Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Most players now prefer to be restrained in their relationships with the media because they are worried about their words or actions being taken out of context.
In Australia, clubs confuse ready access with the power to restrict journalists, when in fact the opposite is true. It just inspires good journalists to dig deeper.
Good access creates greater goodwill and, generally, a brighter tone of story. Positive feature stories are plentiful in the US and rarer here.
If you see it this way Craig - good on you But many outside the club and supporters took the doco differantly
A FUNNY thing happened on the back of the St Kilda documentary The Challenge, even if it were accidental on the Saints' part.
But it worked all the same.
It took only 30 minutes for us all to realise Nick Riewoldt and Sam Gilbert were mates and to quell any speculation otherwise. And to forgive Zac Dawson when we saw his remorse over the New Zealand incident.
And for others to see what insiders had long known - that Ross Lyon has a sharp personality and strong wit.
In essence, it took only 30 minutes to help repair a brand that had been battered for five months.
I don;t think it has wiped out the summer or last season.
If they want more accessibility, they have to carry the burden of keeping things in their proper context, factoring quirks of personality, and carefully thinking through the greater longterm consequences of printing first, asking questions later.
They never will. Their economics doesn't allow for it.
The media, as it stands, have created the vanilla stonewall they now get.
Personally, I think 90% of footy media can go f*** itself.
theres Flanagan, Baum, Connolly, Quayle. The rest are circus entertainers.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
Does the AFL need to be more accountable in this debate? They have allowed media coverage to grow to the point where there are now approx 1,500 media reps "ACCREDITED" by the AFL, all competing for that "SCOOP" and many who will stop at nothing to acheive their goals.
Has the AFL allowed the media coverage/scrutiny to spiral out of control? and what, if anything can they do to peg it back. The way I see it; If the AFL don't/can't do something the clubs/players will take matters into their own hands through their websites and FULLY CONTROL everything, and that would not be a good thing either. How do we strike a balance on this issue? !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
SIMMERING tension between AFL players, clubs and major media outlets will be a key point of debate when club chief executives meet next week.
Players have vented their concerns to AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou about intrusions into their private lives and mistakes not being acknowledged.
IN A group of 750-odd overwhelmingly approachable AFL players, you're going to get at least a handful of bad eggs. Same goes for journalists, or any other professional group you care to name.
But journalists know that to tar the entire AFL playing population with the same brush as a consequence would not only be wrong, but an exercise in cutting their own throats.
That won't be the case for the players should they continue to view the entire media as ''the enemy'', but it's as good as doing the same thing to their fans.
>>>>>>>>>
For the record, there are plenty of us whose main function is to write about football who cringe equally about some of the more sordid ways player behaviour is reported.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And those who think their own club doesn't get enough of a run might want to ask them why before complaining to us.
Eastern wrote:Does the AFL need to be more accountable in this debate? They have allowed media coverage to grow to the point where there are now approx 1,500 media reps "ACCREDITED" by the AFL, all competing for that "SCOOP" and many who will stop at nothing to acheive their goals.
Has the AFL allowed the media coverage/scrutiny to spiral out of control? and what, if anything can they do to peg it back. The way I see it; If the AFL don't/can't do something the clubs/players will take matters into their own hands through their websites and FULLY CONTROL everything, and that would not be a good thing either. How do we strike a balance on this issue? !!
Of course Hutchy, Wilson et al call for more access to the players. It's their livelihood and they have an overinflated view of their place in the world. They see themselves as stars of the show.
They call for greater access but have no interest in simply writing stories. They want free access to Roo, Nick, Sam and the NZ four to find out all the grubby details, and to find them out before their colleagues find out.Â
They have no interest in asking Roo what he thinks of our 2009 Draft picks for example.
I simply have no interest in their cries for greater access.
For the record, there are plenty of us whose main function is to write about football who cringe equally about some of the more sordid ways player behaviour is reported.
If those that felt this way publicly condemned the behaviour of such colleagues, then the problem wouldn't last long.
In the meantime they can peep through your windows and sift through your bins in the name of "public interest", and defend their actions by always having the last word.
There is no easy answer on this. All parties have their (different) points of view, with the media having the final "public" say.
Accreditation of 1,500-odd media people by the AFL is not good, as they all compete for stories/exposure - anything that makes a headline will do!
The clubs and players are sick and tired of what they see (rightly so in many cases), of poor and/or inacurate reporting & are closing things down.
What do the majority of the Public want - I say "good honest sports related stories." If collectively, we only paid for/watched "football" stories, the media would soon bring their hotheads to heel.
It seems to me be similar to the Princess Dianna disaster, where the situation becomes so bad, that compromise needs to be "negotiated" by all parties. Let's hope that we get some commonsense out of this, as all parties involved, need each other - it's a business.
If players don't want to talk - if they want to play footy unimpeded by inane questions or otherwise feel left intimidated my more probing ones - why should they participate?
Just 'because'?
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
If players don't want to talk - if they want to play footy unimpeded by inane questions or otherwise feel left intimidated my more probing ones - why should they participate?
Just 'because'?
If the fans get upset about not hearing meaningless and repetitive interviews with players, then I can understand - because without the fans, there is no game.
But clearly what we're seeing here, is the media getting huffy because it's making their lives difficult. God, they might actually have to work for a story and do their homework to ensure it's factually correct!
If players don't want to talk - if they want to play footy unimpeded by inane questions or otherwise feel left intimidated my more probing ones - why should they participate?
Just 'because'?
If the fans get upset about not hearing meaningless and repetitive interviews with players, then I can understand - because without the fans, there is no game.
But clearly what we're seeing here, is the media getting huffy because it's making their lives difficult. God, they might actually have to work for a story and do their homework to ensure it's factually correct!
To that, I say boo f****** hoo.
Without the game, there are no fans.
Works both ways.
'Our' ravenous appetite for tripe has come back to burn 'us'.
I respect the player's right to STFU.
Besides, really what can most 20 year old kids say that is genuinely remarkable?
They know nothing, they've learned bugger all, and the only life they know is kicking Sherrins and sweating. Really, there's not that much to know beyond the aesthetic quality of the birds they're paired up with...
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
