The media’s role in shaping and defining news in the AFL is entering murky waters.
It now seems that many journalists are not content to gather the news and report it, they now want to create the narrative, shape the heroes, damn the villains and even sometimes play loosely with the truth.
In doing so it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell which stories should be placed in the pages of Australia’s leading newspapers and which stories should be found in the fiction section of the local library.
Last night’s Alan Jones interview with Stephen Dank was another example of this. Jones had clearly done is research – more so than many other journalists who have formed strong opinions about the issue. Gil McLachlan found this out last week when he was interviewed on 2GB by Jones.
However, the interview with Dank was at times bizarre, with Jones stating facts, dates and quotes, and the interviewer, Dank, simply confirming Jones’ statements.
Jones has a view that the ASADA/AFL investigation was corrupt and that the information gathered throughout the interview was manipulated to contrive a suitable outcome for the investigators. This may or may not be true, but any opposing views were left for another time.
I was also interested to read Tim Lane’s article about Essendon in The Age on Easter Sunday. I was particularly interested in his line that many fans shot the messenger (journalists) throughout the saga – as if journalists were simply ‘messengers’ in the story. If only!
The media became part of the story because many took sides on the issue and often offered more opinion and innuendo than fact. They felt obliged to push a particular side of the story and, in many instances, barrack for a particular outcome.
No, fans were not shooting the messenger – we were shooting down poor journalism and crying out for people who will provide fact and not moral sermons from the high ground.
Furthermore, it seems an integral part of the narrative – Essendon’s cooperation in the ASADA investigation – is being completely downplayed (or ignored) by many sections of the media.
Essendon’s cooperation in all of this is a fundamental part of the story. Until told otherwise, Essendon believed they knew what their players had been administered. ASADA told them that what they thought they were getting wasn’t necessarily the case. ‘There’s been foul play at hand,’ they said. ‘Your players may have been exposed to performance enhancing drugs.’
So, Essendon basically threw open their doors to see if ASADA was on the money with their claim. They didn’t hide a thing. They basically said, ‘well, if the players are not receiving what we believe they are, please, come in, take our phones, our computers, interview all of us, take notes, find the truth.’
ASADA, working with the AFL, did all of this, and then somehow some of this information was leaked to the press. Some sections of the press seemed to cheer them on. Hird and Essendon presumably leaked too – in retaliation. Does that make it right? Probably not. But it’s certainly worth noting.
Then of course, the media went after Hird, who, it seems, gave Dank far too much power and even encouraged him to take it to the limit, but not over. Yet, even Hird threw open his doors. He gave them everything he could, told them everything he knew, recounted discussions he’d had and said that he was shocked it had come to this.
He’s been compared to Lance Armstrong by some fans (yes, it’s not just the Essendon fans who have been acting like mindless lunatics throughout all of this). I bet Armstrong wasn’t so obliging with information when the authorities came knocking. No, Hird knew he had nothing to hide. He gave ASADA and the AFL everything they wanted. But he refused to go quietly.
Some journalists have said he never apologised for his governance failures. They said his emotional apology at the press conference following the Tribunal decision was the first time he’s said sorry. I’ve heard him apologise at least three times (probably more). Some journalists might have been away those weeks. Or maybe it didn’t fit into their story line. The Devil can’t be the Devil if he says sorry, can he?
While I did hear Hird say sorry, I haven’t heard an extensive ‘sorry’ from too many others. The President of the time? No. The CEO? No, he’s now working for another elite sporting organisation in Melbourne.
The Football Manager? No. Assistant coaches? No – one’s going to take over from Roosy in a year or two.
Stephen Dank? Hell no. Dean Robinson. Definitely not.
And what about the AFL, who smelt a rat, sent Essendon blood samples overseas for testing, but never actually intervened or spoke up? You’d have to be kidding.
No, no, it’s Hird that most sections of the media (and most opposition fans) were after.
The coach. The head coach. The man who has said sorry, copped a year ban (paid by Essendon with the AFL’s knowledge), had his team booted from the finals series, fined, sanctioned via the draft and had some sections of the media painting him out to be more evil than the Devil. That seemed to be the story they liked the most.
