Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2023, part I

[goyoucatters]

And the ABC will do their investigation of themselves and ... will find there is nothing to answer for and update a policy or two.

You have to feel for journos, though, don't you? All they want is the scoop truth...

 

[#6 Thorp #7 Selwood LOL]

Say you were asked to describe to latest development around the Hawks racism thing to a person with the intellect of a 5 year old - let's call him #6T#7S LOL to preserve anonymity - how would you describe it?

 

[Hamingja]

He's not said they will or won't censor Hawthorn, but said they could bring charges re: bringing the game into disrepute, conduct unbecoming etc, whilst also referencing concern over the way the allegations were leaked.

If they could prove it was Hawthorn that leaked it, fair enough, but I doubt it. Given the nature of the allegations I would say it was reasonable to conduct an independent investigation into it, even morally the right thing to do. If it was Geelong and we were punished for that I would be filthy.

 

[Strange Cat]

Don't forget the Hawks are the common denominator in every aspect of this disaster.

Watch them squirm out of any responsibility.

What a despicable mob.

Their board are doing a good job at attempting to do that

Apparently Kennett isn’t racist ….

 

[Strange Cat]

If they could prove it was Hawthorn that leaked it, fair enough, but I doubt it. Given the nature of the allegations I would say it was reasonable to conduct an independent investigation into it, even morally the right thing to do. If it was Geelong and we were punished for that I would be filthy.

I would be more filthy at the alleged allegations that occurred to be honest more than anything else personally

 

[standupand]

Say you were asked to describe to latest development around the Hawks racism thing to a person with the intellect of a 5 year old - let's call him #6T#7S LOL to preserve anonymity - how would you describe it?

AFL just confirmed that it's own process for investigating/resolving the issue has been a failure and are not going to prolong it any further. The matter will now be brought to the Human Rights Commission.

 

[standupand]

You have to feel for journos, though, don't you? All they want is the scoop truth...

Nah - you've gotta pick your targets here. There is a lot of crappy journalism out there. The reporting of this story was not one of those. It was a massive story of public and national, even international interest. And it wasn't a "leak" because no-one who provided information was bound by any confidentiality.

 

[And_ROOS]

Happy to see Port pick up Narkle and give him another chance at AFL footy.

 

[Cataholic]

BF bogged and spinning its wheels again......

 

[CatToTheFuture]

And the ABC will do their investigation of themselves and ... will find there is nothing to answer for and update a policy or two.

The abc are guilty of reporting the news.

 

[And_ROOS]

BF bogged and spinning its wheels again......

BF melts on boards when they realise we took another mature age mid in the draft and he will end up "going home" like Kelly did for two 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder.

 

[allrighty]

The ABC will jump on any news that suits its agenda but too often without due diligence at times. This is a case in point.

They could face some legal heat, but then we know who pays the bill.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

The ABC will jump on any news that suits its agenda but too often without due diligence at times. This is a case in point.

They could face some legal heat, but then we know who pays the bill.

Who said they didn't do due diligence?

The afl just did an internal investigation. Of course they found no wrongdoing. They're just preparing the ground for a possible legal defence. Their investigation outcomes aren't meaningful.

 

[goyoucatters]

Nah - you've gotta pick your targets here. There is a lot of crappy journalism out there. The reporting of this story was not one of those. It was a massive story of public and national, even international interest. And it wasn't a "leak" because no-one who provided information was bound by any confidentiality.

Fair enough. Fact is, though, the journo involved had to know that going when they did condemned all the protagonists in this story to a scenario where there was an absolute impossibility of any meaningful resolution in the matter.

I accept that the human misery that all parties have been subjected to now is not primarily the 'fault' of the journalist. But there was no effort at all to mitigate the suffering of the parties involved, either, as the supposed 'right' of the general populace to know triumphed over the compassionate desire to let the process play out with even the slightest modicum of natural justice for the accusers and the accused.

