-
Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...?itok=aHMxaMmR
After losing the opening match of the 2022 AFL season last month, Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge sat down for the thing he hates most about his job: the press conference. It got messy quick. After listening to a question from Fox Footy reporter Tom Morris, who had earlier accurately reported upon a leaked team selection detail, Beveridge paused momentarily before unleashing.
“You’ve got the nerve to ask me a question, and even be here?” he said. “You barrack for Melbourne, you’ve been preying on us. You’ve been opening us up, causing turmoil within our football club by declaring our team well before it needs to be declared. Is that the way Fox want you to operate? Is that the gutter journalist you want to be?”
Beveridge went on: “Your gutter journalism at the moment is killing us behind the scenes … This is why the health and wellbeing of people in the game is caught up in this … You’re an embarrassment.”
The definition of “public interest” is not easy or automatic, unless you’re solely guided by clicks. And then, if you’ve chosen a potential story to follow, the specific treatment of it matters too.
Beveridge was immediately and uniformly condemned by the media, who saw an “abnormal” act of intimidation and one that seemed to have derived, weirdly, from the relatively inconsequential reporting of Lachie Hunter’s omission. The AFL fined Beveridge and the next day a filmed apology from the coach was released by the club.
But only hours after Tom Morris had been congratulated by peers for holding his ground against Beveridge, two audio clips Morris had shared within a private WhatsApp group were leaked. On one leery and juvenile tape, Morris can be heard crudely objectifying a female colleague’s sexuality. The appalled colleague later publicly referred to his comments as “degrading”. Fox sacked Morris.
It was a dramatic development, but let’s return to the media responses to Beveridge. “What we saw last night is a man unravelling,” veteran footy reporter Caroline Wilson said on 3AW radio. “I’m quite serious about this. Who invokes the mental health and wellbeing card over a selection story? I have never seen anything so disgraceful in all my years of covering football. It is a man who is clearly not coping.”
First, there’s the minor quibble of Wilson’s hyperbole here: she cannot literally mean Beveridge’s press conference was more disgraceful than, say, Wayne Carey’s domestic violence, the Essendon supplements scandal, the AFL’s mishandling of Adam Goodes’ public persecution, the long and odious influence of agent Ricky Nixon, the squalid and self-destructive culture of the mid-noughties West Coast Eagles, the revelations of an indulgent and chauvinistic administrative culture et cetera.
But, more substantially, it must have been an intolerable irony to Beveridge that his ham-fisted appeal to reporters to consider the mental health of players could only be understood or interpreted in the context of Beveridge’s own alleged “unravelling”. Here was a man – confusingly and intemperately, yes – damning the media for its prurient interests and its effects upon his players’ health being called mentally unstable for doing so. And Wilson was far from alone in this.
Little has been said about the many speculations about Beveridge’s mental health, not least because the man himself has been chastened and does not wish to push the story. But at first blush, the media questioning appears to be borderline defamatory. At the very least, it’s unimaginative.
Beveridge did not help himself or his club by using as the ostensible source of his anger Tom Morris’s accurate – and trivial – report on the late omission of a player. If this was truly the only source of Beveridge’s contempt, then of course his outburst would have been bizarrely disproportionate.
But it wasn’t the only source. During the recent off-season, Beveridge – an intensely loyal and protective coach – was incensed by the many careless inquiries made into the private life of star player Bailey Smith. Once again, Beveridge saw the media’s feral competitiveness for dubious scoops, and its effect upon his players’ health, and he fumed about how often this instinct ignored proportionality, fairness or potential harm. In Tom Morris, I suspect Beveridge saw a smug epitome of this ruthlessness – and a man whose job was essentially parasitic.
Beveridge might reflect upon how to better articulate his concerns, and his suggestion that Morris was motivated by his support for the Melbourne Demons seemed silly. But it was also silly to offer Morris, even before the leaked tapes, as some exemplar of an indispensable profession. Morris was a shallow and self-regarding scavenger of bins – more an ibis with private schoolboy connections than Bob Woodward. He was – like many footy reporters – a simple gossipmonger, more enthralled by their status than the game.
On a scale of one to 10 of social value, where one is a serial arsonist and 10 is a paediatric nurse, Morris’s job would score about a two. And yet the gulf between this modest value and the immodest egos who practise it is hilariously massive. You’ll find more thoughtfulness and humility among paediatric nurses.
