Raiders flack cries to journalism student on how unfair it is.

johnboy 17 November 2010 16

I don’t like kicking journalism students (they tend to blub), and if I never have to write another word about Joel Monaghan that would be just fine.

But there’s a curious post-script to the matter on the UC School of Journalism’s online presence NowUC.

The lengthy piece by James Fennessy is intriguing on a couple of levels.

    — The fact it’s about the differences between new and old media while only quoting old media sources.

    — That it never names the “‘news’ sites” it refers to.

    — The way it buries the body of the story (Joel Monaghan) beneath the obligatory new media bong water media academics can’t get enough of.

    — Then there’s a journalism student being unaware that defamation laws most certainly do apply to online media outlets large and small

But when it comes to what the Raiders’ media man Ben Pollock thinks it gets really interesting:

Canberra Raiders media manager Ben Pollock said while online journalism can be professional, some ‘news’ sites and social media sites have too much freedom.

“People have the ability to become reporters themselves and post images like the one of Joel without consequence,” Pollock said.

“If it was a television or radio station or a newspaper they would face serious litigation but because it wasn’t, this person gets off with no consequences.

They don’t have to go to university or face an editor and a lot of the ‘news’ websites just talk dribble.”

Pollock said that reputable organisations are upholding current news values but admits that social media and independent news sites are only going to get bigger.

So what freedoms should be stripped away at Mr Pollock’s behest to ensure his players can engage in sex acts with dogs without the public finding out uphold “current news values”?


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
16 Responses to Raiders flack cries to journalism student on how unfair it is.
Filter
Order
Deano Deano 11:19 pm 18 Nov 10

“If it was a television or radio station or a newspaper they would face serious litigation but because it wasn’t, this person gets off with no consequences.”

And on what basis do the Raiders think they would be able to litigate – its not like these were unsubstantiated allegations.

Obviously hasn’t heard of the Streisand Effect

Erg0 Erg0 10:34 am 18 Nov 10

herbie said :

Incidentally, for a journalism student:
“Canberra Raider’s center, Joel Monaghan,”
Give us a spell…

Isn’t that what sub-editors are for?

(Accepting blame for errors, I mean)

Erg0 Erg0 9:58 am 18 Nov 10

Evidently he prefers the kind of journalists who email the picture to all of their mates rather than publish it. The irony being, of course, that it never would have seen the light of day if said journalists hadn’t been passing it around a little too freely.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 11:07 pm 17 Nov 10

The Canberra Raiders organisation really don’t get it, do they.

A player engaged in a ‘simulated'(??) sexual act with a dog – yet social media is to blame for all the anger and negative publicity directed at the club because the photos got out into public circulation. Yeah, let’s ban any media that doesn’t suit “Herr Goebbels” Pollock – that’ll solve the problem of footballers acting like total knob-ends!

Until the players all start acting like adults and actually become responsible for their actions, then nothing is going to change.

Monaghan hasn’t really been punished: he gets to walk away from this episode and can travel overseas to play footy.

Thumper Thumper 10:50 pm 17 Nov 10

someone post the Knuckfuckles video!

🙂

johnboy johnboy 10:35 pm 17 Nov 10

herbie said :

Well now that ‘new media’ is on their case, I woulda thought that Cricket ACT have your accreditation in the mail when you want it, JB… gotta put out those PR fires! 😉

They don’t do any deal until all the angles are stitched up. That includes keeping you in the dark.

herbie herbie 10:30 pm 17 Nov 10

Well now that ‘new media’ is on their case, I woulda thought that Cricket ACT have your accreditation in the mail when you want it, JB… gotta put out those PR fires! 😉

johnboy johnboy 10:23 pm 17 Nov 10

herbie said :

It is true that some sports ‘comment’ sites (read: blogs) can take the citizen journalist angle a bit too far and expect accreditation – I know of a guy who started writing match reviews for one such website and then used that to submit for media accreditation for the ashes. Needless to say he was not successful. I would think that any media manager worth their job would be able to pretty quickly weed out the BS.