And I do accept that this is how so much of journalism rolls, of course. Doesn't make it right, palatable or estimable, though.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Fair enough. Fact is, though, the journo involved had to know that going when they did condemned all the protagonists in this story to a scenario where there was an absolute impossibility of any meaningful resolution in the matter.

I accept that the human misery that all parties have been subjected to now is not primarily the 'fault' of the journalist. But there was no effort at all to mitigate the suffering of the parties involved, either, as the supposed 'right' of the general populace to know triumphed over the compassionate desire to let the process play out with even the slightest modicum of natural justice for the accusers and the accused.

And I do accept that this is how so much of journalism rolls, of course. Doesn't make it right, palatable or estimable, though.

Without public pressure "the process" seems to have an uncanny knack of shuffling things under the carpet. ABC did it's job.

They might get sued for defamation, but that's a failing of Australia's wildly inappropriate defamation laws, not rhe ABC

 

[standupand]

Fair enough. Fact is, though, the journo involved had to know that going when they did condemned all the protagonists in this story to a scenario where there was an absolute impossibility of any meaningful resolution in the matter.

I accept that the human misery that all parties have been subjected to now is not primarily the 'fault' of the journalist. But there was no effort at all to mitigate the suffering of the parties involved, either, as the supposed 'right' of the general populace to know triumphed over the compassionate desire to let the process play out with even the slightest modicum of natural justice for the accusers and the accused.

And I do accept that this is how so much of journalism rolls, of course. Doesn't make it right, palatable or estimable, though.

I see your point, but I also just see one of the few means we have to fight racism is just calling it out where it exists as a matter of public concern. "Due process" is not a very balanced tool in the fight for meaningful change.

 

[goyoucatters]

I see your point, but I also just see one of the few means we have to fight racism is just calling it out where it exists as a matter of public concern. "Due process" is not a very balanced tool in the fight for meaningful change.

The question of whether there were racist behaviours at Hawthorn during the time in question was going to be settled (to some degree, at least) by the eventual finalisation of the investigation and reporting, with opportunity for the accused to also explain themselves and their actions.

As it is, the journo going public when he did entirely prevented any prospect of the matter being reasonably evaluated in any way, and has totally subverted any prospect of expeditiously evaluating what actually went on, with the appropriate involvement of all parties in that process.

The naysayers on racism now just get to use this sorry tale as their basis for why they don't believe in it in the first place...

'See? You can just say whatever you like about how someone was racist, and a stack of people will believe you. You don't have to have any evidence, and you won't even get a proper opportunity to defend yourself.'

I'm a passionate advocate for dealing with the scourge of racism in our society. But I believe the way this story was presented (and the timeframe in which it was published) has actually done more harm to the cause of social progress than it has done to advance it. And I also believe that would have been clear to the journo when they published the story. So I'm less sympathetic to the view that publishing at that point and in that manner was an act of altruistic commitment to fearlessly revealing 'the truth', as much as it was a sensational and 'amazing' story to put into the mix during GF week.

 

[Lana]

The question of whether there were racist behaviours at Hawthorn during the time in question was going to be settled (to some degree, at least) by the eventual finalisation of the investigation and reporting, with opportunity for the accused to also explain themselves and their actions.

As it is, the journo going public when he did entirely prevented any prospect of the matter being reasonably evaluated in any way, and has totally subverted any prospect of expeditiously evaluating what actually went on, with the appropriate involvement of all parties in that process.

The naysayers on racism now just get to use this sorry tale as their basis for why they don't believe in it in the first place...

'See? You can just say whatever you like about how someone was racist, and a stack of people will believe you. You don't have to have any evidence, and you won't even get a proper opportunity to defend yourself.'

I'm a passionate advocate for dealing with the scourge of racism in our society. But I believe the way this story was presented (and the timeframe in which it was published) has actually done more harm to the cause of social progress than it has done to advance it. And I also believe that would have been clear to the journo when they published the story. So I'm less sympathetic to the view that publishing at that point and in that manner was an act of altruistic commitment to fearlessly revealing 'the truth', as much as it was a sensational and 'amazing' story to put into the mix during GF week.

