Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[IHurley]

Right of reply was given.

No. Journalists offer people a specific list of questions whose purpose is solely to get the recipient to self-incriminate. They are also told that, response or not, the article will be run regardless.

The recipient is in an impossible situation. They either don't comment on the specific questions - in which case the journalist will imply the allegations must be true because they were offered a chance to respond and they refused. Alternatively, they do comment, and those words will be twisted to make it sound like a confession.

Now, I can absolutely believe that footy clubs might do something like what Hawthorn is alleged to have done and Clarkson certainly has a high level of ruthlessness.

However, the probability of a journalist being correct is almost zero. And this falls to exactly zero when you’re dealing with the ABC.

 

[Beerfish]

No. Journalists offer people a specific list of questions whose purpose is solely to get the recipient to self-incriminate. They are also told that, response or not, the article will be run regardless.

The recipient is in an impossible situation. They either don't comment on the specific questions - in which case the journalist will imply the allegations must be true because they were offered a chance to respond and they refused. Alternatively, they do comment, and those words will be twisted to make it sound like a confession.

Now, I can absolutely believe that footy clubs might do something like what Hawthorn is alleged to have done and Clarkson certainly has a high level of ruthlessness.

However, the probability of a journalist being correct is almost zero. And this falls to exactly zero when you’re dealing with the ABC.

They were offered more time if they needed it. Zero response was received.

Your last paragraph is garbage.

 

[faible]

No. Journalists offer people a specific list of questions whose purpose is solely to get the recipient to self-incriminate. They are also told that, response or not, the article will be run regardless.

The recipient is in an impossible situation. They either don't comment on the specific questions - in which case the journalist will imply the allegations must be true because they were offered a chance to respond and they refused. Alternatively, they do comment, and those words will be twisted to make it sound like a confession.

Now, I can absolutely believe that footy clubs might do something like what Hawthorn is alleged to have done and Clarkson certainly has a high level of ruthlessness.

However, the probability of a journalist being correct is almost zero. And this falls to exactly zero when you’re dealing with the ABC.

Two days in a row;

Having a mare today mate.

 

[Doss]

They were offered more time if they needed it. Zero response was received.

Your last paragraph is garbage.

I personally consider Sky News Australia and the Courier Mail the most reputable sources of news in this country.

 

[IHurley]

Two days in a row;. Having a mare today mate

I measure my words against reality, not the Bigfooty hivemind.

 

[Beerfish]

I measure my words against reality, not the Bigfooty hivemind.

Cool. Take your reality somewhere else.

You're done here.

 

[Dave]

Externally run, too, ideally with an Elder or key Indigenous member involved.

Yep, no boys club whitewash (no pun intended). An interested aside, I think it was Bunk Moreland who noted the way the sport has become less diverse with most players drafted from vic, and most of them coming through the private school system. I watched the Vic Metro vs Vic Country U18 game yesterday, it was stark how there was almost no one who wasn't Caucasian. I think one of the Davey boys was the only indigenous player I saw out there.

 

[Dave]

Yeah, I get that you think that. I think it would be understandable that the players were made to feel shame about it and I'm not surprised they kept it to themselves. One of them was talking about how he couldn't socialise around alcohol and was under a lot of pressure to be more involved socially. I have had a few inlaws from remote communities stay with me and it is amazing how little they volunteer about themselves or their feelings if you don't specifically raise a topic.

That's vert very common amongst survivors of trauma. One reason it's so hard to get rid of the behaviors that cause it.

 

[citizen-erased]

Yep, no boys club whitewash (no pun intended). An interested aside, I think it was Bunk Moreland who noted the way the sport has become less diverse with most players drafted from vic, and most of them coming through the private school system. I watched the Vic Metro vs Vic Country U18 game yesterday, it was stark how there was almost no one who wasn't Caucasian. I think one of the Davey boys was the only indigenous player I saw out there.

yep. there's a bit of an underlying issue with how "professionalism" is viewed
I get the need for it, but a more diverse understanding of the concept is needed

never liked it at the time, but when Demetriou & Mifsud ran Rendell out of town for a poorly constructed comment for a very real issue, the AFL has let it bubble away without addressing it.
He won't, but Rendell would be within his right to throw this at the feet of both individuals and the AFL.