Never said they can’t say no. Just that they should do it quickly and notify the refused.

herbie herbie 9:53 pm 17 Nov 10

It is true that some sports ‘comment’ sites (read: blogs) can take the citizen journalist angle a bit too far and expect accreditation – I know of a guy who started writing match reviews for one such website and then used that to submit for media accreditation for the ashes. Needless to say he was not successful. I would think that any media manager worth their job would be able to pretty quickly weed out the BS.

While new media is taking up more and more of the space, it’s got a long way to go in terms of credibility. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t play a role in keeping morons who lie with dogs in check. Some would argue it does this better than actual reporting…

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 9:26 pm 17 Nov 10

So, James’ piece has three quoted sources:
One is a 70yo man who has worked in radio since the Vietnam War, continues to be amazed about how technology changed his work by giving him more freedom to pursue stories, and who realises that stories need input from many sources of varying pedigree.
One is a sports reporter who realises the new industry paradigm is highly competitive but under resourced, and that when the audience want basic information they want it fast, and if they want quality stories they shop around, but will always suit their own interest. If he wants to make money, he balances the two.
The other is a media management consultant with a new axe to grind, who thinks everything would be better if he was the only person anybody consulted when dealing with topics he has a hand in, feels that nobody should ever question what he says, and who has a vested interest in keeping the media on as tight a leash as possible, since as far as he’s concerned bad press destroys his employer’s bottom line but good press should be a simple matter of buying off or pressuring the right people and making sure the audience reads what he demands.

Guess which one has an office just down the road from the student journalist’s university?

Hint: they provided about half the article’s quotes, can immediately help a student’s career by putting them in touch with sponsors, and will give away free tickets.

James will probably make a great sports reporter; running media releases without modification, writing without questioning, and doing it for an audience who read without thinking…

(Pollock says Joel is a victim of social media because they passed on the photos of Joel with his coal in a dog, the Raiders were simply drunk rugby players so its like kicking a Downs’ syndrome baby, and that since no genitals touched and no fluids were exchanged it wasn’t sex for pleasure, and that one photo can’t prove anything for certain.
I say Joel fucked that dog in the Crimes Act sense, but only got away with not being charged with a crime due to a bureaucratic fuckup. But do I get quoted?)

vg vg 8:44 pm 17 Nov 10

The guy f*cked a dog. The story begins and ends with that.

I’d worry more about controlling your players (employees) behaviour rather than the ramifications of someone reporting it when the behaviour is poor. By doing the former you’ll remove the latter.

I’ll say it again, he f*cked a dog. And for those who want to get literal, look at the Crimes Act interpretation of what constitutes sexual intercourse

johnboy johnboy 7:35 pm 17 Nov 10

p1 said :

Interesting the way this just got tossed in there. I enjoyed JB’s write up of a trip to a Canberra Knights game, has the riotact been given media accreditation at anything else?

We’ve never asked the Raiders for accreditation. We considered asking the Brumbies but would prefer to get blotto at their games than cover them.

Cricket ACT couldn’t even be arsed letting us know when they knocked us back for media access to a PMs XI game (despite sending us the application form)

Generally smaller sports (who don’t have established commercial relationships with WIN and the Canberra Times) are more amenable to civilised behaviour.

p1 p1 5:07 pm 17 Nov 10

From the article;

“Sporting organisations like the Raiders are getting loads of requests from media organisations [that are actually non-professional websites that a person has created] to get media accreditation to our events.”

Interesting the way this just got tossed in there. I enjoyed JB’s write up of a trip to a Canberra Knights game, has the riotact been given media accreditation at anything else?

andym andym 5:00 pm 17 Nov 10

“It’s definitely more immediate,” he said. “News is up straight away and it can be changed quickly if mistakes are made.”

That’s good because in my opinion that tends to happen a lot. Lots of spelling and grammatical errors and just down right incorrect reporting in the rush to be first to publish.

p1 p1 4:51 pm 17 Nov 10

“New media” are not very good sponsors of, nor tend to profit from broadcasting, sports like NRL.

herbie herbie 4:46 pm 17 Nov 10

How dare people get outed for things that they do! Clearly there needs to be a ‘higher person’ social network which us down in the filth can’t access.

Incidentally, for a journalism student:
“Canberra Raider’s center, Joel Monaghan,”
Give us a spell…

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site