It is the effect of systemic racism in preventing justice from occurring. The things that made it possible for abuse to occur in their organisation also prevent them from addressing it internally in an effective manner. The people who suffered don't want to participate in something that feels to be a charade.

I assume the leak occurred in the first place as the process wasn't leading anywhere productive. As a last ditch effort to prevent it from being swept under the carpet.

In the end the only way these types of organisations reform in the end being forced to by a loss of commercial appeal, sponsors don't want their brand being attached to the naysayers on racism. See Collingwood

 

[goyoucatters]

Without public pressure "the process" seems to have an uncanny knack of shuffling things under the carpet. ABC did it's job.

They might get sued for defamation, but that's a failing of Australia's wildly inappropriate defamation laws, not rhe ABC

Simply couldn't have been shuffled under the carpet, though, Jackson had his sources and was always going to write the story at some point. As it is, to have published the allegations without allowing for the accused to respond was guaranteed to end in disaster. I believe it's quite possible that he published when he did because he was sure others were getting wind of the story as well, and he had to be first. I understand that's a journalist's prerogative. But it doesn't make it admirable, clever or 'brave'.

And the ABC is pretty hilarious (again) in this story. Supposedly so committed to reporting in a balanced fashion, as well as advancing the causes that they see as 'good' and worthy. And yet there was no commitment to balance in what was presented in this article, and they have now potentially polarised the general populace even further regarding a vital matter for progress in the future of the country.

It was never going to be easy to sort out what happened at Hawthorn, and what should be done in response. But I believe the timing (and content) of the ABC's publication did not assist in resolving the matter (or advancing the issue) at all. So, like so many others caught up in all this, they're certainly not heroes in the story in my view.

 

[goyoucatters]

It is the effect of systemic racism in preventing justice from occurring. The things that made it possible for abuse to occur in their organisation also prevent them from addressing it internally in an effective manner. The people who suffered don't want to participate in something that feels to be a charade.

I assume the leak occurred in the first place as the process wasn't leading anywhere productive. As a last ditch effort to prevent it from being swept under the carpet.

In the end the only way these types of organisations reform in the end being forced to by a loss of commercial appeal, sponsors don't want their brand being attached to the naysayers on racism. See Collingwood

What sort of process could ever be productive if only one side of the story was invited? First Nations people have rightly been horrified for generations at the unwillingness of many people to hear their story. So imagining that the answer lay in simply telling your own story (without allowing for the right of reply) was always destined to be a debacle. Surely all parties involved to that point (and especially the ABC, as the self-appointed arbiters of impartiality) could have foreseen that.

Again, given Jackson had the story, the allegations were always going to be aired at some point. It was never going to be simply swept under the carpet. To have gone about it in a way that denied due process (and subsequently gave so many people the opportunity to write the whole thing off as nonsense) just appears to be an amazing opportunity lost to see actual insight emerge and lasting change take place.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Simply couldn't have been shuffled under the carpet, though, Jackson had his sources and was always going to write the story at some point. As it is, to have published the allegations without allowing for the accused to respond was guaranteed to end in disaster. I believe it's quite possible that he published when he did because he was sure others were getting wind of the story as well, and he had to be first. I understand that's a journalist's prerogative. But it doesn't make it admirable, clever or 'brave'.

And the ABC is pretty hilarious (again) in this story. Supposedly so committed to reporting in a balanced fashion, as well as advancing the causes that they see as 'good' and worthy. And yet there was no commitment to balance in what was presented in this article, and they have now potentially polarised the general populace even further regarding a vital matter for progress in the future of the country.

It was never going to be easy to sort out what happened at Hawthorn, and what should be done in response. But I believe the timing (and content) of the ABC's publication did not assist in resolving the matter (or advancing the issue) at all. So, like so many others caught up in all this, they're certainly not heroes in the story in my view.

What do you expect the ABC to have done beyond request comments from all parties and include them in the story once they were given? They did that.