When criticised, journalists reflexively use abstractions to defend themselves. We use lofty words such as “accountability”, “democracy”, “discourse” and “public interest” regardless of how appropriately they can be applied to the actual thing being criticised. Richard Nixon once said that when a president does it, “that means it’s not illegal”, and I often smell the same desperate appeals to exceptionalism from journalists. And maybe some believe it – that because they’re a journalist, they can do and write whatever and believe that it’s all valuable by definition. The self-regard of a Tom Morris is both too great and too fragile to broker self-reflection – why act or think in a way that might puncture your sense of exceptionalism?
What Luke Beveridge might have asked reporters, were his articulateness not choked by anger, is what they considered their duty of care to players to be. What scrutiny is acceptable? What are scrutiny’s basic thresholds, and when does reporting become vulgar and destructive gossip? How do you define “public interest” if not by mere online traffic? And if you have a loftier definition of “public interest”, when might it be subservient to the potential harm to an individual? Can I trust that each of you think about these things? Can I trust that each of you are genuinely serious about the mental health of players? How pure are your motivations, really?
But as I write this, the seagulls have already moved on to the next pile of hot chips: rapid-fire speculations on the mental health of Richmond player Dustin Martin, who’s currently grieving over the loss of his father.
The AFL’s 2021 yearly report declares that about 2000 people were given media accreditation to work at “match-day venues”. The federal press gallery has 250 accredited members. Even allowing for the greater technical demands of broadcasting sport versus politics, we’re still left with a considerable discrepancy. It’s an enormous number and it’s never been greater. But what has this investment yielded? Very little. Gossip and shallow takes still prevail: X club is up, and Y down; A player is injured, but B is exceeding expectations. While the numbers of accredited media have increased, the length of stories seems to have decreased, and there’s been no commensurate increase in insight.
There are exceptions: ABC sports writer Russell Jackson won a Walkley for feature writing in 2020 and this year the Melbourne Press Club’s highest honour, the Golden Quill, was awarded to Michael Warner for his reporting on the Collingwood Football Club. But I’d suggest the most significant outcome of this vast swelling of media accreditation is a large and decadent class fattening itself upon the honeyed teat of the AFL.
It was, at least, acknowledgement for Warner, whose damning book The Boys’ Club from last year – our only sophisticated, book-length examination of AFL House for decades – was largely ignored in the media. Given its importance, and the fact Warner is one of the few sports reporters with an ability to examine financial and administrative cultures, the silence was conspicuous.
There are times when the private behaviour of players meets, I think, a threshold of public interest. The dangerous dysfunction of the Eagles back in the noughties is one, I’d argue. But the definition of “public interest” is not easy or automatic, unless you’re solely guided by clicks. And then, if you’ve chosen a potential story to follow, the specific treatment of it matters too.
So, the question for me is not whether scrutiny of footy clubs is appropriate. It obviously is. The question is how many reporters seriously contemplate what scrutiny means, or should mean. Beveridge made a mess of that press conference, and I can sympathise with those who first saw a weird and intimidatory tantrum. I was one of them. But buried in his outburst were genuine grievances and, I suspect, more integrity than can be found in the subjects of it.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...1800013597#mtr
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Interesting piece and with hindsight and time to reflect on the entire episode it does make you think. Bevo's method was appalling, but his point was probably right. Also, the author (Martin McKenzie-Murray) does make this great point. Too many AFL journos take themselves way too seriously and always believe they have the moral high ground.
"On a scale of one to 10 of social value, where one is a serial arsonist and 10 is a paediatric nurse, Morris’s job would score about a two. And yet the gulf between this modest value and the immodest egos who practise it is hilariously massive. You’ll find more thoughtfulness and humility among paediatric nurses.
When criticised, journalists reflexively use abstractions to defend themselves. We use lofty words such as “accountability”, “democracy”, “discourse” and “public interest” regardless of how appropriately they can be applied to the actual thing being criticised. Richard Nixon once said that when a president does it, “that means it’s not illegal”, and I often smell the same desperate appeals to exceptionalism from journalists. And maybe some believe it – that because they’re a journalist, they can do and write whatever and believe that it’s all valuable by definition. The self-regard of a Tom Morris is both too great and too fragile to broker self-reflection – why act or think in a way that might puncture your sense of exceptionalism?""
