News Luke Beveridge meltdown in post game press conference, launches an extraordinary tirade at Tom Morris, apologises

[Meteoric Rise]

Beveridge clearly absolutely lost it, very embarrassing. Can understand why though, Morris an unlikeable weasel, shame he wasn't really able to actually make any decent points or criticisms because he was just seeing red.

I doubt Beveridge lost it. I think it was very calculated what he did. He wasn’t attacking Morris because he is an unlikeable weasel, though Morris comes across as exactly that. He was attacking Morris because Morris was engaging in unethical journalism and it was causing problems in his footy club.

I cannot believe so many people think it is ok for Morris to publicly disclose what should be confidential conversations and decisions within the Dogs Match Committee where there is no public good in doing so. Frankly, it is disgusting. Most people seem to be missing that.

 

[faible]

I doubt Beveridge lost it. I think it was very calculated what he did. He wasn’t attacking Morris because he is an unlikeable weasel, though Morris comes across as exactly that. He was attacking Morris because Morris was engaging in unethical journalism and it was causing problems in his footy club.

I cannot believe so many people think it is ok for Morris to publicly disclose what should be confidential conversations and decisions within the Dogs Match Committee where there is no public good in doing so. Frankly, it is disgusting. Most people seem to be missing that.

You know selection news gets leaked literally every week right?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

You know selection news gets leaked literally every week right?

True.

No doubt that was just the tip of the iceberg. Much more to it, for sure.

 

[Memphis]

Morris is coping it hard over the last 2 days from Bevo now everyone.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

I'm not sure that's the question at all.

Both are in the wrong.

Do you think Tom was even slightly affected by Bevo's spray?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You know selection news gets leaked literally every week right?

Well I follow Richmond pretty closely and the only early selection news that we ever get is what the club wants us to get, debuts etc. If a journalist says he believes Hunter is out of form and may not be picked this week, maybe ok. But Morris was pre-emptively, and ultimately incorrectly, categorically announcing the Bulldogs selection a day in advance of the team being released publicly. He can only have happened on this information care of some wrongdoing. Phone hacking, paying for info, or just somebody at the club acting against the club’s interests. If it happens commonly, that doesn’t make it right. It is wrong. People shouldn’t just accept the media has a god given right to get information that should not rightly be in the public eye.

Beveridge pointed out all Morris needed to do to be acceptable was to contact them and let them know he had something - presumably so they could talk to the players and people concerned.

I once had a conversation with Nick Davies. He is a well known investigative reporter in the UK. He almost single-handedly brought down the News of the World, when he uncovered the phone hacking scandal. He said to me all these stories were coming out detailing private conversations of royals etc. He said everyone at the time focussed on the salacious gossip and the rights and wrongs and moralising etc. But Nick said he thought to himself, that isn’t the real story, there is a much much bigger story here. Illegal and unethical media conduct….cue rocked governments and Murdoch empire, prison sentences, countless executives losing jobs and so on. And the media having to stop and think about their disgraceful practices.

For me this is a bit similar, though obviously on a much smaller scale. Beveridge’s news conference isn’t the story. Hunter selection or non-selection isn’t the story. Tom Morris’s unethical journalism is the real story and well done to the Bulldogs and Beveridge for recognising that and exposing him.

 

[JoondalupJ]

That was absolutely bizarre. I don't like Morris, but that was beyond embarrassing.

EDIT: As bad as that presser was, Morris' leaked comments are far worse, and should incur a much more significant penalty.

One's a bully, the other is misogynistic, racist and homophobic.

Oh the state of the boys club.

