Double standards

The argument that’s driving me crazy at the moment is that it’s somehow a double standard for us to release a player (like Farah for example) and then get upset when Mitch wants to leave mid-season.

Journos don’t seem to get that a contract is an exchange – a salary for playing footy. The club guarantees the salary part and the player guarantees the playing bit.

In the Farah situation, regardless of what you think of the decision to move him on, we were guaranteeing his full pay right up until he signed a contract at the Rabbits, holding up our side of the bargain. Not breaking our contract.

Mitch on the other hand no longer wanted to commit to his side of the deal - playing footy. That’s the big difference.

Am I missing something here?

You aren’t missing anything, these people don’t care about common-sense, they care about drumming up content.

There are four types of sports news nowadays, ranked:
1. Legitimate, public, fact-checked news, e.g. player interviews, game reviews
2. Factual non-news, e.g. things footballers wives are doing
3. Sensationalised, possibly not fact-checked news, e.g. snippets, opinion pieces, rumours, clickbait
4. Fake news, e.g. propaganda, manager-driven media (MDM)

Most of this stuff that worries you falls into #3 or #4. It’s wise to assume that everyone who stands on a soapbox has an agenda, and it’s up to you to decide whether that agenda is acceptable or not. But obviously don’t assume that folks who have access to a soapbox have anything of value to say.

There’s a very clear and easy reason why I haven’t bought the DT since the days of The Mirror and I wanted those footy collector medallions - they’ve gone to #3 and #4 because other publications are better at #1 and #2. There will always be media to fill the gaps and with modern communications there is more media “space” to fill up.

@:

You aren’t missing anything, these people don’t care about common-sense, they care about drumming up content.

There are four types of sports news nowadays, ranked:
1. Legitimate, public, fact-checked news, e.g. player interviews, game reviews
2. Factual non-news, e.g. things footballers wives are doing
3. Sensationalised, possibly not fact-checked news, e.g. snippets, opinion pieces, rumours, clickbait
4. Fake news, e.g. propaganda, manager-driven media (MDM)

Most of this stuff that worries you falls into #3 or #4. It’s wise to assume that everyone who stands on a soapbox has an agenda, and it’s up to you to decide whether that agenda is acceptable or not. But obviously don’t assume that folks who have access to a soapbox have anything of value to say.

There’s a very clear and easy reason why I haven’t bought the DT since the days of The Mirror and I wanted those footy collector medallions - they’ve gone to #3 and #4 because other publications are better at #1 and #2. There will always be media to fill the gaps and with modern communications there is more media “space” to fill up.

I’m the biggest critic of the disgrace that is the Telegraph going around but with respect it’s a bit more complicated than that. There are also at least two more categories, being:

  • Non-official but still reasonably sourced reporting. When the Telegraph reported Woods and Foran to the Dogs, Tedesco to the Roosters this wasn’t just rumour, and even if the source was player managers that doesn’t necessarily mean the content is inaccurate. Much as I hate to admit it, the Telegraph has a reasonably good record with this sort of thing - it isn’t, despite what some people claim, “all made up” or just ripped off forums and Twitter.
  • Reasonable comment based on a fair assessment of facts. All pundits have some sort of bias whether conscious or not. Some still present fair opinions that can at least be viewed through the lens of understanding their starting point. Peter Sterling is a Parra legend and wants the club to succeed, but has still commented negatively on Mitchell Moses’ behaviour. Lots of people don’t like Phil Gould and he clearly has his own agenda, but his commentary tends to be, at least, based on a fair assessment of all parties’ positions.

What makes it so hard for people to grasp what ‘fake news’ really means is that fact that all the options you mention and mine are jumbled up together - often in the pages of the same publication. So the Telegraph accurately reports the landing place of two of the Tigers’ off contract players ahead of any other mainstream media and also prints the ramblings of Phil Rothfield that largely seem to be motivated by his vendetta against Marina Go and desire to make sure there is a club ahead of Cronulla on the Sydney chopping block.

It’s no different from Sky News having a first rate news gathering operation and also providing a platform to the bizarre extreme right drivel spouted by the likes of Andrew Bolt.

I think releasing Farah was really poor form. I don’t think the club should have done it. I think it is double standards for the club to push out a player and then get frustrated with the way these guys have behaved both on and off the field.

