Hawthorn racism review

[jazzadogs]

So what exactly have the Hawks done wrong? They did the review after hearing how shit they'd been to find out just how shit and they didn't tell the families after getting their initial accounts?

This seems like exactly the sort of thing more clubs should be doing. I'm sure all clubs have failed their players in some way or another given the blind spots most clubs would have had for mental health, indigenous welfare, CTE, etc, so they should be investigating and learning what they've done wrong and where they as clubs (and the industry as a whole) can improve. Sorry if that's inconvenient for the AFL as a 'product' but people will watch this shit regardless so we may as well not ruin as many lives in the process as possible.

To be clear I don't think the Hawks did anything wrong. But I also don't think the ABC did anything wrong reporting on a process that Hawthorn HAD completed, a review that had been published and allegations that were made.

I was just arguing that, given the ABC just reported what was in the Hawthorn review, D Mitchell should really have an issue with the review...not the guy who reported on it.

[1eyedog]

That's a great post Sedat and you're 100% correct.

[hujsh]

Putting that word to one side (I'm not a fan of the word at all - it is such a lazy catch-all), how has the ABC or the journo in question shown any due care and consideration to the 4 families with this story, which as of today remains completely unsubstantiated? Have they given the accused a proper opportunity (not a token 24 hours) to respond to such serious allegations before going to print on a story that wasn't in the slightest bit properly vetted and assessed internally (as the ensuing months of silence, culminating in last night's farce, have proven)? Or did they, as the sensationalist click-baiters they are (IMO they are no better than the Murdoch press, just two sides of the same coin really), jumped the gun and printed an obviously under-cooked story for the clicks and to push a narrative at all costs, knowing how dynamic and divisive the subject matter of the story was going to be?

Their cowardly silence from the ABC in the last few months says everything - they got their moment in the sun, they were then immediately and unequivocally challenged by the accused on the veracity of the allegations in their story, and now they have walked away and left the 4 families to fend for themselves having used and abused them in their damaging little joyride (as have all the other usual disgusting inner city elitists that piped up on day one demanding blood for the accused - Maher, Wilson, RoCo, etc).

Whether they like it or not, the ABC (and all other media organisations) operate in a country that presumes innocence before guilt - they have a responsibility before going to print on a story that it has been rigorously reviewed and assessed for factual evidence before pressing the button and absolutely torching everybody involved. They continue to get this simple process fundamentally wrong, which has ended up in them regularly being sued for defamation and paying millions in compensation through the courts - history will repeat itself again.

And of course everybody involved with bringing this story to print will continue to remain gainfully employed and carry on with life as if nothing happened. And the 4 families will continue to be forgotten by everyone and haunted by this episode for the rest of their lives, as will the accused. What a total shitshow.

The ABC are a fundamentally broken organisation and all their non-essential services need to be privatised - they have no place whatsoever being funded by the public purse.

Don't really know enough about the follow through to say, nor what is actually considered a journalist's responsibility here. The journalist reported on the Hawthorn's report, what exactly are they meant to do after that you feel they've neglected? Clarkson and Fagan have had plenty of opportunities and avenues available to put their side forward but have declined to. What has been shown to not be factual? I feel like you're making a lot of broad statements and gesturing to past failures but not really explaining what exactly they've not done aside from 'being silent' which... huh?

This isn't an attack, I genuinely don't know enough to make a strong statement on ABC's reporting. I only really care about getting a fair outcome for the people involved and making sure any wrongdoing is punished/isn't allowed to be repeated (which is partly the point of punishment)

[Mofra]

Given the size of this story, it's very hard to argue that it is not on the public interest considering the level of public interest in the story right now.

The AFL completely screwing up their response / investigation into the report doesn't invalidate the public interest test applied to writing the article.

And let's not equate Murdoch press with the ABC. The media codes of conduct are not comparable to the ABC standard which is far more stringent. The SBS standard is also more stringent then the general media codes of conduct.

[jeemak]

Putting that word to one side (I'm not a fan of the word at all - it is such a lazy catch-all), how has the ABC or the journo in question shown any due care and consideration to the 4 families with this story, which as of today remains completely unsubstantiated? Have they given the accused a proper opportunity (not a token 24 hours) to respond to such serious allegations before going to print on a story that wasn't in the slightest bit properly vetted and assessed internally (as the ensuing months of silence, culminating in last night's farce, have proven)? Or did they, as the sensationalist click-baiters they are (IMO they are no better than the Murdoch press, just two sides of the same coin really), jumped the gun and printed an obviously under-cooked story for the clicks and to push a narrative at all costs, knowing how dynamic and divisive the subject matter of the story was going to be?

Their cowardly silence from the ABC in the last few months says everything - they got their moment in the sun, they were then immediately and unequivocally challenged by the accused on the veracity of the allegations in their story, and now they have walked away and left the 4 families to fend for themselves having used and abused them in their damaging little joyride (as have all the other usual disgusting inner city elitists that piped up on day one demanding blood for the accused - Maher, Wilson, RoCo, etc).