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
angelopetraglia
"On a scale of one to 10 of social value, where one is a serial arsonist and 10 is a paediatric nurse, Morris’s job would score about a two. And yet the gulf between this modest value and the immodest egos who practise it is hilariously massive. You’ll find more thoughtfulness and humility among paediatric nurses.
Nailed it with this statement. Couldn’t be more perfectly articulated.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Man thats an awesome article. Hope it gains some traction.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Thanks for posting AP. I saw a snippet on twitter on Saturday but couldn't find a free version to read fully.
Does anyone know what deems you to be given media accreditation to work at “match-day venues”?
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
soupman
Man thats an awesome article. Hope it gains some traction.
Soup, highly doubtful. The article is 48 hours old and I haven't sited or heard it discussed apart from one twitter post and here on woof.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Great article and thanks for posting Angelotragopia
What I hamfistedly am trying to get across in another thread regards Jeff Kennett is done here with the deft of a Cyril Rioli mark.
It's well balanced and draws you from micro to macro, with shades of grey. To me anyway, this article has the quality of writing The Age used to have when I was a kid.
The only thing perhaps missing is Morris's track record, the Jessie Hogan tweets.
And one word here " Beveridge – an intensely loyal and protective coach – was incensed by the many careless inquiries made into the private life of star player Bailey Smith
Since the death of print advertising revenue, the race for clicks on social media platforms has gone into warp. 'cheap-shot' inquiries doesn't sound right, but that's what I mean.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
"Morris was a shallow and self-regarding scavenger of bins – more an ibis with private schoolboy connections than Bob Woodward."
What a line
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Yeah fantastic article. Bevo’s response in a vacuum was unprofessional but I think as some more colour was added to the situation it became clear that his comments needed to be viewed in its proper context, as a last straw rather than a one off. And Wilson should be ashamed and embarrassed by her armchair psychology bullshit, clearly said in hurt over her personal connection to Morris and the situation itself as a “journalist” (?) rather than out of any objective review.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
With the greatest respect to any footy scribes that lurk on woof, it is a truly gutter profession full of parasites who infect their venom onto the real stars of the show, the players/coaches/clubs. We need to take everything written and spoken by these parasites with a grain of salt. There are 2,000 of these vermin involved in the game - that is an indictment on the entire footy industry.
If Joel Selwood is the patron saint of the cynical head-high ducking, and has created an army of acolytes that have infected the modern game, Caroline Wilson is the patron saint of the footy media parasites, those shallow people who have no interest in the actual game and are obsessed with raising their own profile through the dissemination of the off-field activities of players/coaches/clubs to create meaningless and damaging click-bait, causing incredible damage to players/coaches/clubs in the process. Morris is simply a younger, even more smug, version of this footy media parasite that was created and perfected by Wilson (and Mike Sheahan to a lesser extent - he at least spent some time focusing on the actual game in his writing). Hutchy is another parasite who feasts on the off-field at the expense of player/coach/club welfare and mental health, and being a major player in the media landscape he is causing carnage in the modern game.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
With the greatest respect to any footy scribes that lurk on woof, it is a truly gutter profession full of parasites who infect their venom onto the real stars of the show, the players/coaches/clubs. We need to take everything written and spoken by these parasites with a grain of salt. There are 2,000 of these vermin involved in the game - that is a travesty.
If Joel Selwood is the patron saint of the cynical head-high ducking, and has created an army of acolytes that have infected the modern game, Caroline Wilson is the patron saint of the footy media parasites, those shallow people who have no interet in the actual game and are obsessed with the off-field activities of the players to create meaningless and damaging click-bait for their employers, causing incredible damage to players, coaches and clubs in the process. Morris is simply a younger version of this footy media parasite that was created and perfected by Wilson (and Mike Sheahan to a lesser extent - he at least spent some time focusing on the actual game in his writing). Hutchy is another parasite who feasts on the off-field at the expense of player/coach/club welfare and mental health, and being a major player in the media landscape is causing carnage in the modern game.
Hell yeah.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
With the greatest respect to any footy scribes that lurk on woof, it is a truly gutter profession full of parasites who infect their venom onto the real stars of the show, the players/coaches/clubs. We need to take everything written and spoken by these parasites with a grain of salt. There are 2,000 of these vermin involved in the game - that is an indictment on the entire footy industry.