Jirskyr breaks down the media into pretty fair categories. The DT and most of the stuff on Fox is in categories 3 & 4.

@:

@:

You aren’t missing anything, these people don’t care about common-sense, they care about drumming up content.

There are four types of sports news nowadays, ranked:
1. Legitimate, public, fact-checked news, e.g. player interviews, game reviews
2. Factual non-news, e.g. things footballers wives are doing
3. Sensationalised, possibly not fact-checked news, e.g. snippets, opinion pieces, rumours, clickbait
4. Fake news, e.g. propaganda, manager-driven media (MDM)

Most of this stuff that worries you falls into #3 or #4. It’s wise to assume that everyone who stands on a soapbox has an agenda, and it’s up to you to decide whether that agenda is acceptable or not. But obviously don’t assume that folks who have access to a soapbox have anything of value to say.

There’s a very clear and easy reason why I haven’t bought the DT since the days of The Mirror and I wanted those footy collector medallions - they’ve gone to #3 and #4 because other publications are better at #1 and #2. There will always be media to fill the gaps and with modern communications there is more media “space” to fill up.

I’m the biggest critic of the disgrace that is the Telegraph going around but with respect it’s a bit more complicated than that. There are also at least two more categories, being:

  • Non-official but still reasonably sourced reporting. When the Telegraph reported Woods and Foran to the Dogs, Tedesco to the Roosters this wasn’t just rumour, and even if the source was player managers that doesn’t necessarily mean the content is inaccurate. Much as I hate to admit it, the Telegraph has a reasonably good record with this sort of thing - it isn’t, despite what some people claim, “all made up” or just ripped off forums and Twitter.
  • Reasonable comment based on a fair assessment of facts. All pundits have some sort of bias whether conscious or not. Some still present fair opinions that can at least be viewed through the lens of understanding their starting point. Peter Sterling is a Parra legend and wants the club to succeed, but has still commented negatively on Mitchell Moses’ behaviour. Lots of people don’t like Phil Gould and he clearly has his own agenda, but his commentary tends to be, at least, based on a fair assessment of all parties’ positions.

What makes it so hard for people to grasp what ‘fake news’ really means is that fact that all the options you mention and mine are jumbled up together - often in the pages of the same publication. So the Telegraph accurately reports the landing place of two of the Tigers’ off contract players ahead of any other mainstream media and also prints the ramblings of Phil Rothfield that largely seem to be motivated by his vendetta against Marina Go and desire to make sure there is a club ahead of Cronulla on the Sydney chopping block.

It’s no different from Sky News having a first rate news gathering operation and also providing a platform to the bizarre extreme right drivel spouted by the likes of Andrew Bolt.

Not that hard I reckon. As Pascoe said, if the club doesn’t comment officially, judge the “news” with careful consideration of the agenda.

Non-official reasonably sourced reporting is #1, it is fact-checked, legitimate news. Club doesn’t have to agree but if it’s based on real information, particularly if it’s quotable, then so be it. Yes DT gets it right sometimes but they also get it wrong a lot, how many things prophesised by Slothfield and Pooper this year actually happened? You can’t be bold about your scoops when less than half of them materialise.

Reasonable comment can be #1 or #3. Opinions supported by facts and arguments are cool. Opinions supported by nothing is not cool.

I totally admit though that it can be confusing getting different types of news from one publication source. I don’t really watch TV news any more, I read online newspapers (that I respect) and pick the articles that interest me. I try to read more than one article on a subject if I think it’s an important topic. I’m not being pretentious or pious, I just want to line through stuff that I know will be mostly BS. Like that 7th tackle or whatever, the minute anyone links that I bypass it. Same with DT, they just publish too much crap for me to waste time sifting through for the odd gem.

I don’t see a double standard at all.

Regardless if Robbie was still with us or the Rabbits he would be still giving 100% It was not his fault or really the clubs fault that the needs of the team changed in such away he was no longer required. That’s just football and has been since the game was invented

Moses on the other hand. Dithered and dithered letting his manager get the club caught up in a Dutch auction. He overplays his hand, signs with Parra for 2018 and decides to dog it for the rest of 2017 to the point the club punts him because he is not even playing at a reserve grade standard

1 player left our club with his reputation and dignity intact

The other got his dummy dirty from spitting it on the ground to often

I will leave it up to you which is which