 

[BrunoV]

Are you suggesting that those interviewed by Jackson had no choice in telling him their stories, as though they didn't want them told? Are you suggesting it's the journo who is exploiting them?

Right of reply was given.
The story is in the public interest.

They don't need to "deliberately leverage emotion", because it is an emotional story. The feelings of human beings are intrinsic to the story.

I agree, the story is out of the box and it's hard to see how anyone comes back from here. That's generally how impactful stories like this unfold. I don't understand what you're saying.

The author of an article like a lawyer in litigation has a choice about who to rely on.

Some people willingly participate, some feel pressured into it, some do not have a choice.

A conscientious lawyer or journalist will then balance the quality of the evidence completely independently of what he or she is told by that witness against a number of factors. The stress and damage that will be done (giving evidence is a terrifying experience for most) is a factor. It's a significant factor in a story, I would have thought.

For example, Dayle Garlett's name is floating around a bit, as I understand it. Is anyone seriously going to sit here and tell me that boy wasn't so troubled that there is no point at which 'you need to straighten up, get rid of your influences and your girl' is reasonable? Where did he end up? He was a once in a generation talent that came into the game with a serious drug problem. That's public so I don't mind talking about it. I'm not going to mention the other stuff, although it is easy enough to work out.

To what extent is there a similar reality for other kids? Do we have examples in the game of players returning to WA, back to their bad influences, and it falling apart?

My points fall on deaf ears because people, as they continuously do, decide there is no need for the other side of the story. That's the emotional manipulation which in my view is deliberate. It's the jedi mind trick.

The context doesn't excuse stolen generation mk Hawthorn (I use this term because it is me acknowledging that what is alleged is as disgusting as it gets, a stain on the soul of a country).

The context shifts the paradigm completely.

If a kid is in a terrible place, and abortion is a socially accepted thing (despite it almost certainly being evil), is it beyond the pale for a club charged with the responsibility of a young kid to run through the options? Does he then think its a good idea which is how the partner gets involved in a conversation about having the kid? Is the tragedy of the subsequent decision to abort, admittedly absent any involvement of the club, a decisions neither can live with? A tragedy, no doubt, but that's no where near what has been reported.

 

[Lore]

The author of an article like a lawyer in litigation has a choice about who to rely on.

Some people willingly participate, some feel pressured into it, some do not have a choice.

A conscientious lawyer or journalist will then balance the quality of the evidence completely independently of what he or she is told by that witness against a number of factors. The stress and damage that will be done (giving evidence is a terrifying experience for most) is a factor. It's a significant factor in a story, I would have thought.

For example, Dayle Garlett's name is floating around a bit, as I understand it. Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that boy wasn't so troubled that there is no point at which 'you need to straighten up, get rid of your influences and you girl' is unreasonable? Where did he end up? He was a once in a generation talent that came into the game with a serious drug problem. That's public so I don't mind talking about it. I'm not going to mention the other stuff, although it is easy enough to work out.

To what extent is there a similar reality for other kids? Do we have examples in the game of players returning to WA, back to their bad influences, and it falling apart?

My points fall on deaf ears because people, as they continuously do, decide there is no need for the other side of the story. That's the emotional manipulation which in my view is deliberate. It's the jedi mind trick.

The context doesn't excuse stolen generation mk Hawthorn (I use this term because it is me acknowledging that what is alleged is as disgusting as it gets, a stain on the soul of a country).

The context shifts the paradigm completely.

If a kid is in a terrible place, and abortion is a socially accepted thing (despite it almost certainly being evil), is it beyond the pale for a club charged with the responsibility of a young kid to run through the options? Does he then think its a good idea which is how the partner gets involved in a conversation about having the kid? Does the tragedy of the subsequent decision to abort, admittedly absent any involvement of the club, a decisions neither can live with? A tragedy, no doubt, but that's no where near what has been reported.