I've changed my vote after hearing this dill Morris I voted suspension,, he has to be sacked, he will never live this down, and anyone who is stupid enough to say things where they become public , and abusive obviously, is too big for his boots, and he may have a few mates, and we all like discussing ladies but WITH some respect and being that dumb to say that and be a leaker of football strategys and tactic and players on the field , I think Bevo would have done well giving him a clip over the ears.
wHAT WOMEN YOU WORK WITH DO OR SAY YOU tOM HAVE NO RIGHT TO OPEN YOUR STUPID MOUTH TO ANYONE, AND I'D BE LOOKING AT WHO EVER RECORDED YOU, BEING A TURD, NOW GET OFF!
Anyone who thought you were a nice fella , even the girls you may have offended , well they are no friends any more and you can't work with them. Go Bush for about 20 years.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Shocked watching that. Sadly our win will be overshadowed by that performance by bevo . And years ago lyon had the arguement with shane mcinnes . That was a picnic compares to today

Well said Bevo , but you can't trust Morris or journos lots of the time.

 

[faible]

Do you think Tom was even slightly affected by Bevo's spray?

Well yes, given what's ensued, he obviously has been.

But Morris being a piece of shit, doesn't validate Beveridge's behaviour/

 

[faible]

Well I follow Richmond pretty closely and the only early selection news that we ever get is what the club wants us to get, debuts etc. If a journalist says he believes Hunter is out of form and may not be picked this week, maybe ok. But Morris was pre-emptively, and ultimately incorrectly, categorically announcing the Bulldogs selection a day in advance of the team being released publicly. He can only have happened on this information care of some wrongdoing. Phone hacking, paying for info, or just somebody at the club acting against the club’s interests. If it happens commonly, that doesn’t make it right. It is wrong. People shouldn’t just accept the media has a god given right to get information that should not rightly be in the public eye.

Beveridge pointed out all Morris needed to do to be acceptable was to contact them and let them know he had something - presumably so they could talk to the players and people concerned.

I once had a conversation with Nick Davies. He is a well known investigative reporter in the UK. He almost single-handedly brought down the News of the World, when he uncovered the phone hacking scandal. He said to me all these stories were coming out detailing private conversations of royals etc. He said everyone at the time focussed on the salacious gossip and the rights and wrongs and moralising etc. But Nick said he thought to himself, that isn’t the real story, there is a much much bigger story here. Illegal and unethical media conduct….cue rocked governments and Murdoch empire, prison sentences, countless executives losing jobs and so on. And the media having to stop and think about their disgraceful practices.

For me this is a bit similar, though obviously on a much smaller scale. Beveridge’s news conference isn’t the story. Hunter selection or non-selection isn’t the story. Tom Morris’s unethical journalism is the real story and well done to the Bulldogs and Beveridge for recognising that and exposing him.

Yeah. Nah.

Beveridge wasn't doing this out of some overarching moral imperative to clean up the footy media industry.

He was a child throwing a tantrum.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Well yes, given what's ensued, he obviously has been.

But Morris being a piece of sh*t, doesn't validate Beveridge's behaviour/

I beg to differ...

 

[faible]

I beg to differ...

Can't imagine why...

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yeah. Nah.

Beveridge wasn't doing this out of some overarching moral imperative to clean up the footy media industry.

He was a child throwing a tantrum.

So consider this series of questions:

1) do you consider what Tom Morris did to be unethical journalism?

2) do you think this might have had an adverse effect on the Bulldogs?

Imo you can only arrive at the right view of what Beveridge did after you consider those questions properly.

Then you ask:

3) what real recourse did the Bulldogs have other than to publicly challenge Morris?

Then finally...

4) Was Beveridge’s spray effective in drawing attention to the issue?


That is how I reason it out anyway.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Can't imagine why...

I'm very sure you can't.

 

[janty]

I haven’t heard anyone say “Lick her License” since Training Day.

 

[JackOutback]

I doubt Beveridge lost it. I think it was very calculated what he did. He wasn’t attacking Morris because he is an unlikeable weasel, though Morris comes across as exactly that. He was attacking Morris because Morris was engaging in unethical journalism and it was causing problems in his footy club.

