Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

[EasternWest]

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 .

That's about the level of respect they deserve.

[jeemak]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.

[jazzadogs]

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).

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.

[Sedat]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.

[ratsmac]

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.

[EasternWest]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.

[jeemak]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.

[Sedat]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.

[SonofScray]

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.

[Bornadog]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

Tom Morris about to make a comeback. The boys club at work

[Axe Man]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.

[GVGjr]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.

[hujsh]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.

[Bornadog]

Re: Beveridge v Morris in the court of public opinion

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.