Hird was foolish. He wanted to go too close to the edge. He’s copped it in the neck – even after doing everything ASADA asked. He cooperated with the authorities and provided them with all the information he had. Then when he read everything he’d given to ASADA and the AFL in the papers in the following days and weeks, he fought back and claimed the investigation was illegal.
Personally, I don’t blame him.
Let’s be honest, it’s been a mess. Essendon’s ‘governance’ was sadly and badly lacking. But, so too was good journalism in some sections of the media throughout it. They are separate issues, but both worth noting. It was not the messenger we were shooting. It was the barracking on both sides that we didn’t enjoy.
It is one thing to have an opinion – as Rex Hunt says, an opinion is just an opinion, it’s neither right nor wrong, it’s just an opinion. Indeed this article is an opinion piece.
But to merge opinion within news stories is to create a dangerous union indeed. It can create a myth that people mistake as fact.
That is what has happened too often throughout this sorry saga. While it’s been a hell of a story, it’s hard to tell just which parts of it are true and which parts should be banished to a fiction book ‘based on a true story.’
Sam Duncan (PhD) is a Lecturer in Sports Media at Holmesglen
Mazza
Guest
FACT: Dank *could* operate with Hird's blessing, AS LONG AS the program was in accordance with Hird's conditions: 1. No illegal substances 2. No harm may be done to the players The some people come along and make some SWEEPING statement that Dank operated with Hird's blessing. That is like saying that the armed robbers fled the scene of their armed robbery in a car because they had drivers licenses and a registered car?? With that clarified, the rest of that comments falls apart like a house of cards in a strong wind, as timelines, considtions and criteria are all jumbled up like a Donald Trump rally speech... Hird supported a LEGAL (you do know what that is, right?) supplements program... Hird supported a HEALTHY supplements program... Both of those points were given to the involved people and managers in WRITING. Next question, hopefully one that does NOT ignore actual FACTS.
Mikey
Guest
JP - you said: "That one is not true at all. Hird on several occasions took issues to Dank’s employer, Paul Hamilton. In the end, it was Hird who insisted that Dank be removed, along with Mark Thompson and Doc Reid." JP - if that is true could you please enlighten me on why stated repeatedly that Hird believed no illegal substances were given to the players. If he wanted Dank removed then surely he couldn't feel so confident that nothing illegal was administered. This lies at the heart of the contradictions in the arguments supporting Hird's position. Surely if he had doubts about the person giving the injections then it really didn't make any sense that he spoke so confidently that nothing illegal could possibly be injected. But when I listen to Hird and his supporters it seems perfectly logical that 1) Hird wasn't involved or responsible for the programme 2) He wanted Dank and Robinson sacked 3) He knows that nothing illegal was administered. I simply don't understand how he all three can be true. If point 1 is true then points 2 and 3 surely can't be. If point 2 is true then it casts grave doubts on his claims in point 3. If point 3 is true then that suggests he was involved and had some responsibility. So please enlighten me JP on how all 3 can be true.
Sophie
Guest
So prophetic given how things have played out recently. A real lesson for journalism generally.
