Review Round 16 = Gold Coast 101-90 Collingwood

[76woodenspooners]

Are you/were you ever a journo?

Heck no!

It is a noble profession - we all need to know what is going on in our world. I just think in general the industry is very badly broken at the moment and I can’t see a path to it being fixed any time soon.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Heck no!

It is a noble profession - we all need to know what is going on in our world. I just think in general the industry is very badly broken at the moment and I can’t see a path to it being fixed any time soon.

Haha. Can always count on you to come in & defend the journo's.

 

[gerryg400]

He is intentionally being obtuse using inadvertently while understanding that people will read it as “inadvertently” - implying it was not accidental.
And this is only possible as an implied accusation because he brought up the Petracca incident.
Without the Petracca reference you would be correct.

I’m far less accommodating - the undertone is clear IMO.

Are you saying he used inadvertently because he knew people wouldn’t know what it meant and think it meant deliberately? I’m lost.

 

[No SPIN]

It’s not unreasonable for it to be news that the same AFL player accidentally breaks ribs / spleen of a genuine star of the game ruling him out for the year, and then accidentally breaks the vertebrae of another? Both with the same action over a one month period?

Would you have the same opinion if it wasn’t a Collingwood player?

There are a lot of things we are partisan about, didn’t think injuries was one of them?

I absolutely, would have the same interpretation of the language if it was a non Coll player.
But naturally not as fussed.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Here we go ...

 

[No SPIN]

Are you saying he used inadvertently because he knew people wouldn’t know what it meant and think it meant deliberately? I’m lost.

People use quotation marks, around a word to often imply the possibility of an opposite meaning.
Much like critics using “accident”, in discussing Maynard’s hit on Brayshaw.
When deep down they believe it wasn’t an accident.

He didn’t do this with inadvertently in this case - but by then referencing the Petracca incident, IMO, he subtly gave comfort to those who believe it was a deliberate act by Moore.

 

[gerryg400]

People use quotation marks, around a word to often imply the possibility of an opposite meaning.
Much like critics using “accident”, in discussing Maynard’s hit on Brayshaw.
When deep down they are saying it wasn’t an accident.

He didn’t do this with inadvertently in this case - but by then referencing the Petracca incident, IMO, he subtly implied it was a deliberate act by Moore.

Ah, thanks for explaining.

 

[jmac70]

Here we go ...

The velvet sledgehammer probably should shut up.

 

[Fat Jesus]

The velvet sledgehammer probably should shut up.

Why? He's making sense

 

[jmac70]

Why? He's making sense

I find his voice boring.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Haha. Can always count on you to come in & defend the journo's.

Some folks seem to think that anybody who says anything negative about Collingwood is anti-Collingwood. But some of the worst stuff I’ve seen is by our own supporters in the game-day threads or post-match after a loss. Anything that the journo’s say is very tame by comparison.

And it’s the job of the journos to get us talking around the water cooler about the game. They say positive and negative stuff about every team. It’s the prize and the punishment. Win and you get to sing the song and listen to journos saying great things about your team. Lose and you cop it in the media. Same for all teams. It’s not because they hate us, it’s because they’re doing their job.

We could get worked up about - and if we do, then the journo has done their job well. The worst reaction a journo can get is apathy.

For me, I probably think 20% of footy media is rubbish (commentators getting player names wrong, commentator barracking for an outcome that’s not a close game, journos whipping up a story based on distorted facts, conflating fact and opinion, etc); 20% is decent (analysis, reporting of facts), and the 60% in the middle is just fluff.