul Mac]

Dont want to make alot of comment here with this situation as having no inside info means with leave for the relevant parties to investigate but i did find it interesting that Shaun Burgoyne

9

Shaun Burgoyne

Age

41

Ht

186cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.0

4star

K

9.9

4star

HB

8.1

5star

M

3.5

4star

T

3.8

5star

MG

162.7

3star

D

10.0

3star

K

5.6

2star

HB

4.4

3star

M

1.7

2star

T

2.6

4star

MG

162.7

3star

D

6.2

2star

K

3.2

2star

HB

3.0

3star

M

1.2

2star

T

1.6

4star

had no idea this was going on so would have thought or presumed that someone may have gone to him with their concerns.
Unfortunately it sounds very messy what has been alleged so i will wait for the investigation to see what it proves.