Mikey
Guest
This article says: "While I did hear Hird say sorry, I haven’t heard an extensive ‘sorry’ from too many others. The President of the time? No. The CEO? No, he’s now working for another elite sporting organisation in Melbourne. The Football Manager? No. Assistant coaches? No – one’s going to take over from Roosy in a year or two. Stephen Dank? Hell no. Dean Robinson. Definitely not. " Interesting that everyone person you mentioned has either been sacked or resigned. I did watch Hird's tearful "Sorry" that was at best vague and ambiguous. And since he claimed under oath that he didn't think he was responsible for what happened then what was he apologising for? Then needs to be meaning and substance in an apology for it to be accepted. . You mentioned the former club CEO as not having apologised but in his resignation speech he expressed strong and sincere regret for what had happened.Here is a quote from his speech: "We now know a lot happened at this club in 2012 that just should not have happened. We let down our players and their families. How seriously we let them down is still a matter under investigation, but I sit here today saying that our club let those people down, and there is no excuses in not knowing, and as CEO, I am accountable and I accept that accountability." He didn't mention the word "sorry" but that was clearly what he was saying and I think his words have a lot more impact and meaning than Hird's "Sorry -although I'm not responsible and nothing bad really happened anyway"
Mikey
Guest
This article says: "So, Essendon basically threw open their doors to see if ASADA was on the money with their claim. They didn’t hide a thing" That appears to be a very liberal definition of the word "hide". A more accurate way of writing that sentence would be "They didn't disclose a thing" Its all very well to throw open your doors but if there are no records then it makes the investigators job pretty difficult. And considering keeping records was a requirement under the WADA code then surely any objective assessment would find it highly suspicious that the records were nowhere to be found.. The lack of records doesn't automatically mean that illegal drugs were used, but conversely it also doesn't mean they weren't. We are in limbo on that one and anyone arguing that nothing dodgy happened is simply HOPING that is the case rather than KNOWING.
Mikey
Guest
Mister Football - you have got to be kidding. I just reread that interview and there is no question that Dank was talking about TB4. I mean we are talking about an interview with the Sports Scientist who ran this program who is being interviewed by a journalist asking probing questions. You make it sound like it was a simple communication breakdown and Dank didn't realise that Mckenzie was referring to TB4 specifically. If that was true then he would have corrected Mckenzie as soon as he told him TB4 was banned. He didn't do that - and then waited until the next day to say it was actually TA1 he was talking about. Even if Dank was simply confused, what does it say about his level of competence if a journo (who is not a Sports Scientist) can stump him on such a critical issue? And if he can't get his drug names right in an interview how confident can you feel about what he was injecting into the players? It was an astounding/admission/blooper whatever way you want to look at it.
Mikey
Guest
Mister Football - while Whately is far more measured than Caroline Wilson, I think they share similar views on most aspects of this saga - particularly in regards to Hird. He has called for Hird's resignation at several points during this saga and I have seen nothing to suggest he has changed his view.
Mike
Guest
Well put JP. The protaginists here continually & conveniently ignore the fact that ASADA suspected & claimed the evil deeds were done but could only establish: That no proof exists that TB4 had even been produced & shipped to Dank That no proof exists that TB4 was compounded for a substance that could be injected That no proof exists that Dank received compounded TB4 substance from the chemist That NO PROOF exists that the illegal substance was EVER at the EssendonFC premises Thus the allegations about injections are a moot point, as according to EVIDENCE (feared by trolls and accusers alike) there was NO TB4 related substances at EssendonFC or in the hands of anyone injecting EssendonFC players. Thus no TB4 related substances could be injected, as none were present. Naturally in the minds of trolls and the relentlessly accusing, Dank went to his own personal Vanishing Cabinet (loaned from Malfoy), opened it up and VOILA!, injectable TB4 in sufficient amounts was just waiting for him there...
mdso
Guest
The question everyone ought to be asking Ziggy is, why did you comment on something you are totally unqualified to answer. The second question is, why did David Evans employ you in the first place and not question the comments made.
mdso
Guest
JPAmparis: you are a breath of fresh air. At last, at last. So many people are misinformed, I believe the media have a lot to answer for - the AFL's mouth piece.
Mike
Guest
As you call into the forest Dougie, so it echos back....
Mike
Guest
CONDITIONAL on criteria specified by James Hird, Dank had his support for the program. At any moment that Dank diverged from those criteria specified by James Hird, then Dank did NOT have the support of James Hird. If Dank did diverge from the criteria then Dank did NOT have support from James Hird. Those four core criteria are easy to find as an email prior to the program staring from Hird to Dank & others. It includes the condition that all aspects of the program are legal and will not affect the health of the players. I guess you missed that or hammered your memory of it out of your skull with a very large reality distortion field spanner? I sometimes wonder if some of you logic Decepticons pay even the slightest notice of the details, or if you just blather off after your details and facts filters have removed anything that gets in the way of your ideologically damaged positions and preferred accusations? In other words: Read and pay attention to ALL aspects of a case or series of event, not only the ones you want to accept happened. In the meantime, did you enjoy watching EssendonFC beat the Mighty Hawks last week? Must have been s true pleasure for you all? All CarltonFC supporters are invited to comment on the Essendon-Carlton game here on Monday.