If Joel Selwood is the patron saint of the cynical head-high ducking, and has created an army of acolytes that have infected the modern game, Caroline Wilson is the patron saint of the footy media parasites, those shallow people who have no interest in the actual game and are obsessed with raising their own profile through the dissemination of the off-field activities of players/coaches/clubs to create meaningless and damaging click-bait, causing incredible damage to players/coaches/clubs in the process. Morris is simply a younger, even more smug, version of this footy media parasite that was created and perfected by Wilson (and Mike Sheahan to a lesser extent - he at least spent some time focusing on the actual game in his writing). Hutchy is another parasite who feasts on the off-field at the expense of player/coach/club welfare and mental health, and being a major player in the media landscape he is causing carnage in the modern game.
Hutchy is the cretin who started it all.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grantysghost
Hutchy is the cretin who started it all.
Hutchy rapidly accelarated the decline but Wilson absolutely started all of this garbage. Hutchy now employs the likes of Wilson and Cornes, so yes he is an even bigger part of the problem today due to his media ownership, power and influence in the modern footy landscape.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Cornes is a prick. Why offer any expert analysis when you can line up a 19 year old for messing around with a Go Pro?
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
Hutchy rapidly accelarated the decline but Wilson absolutely started all of this garbage. Hutchy now employs the likes of Wilson and Cornes, so yes he is an even bigger part of the problem today due to his media ownership, power and influence in the modern footy landscape.
I know Hutchy loves those edgy US sports panel shows and after a stint over there launched a similar style here.
Creating drama where there is none through their confrontational back and forth.
My memory was Wilson was reasonably stock standard like Sheehan prior to this writing for The Age but I could well be wrong.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
With the greatest respect to any footy scribes that lurk on woof, it is a truly gutter profession full of parasites who infect their venom onto the real stars of the show .
That's about the level of respect they deserve.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grantysghost
I know Hutchy loves those edgy US sports panel shows and after a stint over there launched a similar style here.
Creating drama where there is none through their confrontational back and forth.
My memory was Wilson was reasonably stock standard like Sheehan prior to this writing for The Age but I could well be wrong.
Wilson was OK before she got on TV, which is similar to many journos who did/ do the same.
As soon as you combine/ integrate different platforms you end up with saturation and a lack of diversity in opinions which leads to the gutter based or cheap material/ content that's produced.
It's OK having 2000 media personnel following the game and reporting on it. What's not OK is that only a very small percentage of that 2000 get their messages across in what's considered the mainstream.
Diversification of the media landscape has been a good thing and we need more of it. What we don't need is Caro/ Gary or whomever writing an article on Monday, sprouting shit about it Monday night, and then going on radio to keep it going the next day.
The cynical nature of syndicated corporate media is the problem here, not the amount of people covering the game.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
I loved the article, and really enjoy the Saturday Paper. It definitely leans the same way that I do, but I feel it does often speak truth to power and their articles are grounded in fact. It feels like proper journalism to me, and I wish this was the quality we expected rather than Hun/Age tabloid crap.
(and I can solve the cryptic).
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jeemak
Wilson was OK before she got on TV, which is similar to many journos who did/ do the same.
Wilson has historically been much better than a lot, but the call for Beveridge to be fined six figures was just insane and so out of touch.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bulldog Revolution
Wilson has historically been much better than a lot, but the call for Beveridge to be fined six figures was just insane and so out of touch.
Wilson is one of the most poisonous people in the footy industry and has been for decades. She harbours grudges that were started 50 years ago by her father when he was president of the tigers in the 70's - just ask Kevin Sheedy. She is a destructive person who chases the off-field story at any cost, even to the point of making up 'controversy' to suit her click-bait obsessed narrative. Witness the absolute destructive garbage she wrote about when Membury and Ross left the hub to be with their partners when they were giving birth last year - she created a pile-on against 2 supportive footballers (and their partners giving birth) for no reason other than self-aggrandizement.
She does not get a pass from me because of her gender (something she has cravenly used as a shield for her poisonous words and actions in the past). She is the distillation of everything that is wrong with modern footy journalism, and her particular oeuvre has created an entire cottage industry of footy scribes who feed on the off-field 'drama' (even when it does not exist) and who have little or no interest in the actual game itself. She created the blueprint that Hutchy, Morris, Cornes et al have followed.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
I love the irony of a journalist telling us about gutter journalists.