I cannot believe so many people think it is ok for Morris to publicly disclose what should be confidential conversations and decisions within the Dogs Match Committee where there is no public good in doing so. Frankly, it is disgusting. Most people seem to be missing that.

I hate to break this to you, but nothing in football qualifies as 'public good'. It's a game for entertainment and reporters are paid to report on it. There is absolutely nothing unethical about cultivating a source and reporting on team selections. And if the Dogs are so easily distracted by the common practice of reporting, they're in trouble.

 

[seanoff]

I don’t see the need to check with a club about selection news. They are just going to lie to you anyway. Player welfare stories. Yep. Check Mundane selections, opinion pieces. Nope.

Also Tom Morris being a questionable bloke does not forgive anything that Bevo did. That was unhinged and if he is even remotely like that around the club. God help them.

I suspect the bullies took a pretty high level and quietly threatening phone call from AFL house.

Also. Melbourne know they’re in Bevos head. Good for Melbourne. Not so great for the bullies.

 

[faible]

So consider this series of questions:

1) do you consider what Tom Morris did to be unethical journalism?

2) do you think this might have had an adverse effect on the Bulldogs?

Imo you can only arrive at the right view of what Beveridge did after you consider those questions properly.

Then you ask:

3) what real recourse did the Bulldogs have other than to publicly challenge Morris?

Then finally...

4) Was Beveridge’s spray effective in drawing attention to the issue?


That is how I reason it out anyway.

So you've started with your conclusion that Beverage had some kind of moral imperative to clean up the footy journalism industry and worked backwards to arrive at your series of leading questions?

As I said. Yeah. Nah.

He's just a child throwing a tantrum. We've seen it from him before.

 

[Kwality]

True.

No doubt that was just the tip of the iceberg. Much more to it, for sure.

Dont worry the club have acted:
'But Beveridge backtracked in a prepared statement on Thursday, saying his outburst was not “consistent” with the Bulldogs values.'

& they've put the clubs money up to boot:
'As part of the apology the Bulldogs agreed to donate $20,000 to youth mental health organisation Orygen.'

WTF $20k to a youth mental organisation. Nothing youthful about Bevo.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Dont worry the club have acted:
'But Beveridge backtracked in a prepared statement on Thursday, saying his outburst was not “consistent” with the Bulldogs values.'

& they've put the clubs money up to boot:
'As part of the apology the Bulldogs agreed to donate $20,000 to youth mental health organisation Orygen.'

WTF $20k to a youth mental organisation. Nothing youthful about Bevo.

You missed my point here.

Beautifully so.

 

[JackOutback]

Dont worry the club have acted:
'But Beveridge backtracked in a prepared statement on Thursday, saying his outburst was not “consistent” with the Bulldogs values.'

& they've put the clubs money up to boot:
'As part of the apology the Bulldogs agreed to donate $20,000 to youth mental health organisation Orygen.'

WTF $20k to a youth mental organisation. Nothing youthful about Bevo.

He was acting like a child.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I hate to break this to you, but nothing in football qualifies as 'public good'. It's a game for entertainment and reporters are paid to report on it. There is absolutely nothing unethical about cultivating a source and reporting on team selections. And if the Dogs are so easily distracted by the common practice of reporting, they're in trouble.

I don’t agree.

If a club had racist policies then uncovering that would be considered in the public interest or a common good(don’t know where I got public good from, must have joined the two concepts together.)

That is just one example. Finding out a player is out of the team is not really in the public interest. So if you happen upon the information by ethical means, report it, fine. If you use unethical methods to find out this info, you should not be reporting it without revealing your source. This is not by my judgement alone, this is in the Journalist Code of Ethics posted earlier on this thread.

 

[JackOutback]

I don’t agree.

If a club had racist policies then uncovering that would be considered in the public interest or a common good(don’t know where I got public good from, must have joined the two concepts together.)