George
Guest
Ziggy actually said he was not qualified to comment on the supplements side of things, his one reference has been used by all without referring to what he said on the subject. http://twitdoc.com/upload/thegovernorsm/2015-03-16-bruce-francis-letter-to-susan-ley-mp.pdf
Mike
Guest
Pumpin Dougie ahoy! Looks like we have reached the limits of your eloquence and intellectual capabilities Dougie old chap. All expressed in one succinct comment, accurately reflecting your mentality and your view of the world... I would slow down if I were you Dougie, it really hurts when your face hits the impending bottom of the barrel at the speed your going there old chap... As always the helping hand, I stand ready at the barrel to pull you out, wipe your nose and donate a suitable book to you: " Adult Discourse for Aspiring Adults" You may find the contents shocking, but if you study hard enough you may just manage it in time for Summer...
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Must admit, I've only read the first sentence or two of your posts until now - you put too much effort into insults and 'bile'. LOL Blues Supporter - as if.
Mike
Guest
Ahhh Pumpin Dougie... Starting to reach now mate? Struggling with the reality of how the case collapsed and now you sink to childish & oafish attempts at belittlement? BTW: Do you have any proof (great concept that when making accusations: Proving it...) for your many accusations? Or are you just another windbag of malcontent seeking some cheap targets for your cheap shots? So now it is down to taking cheap shots at the article author? As for the "poor under-siege lot", I understand they have just come off a win over the mighty Hawks last week? Remember that? Or is your memory as weak as your floundering allegations? You can have opinions, but when you start to spray the bile around mate expect some choice responses... In your world, does under-siege mean "found not guilty"..? Could be, you do seem to have problems with the English language and the meaning of words and phrases... I understand that it will gall you and cause your very active bile to again rise often and violently, but James Hird is there to stay as EssendonFC coach, there is no proof that illegal substances were injected into anyone at EssendonFC. Again, if you have proof then present it, otherwise make like the mouse: Quit squeaking so loudly and often, and back in your hole. If you are a Blues supporter, let's chat again on Monday?? Have a nice weekend.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Sam, you must be loving all these Essendon supporters on here, rah-rahhing your article. Pretty funny really. The poor under-siege lot have been devoid of any media supporting their cause, except for Mark Robinson who is routinely joked about on radio nowadays by the football fraternity. So you've found a way of getting support for your media critique (which seems weird to me that you criticise journalists giving an opion by expressing your own opinion). Just be mindful of where they're coming from before you pat yourself on the back for this journalism - Essendon supporters on here love anyone attacking journalists who have reported unfavourably towards them.
davo
Guest
Fact! Truth is that you haven't stated one fact. Just rambling you believe to be fact. Seriously doubt you have read any of the affidavits or evidence presented to the Federal Court. Fact, you have regurgitated "facts" as represented by #failfax. Fact, players were not guilty because they hadn't taken anything illegal. Fact, you conveniently ignore Hirds e-mail to Dank that the prgram must be WADA ASADa compliant. Pretty sure you are pretty loose with "facts" Ken. You should put aside your bias and move on. You are and will always be wrong. http://twitdoc.com/upload/thegovernorsm/2015-03-16-bruce-francis-letter-to-susan-ley-mp.pdf
Curious
Guest
Is your view biased, Sam as a PR professional?
Lazza
Guest
Fact. All the records are missing. Dank claims he left them at the club but no one has been able to find them. So who's lying? The AFL couldn't find any evidence because all the records are MISSING. That was the reason for sanctioning the club for "Governance Issues" but that's the reason they won't be charged with doping?