A welfare officer or counsellor supporting a young family to make their own decisions is not the same thing as your boss threatening to delist you and end your dream of playing AFL football if you don’t make the exact decisions they approve of.

Bearing in mind that it isn’t a performance based delisting. Your private life should have nothing to do with whether or not you are re-contracted, and actually I’m pretty sure discrimination on the basis of parenthood is on the books, though usually it is used to prevent discrimination against women being mothers.

https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/GPGB_quick_guide_to_discrimination_laws_0.pdf?_ga=2.55773164.650992319.1663898382-2042427420.1663898382

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

The author of an article like a lawyer in litigation has a choice about who to rely on.

Some people willingly participate, some feel pressured into it, some do not have a choice.

A conscientious lawyer or journalist will then balance the quality of the evidence completely independently of what he or she is told by that witness against a number of factors. The stress and damage that will be done (giving evidence is a terrifying experience for most) is a factor. It's a significant factor in a story, I would have thought.

For example, Dayle Garlett's name is floating around a bit, as I understand it. Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that boy wasn't so troubled that there is no point at which 'you need to straighten up, get rid of your influences and you girl' is unreasonable? Where did he end up? He was a once in a generation talent that came into the game with a serious drug problem. That's public so I don't mind talking about it. I'm not going to mention the other stuff, although it is easy enough to work out.

To what extent is there a similar reality for other kids? Do we have examples in the game of players returning to WA, back to their bad influences, and it falling apart?

My points fall on deaf ears because people, as they continuously do, decide there is no need for the other side of the story. That's the emotional manipulation which in my view is deliberate. It's the jedi mind trick.

The context doesn't excuse stolen generation mk Hawthorn (I use this term because it is me acknowledging that what is alleged is as disgusting as it gets, a stain on the soul of a country).

The context shifts the paradigm completely.

If a kid is in a terrible place, and abortion is a socially accepted thing (despite it almost certainly being evil), is it beyond the pale for a club charged with the responsibility of a young kid to run through the options? Does he then think its a good idea which is how the partner gets involved in a conversation about having the kid? Is the tragedy of the subsequent decision to abort, admittedly absent any involvement of the club, a decisions neither can live with? A tragedy, no doubt, but that's no where near what has been reported.

The points you make in isolation are all good points. I've thought about similar things, but where I end up landing is this:

In such a situation like an intervention if your intentions are good, you contact family and/or a trusted friend, and/or a senior member of the playing group they might respect, and/or player welfare, or all of the above. Such situations like this don't remain secret from the playing group if it's all well intentioned and above board. Clarkson and Fagan are far from dumb or naive people.

Which then leads me back to trying to understand why three separate sets of players would make up stories? I don't believe they would and the detail given is too easy to disprove that if they had, someone like Jackson would have found out.

Combine this with what happens to indigenous people in Australia frequently and I have zero trouble believing this story. I also have trouble believing there aren't a number of white kids in bad relationships or with dodgy friends in all footy clubs.

Hopefully, the investigation is run properly, the players are left alone and an appropriate outcome results.

 

[Lore]

It’s also notable that McLachlan has said that the flavour of the ABC article is reflected in the flavour of the Hawthorn external review.

So it’s not just a journalist coercing a certain response, it is also the external review and Hawthorn and the AFL treating it as credible. I doubt either of those organisations set out to sink their own boat.

 

[BrunoV]

It’s also notable that McLachlan has said that the flavour of the ABC article is reflected in the flavour of the Hawthorn external review.

So it’s not just a journalist coercing a certain response, it is also the external review and Hawthorn and the AFL treating it as credible. I doubt either of those organisations set out to sink their own boat.

Of course it is because no one has given those accused a chance to tell their side.

 

[Lore]

Of course it is because no one has given those accused a chance to tell their side.

Coercing the people they interviewed by not interviewing other people? Come on man. You know what words mean

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I personally consider Sky News Australia and the Courier Mail the most reputable sources of news in this country.

There are other sources of news?