Whether they like it or not, the ABC (and all other media organisations) operate in a country that presumes innocence before guilt - they have a responsibility before going to print on a story that it has been rigorously reviewed and assessed for factual evidence before pressing the button and absolutely torching everybody involved. They continue to get this simple process fundamentally wrong, which has ended up in them regularly being sued for defamation and paying millions in compensation through the courts - history will repeat itself again.

And of course everybody involved with bringing this story to print will continue to remain gainfully employed and carry on with life as if nothing happened. And the 4 families will continue to be forgotten by everyone and haunted by this episode for the rest of their lives, as will the accused. What a total shitshow.

The ABC are a fundamentally broken organisation and all their non-essential services need to be privatised - they have no place whatsoever being funded by the public purse.

By this logic they shouldn't have aired accusations about George Pell or Malka Leifer, right?

Additionally, I don't really know what you wanted the ABC to report on the matter when there was literally nothing progressing on it for months.

NB - I'm no lover of the ABC, I think its lost its way across all platforms.

[D Mitchell]

Yeah that's the issue

Woke is the adjective applied to ABC journalists in general, not the issue itself. It's doubtful that any of us know which particular journalist(s) released the story so not even to any particular journalist. All that's available is at best third hand summaries of what the families are said to have reported, neither tested nor detailed. That's nowhere near enough to form a judgment, much less criticise the 3 coaches or Hawthorn.

[EasternWest]

Woke.

Pretty surefire way to ensure anything you say after this gets thrown in the bin straight away as you've clearly nailed your colours to the mast from the get go.

For example, I dig your work on this forum as a general rule but have zero interest in anything you've got to say about this issue.

[hujsh]

Woke is the adjective applied to ABC journalists in general, not the issue itself. It's doubtful that any of us know which particular journalist(s) released the story so not even to any particular journalist. All that's available is at best third hand summaries of what the families are said to have reported, neither tested nor detailed. That's nowhere near enough to form a judgment, much less criticise the 3 coaches or Hawthorn.

TBH I can't take anything you say on the matter seriously if you call someone or something 'woke'. For me that's a sign that it's not worth engaging with a person on that particular matter. I might be wrong in some cases, but more often than not I won't be.

[soupman]

Another who finds the use of "woke" to be a red flag.

Is anyone able to clarify why the AFL is looking at sanctioning Hawthorn for their role in commissioning the report? There's typical talk of stripping draft picks or fines for bringing the game into disrepute, but as far as I can tell the reasoning isn't because of the accusations made within the report but rather it seems to be wanting to punish them for looking into it at all?

I might be reading it wrong but it seems like the AFL is looking to punish Hawthorn for trying to become better by looking into this at all?

[hujsh]

Another who finds the use of "woke" to be a red flag.

Is anyone able to clarify why the AFL is looking at sanctioning Hawthorn for their role in commissioning the report? There's typical talk of stripping draft picks or fines for bringing the game into disrepute, but as far as I can tell the reasoning isn't because of the accusations made within the report but rather it seems to be wanting to punish them for looking into it at all?

I might be reading it wrong but it seems like the AFL is looking to punish Hawthorn for trying to become better by looking into this at all?

That's how I read it too FWIW

[D Mitchell]

To be clear I don't think the Hawks did anything wrong. But I also don't think the ABC did anything wrong reporting on a process that Hawthorn HAD completed, a review that had been published and allegations that were made.

I was just arguing that, given the ABC just reported what was in the Hawthorn review, D Mitchell should really have an issue with the review...not the guy who reported on it.

I don't have an issue with either the journalist(s) reporting or the review, that should be clear from the 1st sentence in my post 166. My issue is the assumption that the 3 coaches did, for want of a better phrase, something wrong by indigenous players in the absence of testing of 3rd hand allegations and the 3 coaches' versions.

[EasternWest]

I don't have an issue with either the journalist(s) reporting or the review, that should be clear from the 1st sentence in my post 166. My issue is the assumption that the 3 coaches did, for want of a better phrase, something wrong by indigenous players in the absence of testing of 3rd hand allegations and the 3 coaches' versions.

Except for being woke, right?

[bulldogtragic]

Except for being woke, right?

Always virtue signalling is EW. We need to change your name me thinks.

[EasternWest]

Always virtue signalling is EW. We need to change your name me thinks.

To "Super Awesome defender of m'ladies EasternWest" because I could live with that.

Back on topic does anyone know what the HRC could actually DO if there were found to be guilty parties?

[Grantysghost]

I don't have an issue with either the journalist(s) reporting or the review, that should be clear from the 1st sentence in my post 166. My issue is the assumption that the 3 coaches did, for want of a better phrase, something wrong by indigenous players in the absence of testing of 3rd hand allegations and the 3 coaches' versions.

You've assumed it's not true.