What more are they supposed to do in terms of providing the "other side of the story"? Are they supposed to sit on the story and wait for Clarkson, Fagan, etc to agree to an interview that was never going to come?

They had these serious allegations. They had multiple sources claiming these type of things occurred. Hawthorn had received the initial report and seemingly weren't progressing on it in any serious way. When they requested comments from all parties they received none until after publishing at which point they added those statements to the story. It seems like perfectly respectable journalistic practice to me.

 

[goyoucatters]

What do you expect the ABC to have done beyond request comments from all parties and include them in the story once they were given? They did that.

What more are they supposed to do in terms of providing the "other side of the story"? Are they supposed to sit on the story and wait for Clarkson, Fagan, etc to agree to an interview that was never going to come?

They had these serious allegations. They had multiple sources claiming these type of things occurred. Hawthorn had received the initial report and seemingly weren't progressing on it in any serious way. When they requested comments from all parties they received none until after publishing at which point they added those statements to the story. It seems like perfectly respectable journalistic practice to me.

So is the allegation that Hawthorn were never going to act on what they'd investigated? I don't recall ever hearing that. I thought the contention was that it had simply got too big for them, and they had passed it on to the AFL to investigate fully.

I entirely accept the ABC was never getting interviews from Clarko and the rest. I simply believe they would have been well advised to let the AFL seek to deal first (by appropriately meeting with and questioning all parties involved), rather than pressing on with a story at that time that was only ever going to intensely muddy the waters. They could have published a story that confirmed they were aware of the AFL conducting investigations into a cultural review recently undertaken at the Hawthorn Football Club, to show they were on top of the story. But they chose to go with all they had, and have subsequently made the process of any resolution far longer and far messier than it needed to be.

Again, the story was not going to get buried. It was always going to be aired at some point. I simply question the timing of releasing it all (and the motives behind that), given there was complete engagement with one side of the story and a cursory request for comment (out of the clear blue sky) on the other.

For example, I'm trying to imagine how Jackson might have responded if he had been the subject of a workplace bullying allegation. Without ever being advised of the allegation (or given reasonable time to respond to it), the details were then published on the website of a rival publication, with a request for him to respond if he would like to do so. I'm figuring he would have been genuinely outraged if something like this was to occur. And I don't believe that scenario is a million miles away from what happened here.

 

[cats_09]

 

[Lana]

This is what the ABC has to say about their story

Statements & Responses - Media Centre - About the ABC

Information about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation including history, management, corporate reports, plans and submissions and the latest news from our media centre.

about.abc.net.au

"This has been based on a suggestion that three former Hawthorn employees named in the story were not given an opportunity to respond before publication. That is incorrect. The ABC has addressed this twice before, here and here. It is disappointing that similar suggestions have been made again. "

"Further, the stories of the Hawthorn families were not “leaked” to the ABC. Nobody interviewed by Hawthorn for its cultural safety review was bound by confidentiality – they were free to speak to the ABC or anyone else. The ABC’s reporting was based on its own interviews with three Hawthorn families. "

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Simply couldn't have been shuffled under the carpet, though, Jackson had his sources and was always going to write the story at some point. As it is, to have published the allegations without allowing for the accused to respond was guaranteed to end in disaster. I believe it's quite possible that he published when he did because he was sure others were getting wind of the story as well, and he had to be first. I understand that's a journalist's prerogative. But it doesn't make it admirable, clever or 'brave'.

And the ABC is pretty hilarious (again) in this story. Supposedly so committed to reporting in a balanced fashion, as well as advancing the causes that they see as 'good' and worthy. And yet there was no commitment to balance in what was presented in this article, and they have now potentially polarised the general populace even further regarding a vital matter for progress in the future of the country.

It was never going to be easy to sort out what happened at Hawthorn, and what should be done in response. But I believe the timing (and content) of the ABC's publication did not assist in resolving the matter (or advancing the issue) at all. So, like so many others caught up in all this, they're certainly not heroes in the story in my view.

They asked for comment to include and got nothing. The lack of balance is the afl and hawthorn's fault not the abc