That is just one example. Finding out a player is out of the team is not really in the public interest. So if you happen upon the information by ethical means, report it, fine. If you use unethical methods to find out this info, you should not be reporting it without revealing your source. This is not by my judgement alone, this is in the Journalist Code of Ethics posted earlier on this thread.

You’ve misinterpreted the code of ethics. Of course attribution is the goal, but where confidence is offered (because the source may lose their job, for example), it is absolutely to be respected.

Also, we’re talking about football here, not world affairs. If you demand absolute disclosure from the journos, then footy clubs shouldn’t be lying about selection policies. Simple truth is, there’s a demand from fans for news about football, the clubs themselves have become less open and don’t provide useful information, so reporters search it out from other means. Welcome to 2022.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You’ve misinterpreted the code of ethics. Of course attribution is the goal, but where confidence is offered 1. (because the source may lose their job, for example), it is absolutely to be respected.

Also, 2. we’re talking about football here, not world affairs. If you demand absolute disclosure from the journos, then footy clubs shouldn’t be lying about selection policies. Simple truth is, 3. there’s a demand from fans for news about football, the clubs themselves have become less open and don’t provide useful information, so reporters search it out from other means. 4. Welcome to 2022.

Again, I don’t agree. The Code of Ethics says the journalist should consider the source's motives when deciding whether to reveal the source. What good motive could his source possibly have in your opinion?

1. If they were in line to lose their job unfairly for whistleblowing in the public interest fine. But if they are willingly acting against the employer’s interests without just cause, no. And that is if there even is a source within the club and it isn’t the result of phone hacking or some other illegal activity.

2. You don’t have to be “world affairs” for ethics to apply. Football is a legitimate industry, and one that is played out in the public eye, with people’s livelihoods and wellbeing and clubs’ fortunes at stake.

3. Fulfilling a demand is also not a factor that should render an otherwise unethical practice to be considered ethical. You could sell illicit drugs for example to "fulfil a demand,” and besides the activity being illegal, you would hope most would consider the practice unethical.

4. You don’t have to welcome me to 2022, I know there are journos following unethical practices at this time. Fortunately, Tom Morris has just been welcomed to 2022, hoisted upon his petard, betrayed on social media by someone else’s “source." The only difference is, revealing his wrongdoing WAS in the public interest, precisely because it was wrongdoing.

The unethical doesn’t become more ethical because it is 2022 and there are more methods available for those seeking to be unethical.

So none of your main points stand to reason from my vantage point.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Again, I don’t agree. The Code of Ethics says the journalist should consider the source's motives when deciding whether to reveal the source. What good motive could his source possibly have in your opinion?

1. If they were in line to lose their job unfairly for whistleblowing in the public interest fine. But if they are willingly acting against the employer’s interests without just cause, no. And that is if there even is a source within the club and it isn’t the result of phone hacking or some other illegal activity.

2. You don’t have to be “world affairs” for ethics to apply. Football is a legitimate industry, and one that is played out in the public eye, with people’s livelihoods and wellbeing and clubs’ fortunes at stake.

3. Fulfilling a demand is also not a factor that should render an otherwise unethical practice to be considered ethical. You could sell illicit drugs for example to "fulfil a demand,” and besides the activity being illegal, you would hope most would consider the practice unethical.

4. You don’t have to welcome me to 2022, I know there are journos following unethical practices at this time. Fortunately, Tom Morris has just been welcomed to 2022, hoisted upon his petard, betrayed on social media by someone else’s “source." The only difference is, revealing his wrongdoing WAS in the public interest, precisely because it was wrongdoing.

The unethical doesn’t become more ethical because it is 2022 and there are more methods available for those seeking to be unethical.

So none of your main points stand to reason from my vantage point.

Gambling is a legitimate industry too with people fortunes at stake. This is endorsed and embraced by the AFL yet they allow clubs to lie and deceive to those punters.
While clubs lie , whistleblowers telling the truth with always be warranted.