Great piece written after the dust has settled without any attached emotion from an insiders perspective.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
Wilson is one of the most poisonous people in the footy industry and has been for decades. She harbours grudges that were started 50 years ago by her father when he was president of the tigers in the 70's - just ask Kevin Sheedy. She is a destructive person who chases the off-field story at any cost, even to the point of making up 'controversy' to suit her click-bait obsessed narrative. Witness the absolute destructive garbage she wrote about when Membury and Ross left the hub to be with their partners when they were giving birth last year - she created a pile-on against 2 supportive footballers (and their partners giving birth) for no reason other than self-aggrandizement.
She does not get a pass from me because of her gender (something she has cravenly used as a shield for her poisonous words and actions in the past). She is the distillation of everything that is wrong with modern footy journalism, and her particular oeuvre has created an entire cottage industry of footy scribes who feed on the off-field 'drama' (even when it does not exist) and who have little or no interest in the actual game itself. She created the blueprint that Hutchy, Morris, Cornes et al have followed.
Once again Sedat refuses to tell us what he really thinks.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sedat
Wilson is one of the most poisonous people in the footy industry and has been for decades. She harbours grudges that were started 50 years ago by her father when he was president of the tigers in the 70's - just ask Kevin Sheedy. She is a destructive person who chases the off-field story at any cost, even to the point of making up 'controversy' to suit her click-bait obsessed narrative. Witness the absolute destructive garbage she wrote about when Membury and Ross left the hub to be with their partners when they were giving birth last year - she created a pile-on against 2 supportive footballers (and their partners giving birth) for no reason other than self-aggrandizement.
She does not get a pass from me because of her gender (something she has cravenly used as a shield for her poisonous words and actions in the past). She is the distillation of everything that is wrong with modern footy journalism, and her particular oeuvre has created an entire cottage industry of footy scribes who feed on the off-field 'drama' (even when it does not exist) and who have little or no interest in the actual game itself. She created the blueprint that Hutchy, Morris, Cornes et al have followed.
For a time she was one of those journos that hurt you when she was talking about your club but didn't as much when talking about other clubs, because she was often right. But after she was put on multiple platforms she turned into a commercially driven, content and scandal hungry blow hard.
As much of a shit bag as she (and her ilk) might be, the real and too often overlooked shit bags are the club insiders who can't help themselves but leak information and cause disruption within the organisations they purport to love and follow, or consider their employers.
The industry is full of them, they exist at local/ lower club levels too because at the end of the day footy clubs attract really weird people. As long as these shit bags exist, shit bags like Caro etc. will continue to thrive.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jeemak
For a time she was one of those journos that hurt you when she was talking about your club but didn't as much when talking about other clubs, because she was often right. But after she was put on multiple platforms she turned into a commercially driven, content and scandal hungry blow hard.
As much of a shit bag as she (and her ilk) might be, the real and too often overlooked shit bags are the club insiders who can't help themselves but leak information and cause disruption within the organisations they purport to love and follow, or consider their employers.
The industry is full of them, they exist at local/ lower club levels too because at the end of the day footy clubs attract really weird people. As long as these shit bags exist, shit bags like Caro etc. will continue to thrive.
Hell yes to the bolded bit. They are horrible, self-serving people who clearly have a void in their lives to be sharing confidential trade secrets to the vermin to feast on, causing unnecessary pain to good people within the organisations that employ them.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
That was a really solid article, cut through a lot of the absolute garbage. I try to consume as little of the footy media as possible, because I find the type that actually gets to have a voice in this space to be pretty reprehensible. Or boring, as is the case with the ex-player contingent.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Tom Morris about to make a comeback. The boys club at work
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Tom Morris about to make a comeback. The boys club at work
I'm no fan of his but he didn't kill anyone, just made some silly comments that unfortunately for him became public. Surely he deserves another chance, he has certainly copped his right whack.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Tom Morris about to make a comeback. The boys club at work
Hutchy looking to garner public support.
He should come back into the media but IMO he hasn't done this penance yet nor has he completed some of his rehabilitation.