Oh wait, yes silly me, Fox News.

 

[yodellinhank]

There needs to be reviews across all clubs.

Sydney and Freo have announced theirs already.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

No. Journalists offer people a specific list of questions whose purpose is solely to get the recipient to self-incriminate. They are also told that, response or not, the article will be run regardless.

The recipient is in an impossible situation. They either don't comment on the specific questions - in which case the journalist will imply the allegations must be true because they were offered a chance to respond and they refused. Alternatively, they do comment, and those words will be twisted to make it sound like a confession.

Now, I can absolutely believe that footy clubs might do something like what Hawthorn is alleged to have done and Clarkson certainly has a high level of ruthlessness.

However, the probability of a journalist being correct is almost zero. And this falls to exactly zero when you’re dealing with the ABC.

So I suppose Richard Nixon innocent?

 

[BrunoV]

The points you make in isolation are all good points. I've thought about similar things, but where I end up landing is this:

In such a situation like an intervention if your intentions are good, you contact family and/or a trusted friend, and/or a senior member of the playing group they might respect, and/or player welfare, or all of the above. Such situations like this don't remain secret from the playing group if it's all well intentioned and above board. Clarkson and Fagan are far from dumb or naive people.

Which then leads me back to trying to understand why three separate sets of players would make up stories? I don't believe they would and the detail given is too easy to disprove if they had that someone like Jackson would have found out.

Combine this with what happens to indigenous people in Australia frequently and I have zero trouble believing this story. I also have trouble believing there aren't a number of white kids in bad relationships or with dodgy friends in all footy clubs.

Hopefully, the investigation is run properly, the players are left alone and an appropriate outcome results.

The stories aren't made up. That's not how this works. That's why it's up to the journalist to test what he's been told to within an inch of its life.

If you think about the cultural divide, the resignation that indigenous commentators describe because of their experiences, subjective fear and powerlessness that individuals feel because of their history this to me is how when dealing with the white employer, suggestions and comments become demands.

When you prepare a witness statement, for example, you don't transcribe the witnesses versions of what someone said. You don't quote the witness saying "Clarkson demanded that I need to get rid of my unborn child". You say something like "Clakson stood up, he put his hands on the table and said words to the effect that '...'.

All we're getting is subjective paraphrasing.

I'm trying to understand why so much commentary surrounds the absence of dedicated staff for indigenous players. You don't need specialist staff to tell you trying to force a player's partner to have an abortion is wrong, you need to the staff to help you navigate conversations that are virtually impossible to have because of history.

 

[Lore]

The six sides of the story we have so far are the truth as those people know it, as reported by Russell Jackson.

The Hawthorn report has the truth as another 17+ people know it, now with the AFL Integrity Unit.

And they seek the truth as a further 3+ people know it, in order to figure out who is liable if anyone and what actions should be taken on the basis of those findings.

 

[Beerfish]

Of course it is because no one has given those accused a chance to tell their side.

But they have. They were given detailed questions with more time to respond if they needed it. They didn't respond. That's on them and they were never going to get a great amount of time to do so for the reasons Phone outlined yesterday.

 

[BrunoV]

So I suppose Richard Nixon innocent?

He's not innocent but he's also not the story.

Do you really think intelligence services leaked information to the press out of a sense of moral obligation?

 

[Lore]

Triangulation of data doesn’t require that everyone present be interviewed. Medical records and email trails serve the same purpose insofar as a journalist requires in order to defend a defamation claim to a reasonable person standard.

It’s not a criminal court case.

 

[Beerfish]

He's not innocent but he's also not the story.

Do you really think intelligence services leaked information to the press out of a sense of moral obligation?

Does it matter why they did it? What matters is what was done was exposed.

 

[BrunoV]

But they have. They were given detailed questions with more time to respond if they needed it. They didn't respond. That's on them and they were never going to get a great amount of time to do so for the reasons Phone outlined yesterday.

You don't respond to questions journalist ask when you have the spectre of an investigation report in the background.

The journo knows he wasn't going to get a response.

Let's not be so naive.