He needs another football season out of the limelight in my opinion but it's a done deal and they're are going to pair him with Sarah Olle to give the perception of a softer persona.
I won't be listening to him but he deserves to come back as it was never going to be a long term sentence.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Axe Man
I'm no fan of his but he didn't kill anyone, just made some silly comments that unfortunately for him became public. Surely he deserves another chance, he has certainly copped his right whack.
Is he that good that he deserves the chance over someone else to be a prominent AFL journalist? Or maybe he has no other skills and to not offer him the charity of the job means condemning him to starve? The latter wouldn't surprise me.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hujsh
Is he that good that he deserves the chance over someone else to be a prominent AFL journalist? Or maybe he has no other skills and to not offer him the charity of the job means condemning him to starve? The latter wouldn't surprise me.
Let's not forget this:
Fox Sports presenter Tom Morris sacked over alleged sexist and homophobic slurs
Typical Hutchy no morals.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GVGjr
Hutchy looking to garner public support.
He should come back into the media but IMO he hasn't done this penance yet nor has he completed some of his rehabilitation.
He needs another football season out of the limelight in my opinion but it's a done deal and they're are going to pair him with Sarah Olle to give the perception of a softer persona.
I won't be listening to him but he deserves to come back as it was never going to be a long term sentence.
Can you share more on this point?
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mantis
Can you share more on this point?
My understanding is he was to do a number of behavioral type courses and a couple of them are still to be completed.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
If you were a serious organisation he wouldn't get past a reference check. He made sexist homophobic remarks about a colleague. Gross.
I also noted that Eddie McGuire's son was reporting for Channel 9 Sport last night. How good is nepotism!!!
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Watch Hutchy try and push him into Bevo's path.
He probably needs a bit more time out, however I don't think his actions were that heinous that he should be shunned forever.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jazzadogs
If you were a serious organisation he wouldn't get past a reference check. He made sexist homophobic remarks about a colleague. Gross.
I also noted that Eddie McGuire's son was reporting for Channel 9 Sport last night. How good is nepotism!!!
Nepo babies have to work thrice as hard once they're in the door though, right?
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
I don't think anybody has forgotten it, least of all Morris himself. It (rightly) cost him a very handsome high paying and high profile TV gig - I doubt very much that his SEN gig will be anywhere near as lucrative or as high profile.
As apologies go, his was sincere, full of remorse and shame, and totally accountable. He did the crime and he wore the consequences without playing the mental health card so fancied by others (obviously there are those who genuinely suffer from mental health, but I daresay not all who act and behave disgracefully can't help but do so because they are suffering from mental health).
I don't have a problem with him getting another chance after doing his penance, but then I don't really care because I've almost 100% ceased devouring the AFEL media and I am a virtual non-consumer of SEN.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jeemak
Nepo babies have to work thrice as hard once they're in the door though, right?
Tom Browne says hi….like a twat
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jazzadogs
If you were a serious organisation he wouldn't get past a reference check. He made sexist homophobic remarks about a colleague. Gross.
I also noted that Eddie McGuire's son was reporting for Channel 9 Sport last night. How good is nepotism!!!
Kane Cornes son also get a gig on SEN. I hate that I know this…
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
His comments were revolting and deeply personal rather than silly. Would any of us get another gig in the same industry after an incident like this, “penitent” or otherwise? I don’t feel he is owed anything by the industry after “doing his time” and I’m constantly bemused at the idea that anyone would need a bit of re-education to realise what is unacceptable.
But we see this time and again - Wayne Carey welcomed back into the fold after multiple family violence assaults, but his possession of white powder was a bridge too far.
-
Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The bulldog tragician
His comments were revolting and deeply personal rather than silly. Would any of us get another gig in the same industry after an incident like this, “penitent” or otherwise? I don’t feel he is owed anything by the industry after “doing his time” and I’m constantly bemused at the idea that anyone would need a bit of re-education to realise what is unacceptable.
But we see this time and again - Wayne Carey welcomed back into the fold after multiple family violence assaults, but his possession of white powder was a bridge too far.
I think second chances are good, Dani Laidley is a great story for example after doing what many would consider far worse things.
The AFL industry has embraced her and that’s fantastic; albeit the cynic in me that I push down deep questions some folks motivation.
People are people and make mistakes. Let’s hope he learns, or crosses Bevo in the toilet at the Brownlow!