65 replies to this topic

[gingerjon]

This is getting confusing.

Who should I be angry at now?

[brooza]

This is getting confusing.

Who should I be angry at now?

The RFL.

[a j cougar]

I wouldn't for one second claim I knew a quarter as much about RL as Dave and it's daft to suggest he doesn't love the game. BUT we all get frustrated with the game sometimes and so does he. He has definitely come across as such lately IMO.

He has an opinion.

Should he suppress it because it doesn't fit in with your's and others?

[JohnM]

1. There WAS a GF Match Report in the Indy on Sunday. I know because I read it.
2. It is also on line, see here
3. We should expect Dave Hadfield and indeed any other journalist (for he is that, not just a reporter) to write as they see, not to act as some sort of cheer leader for Red Hall.
4. Journos often claim to hold up a mirror to society, sport etc. There may be some truth in this - Andy Wilson, Dave Hadfield etc may just be holding up a mirror to this forum so we can see what we look like.

[Johnoco]

He has an opinion.

Should he suppress it because it doesn't fit in with your's and others?

And where did I say he should? I said he seems to be on a bit of a downer about RL and using the rare occurrence of an article in his paper for a game in crisis style piece is not best use of resources imo.

Edited by Johnoco, 08 October 2012 - 04:41 PM.

[Saintslass]

Given your recent diatribes are you really in a position to comment on negatvity.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

1. There WAS a GF Match Report in the Indy on Sunday. I know because I read it.
2. It is also on line, see here
3. We should expect Dave Hadfield and indeed any other journalist (for he is that, not just a reporter) to write as they see, not to act as some sort of cheer leader for Red Hall.
4. Journos often claim to hold up a mirror to society, sport etc. There may be some truth in this - Andy Wilson, Dave Hadfield etc may just be holding up a mirror to this forum so we can see what we look like.

clearly not in all editions John, and it's hardly Hadfield's fault. His report in today's Indy was very good.

[Dave T]

I'm sure Dave Hadfield is big enough and ugly enough to take some criticism of his public articles, I'm not sure why others would be unhappy or get offended on his behalf.

Articles like this do not show off any his flair:
http://www.independe...is-8135589.html
It is a cheap article listing a load of things that are wrong in the game, which could easily be a post on here.

The problem that we have is that if even RL journalists are writing negative stuff about how the game is struggling, then why would editors give space in their national newspapers to this dying sport? I'd expect the journalists do write many more pieces that are more positive and never see the light of day, but ultimately they can only be judged on what is published. When you listen to these journalists on podcasts and RL programs though I do wonder whether some of them are capable of writing positive features that are not previews or reviews.

People are obviously free to write whatever they want, but as a journalist surely you would expect to have your views challenged?

Finally, to anybody who suggests that he is writing what his paymasters want, well then personally I think that leaves him open to criticism. I would never put my name to a piece of work that I did not believe in and I suspect the RL journos are the same, so I will take them as their views rather than making excuses for articles. If they do decide to write things they don't believe because they were told to, then they have no credibility (I'm not suggesting this happens at all, others are).

FWIW - I don't think DH is anywhere near the worst, and I have read a couple of his books and enjoyed them. He seems a nice bloke and clearly loves the game, but that doesn't mean he is immune from criticism.

[Terry Mullaney]

I'm sure Dave Hadfield is big enough and ugly enough to take some criticism of his public articles, I'm not sure why others would be unhappy or get offended on his behalf.

Articles like this do not show off any his flair:
http://www.independe...is-8135589.html
It is a cheap article listing a load of things that are wrong in the game, which could easily be a post on here.

The problem that we have is that if even RL journalists are writing negative stuff about how the game is struggling, then why would editors give space in their national newspapers to this dying sport? I'd expect the journalists do write many more pieces that are more positive and never see the light of day, but ultimately they can only be judged on what is published. When you listen to these journalists on podcasts and RL programs though I do wonder whether some of them are capable of writing positive features that are not previews or reviews.

People are obviously free to write whatever they want, but as a journalist surely you would expect to have your views challenged?

Finally, to anybody who suggests that he is writing what his paymasters want, well then personally I think that leaves him open to criticism. I would never put my name to a piece of work that I did not believe in and I suspect the RL journos are the same, so I will take them as their views rather than making excuses for articles. If they do decide to write things they don't believe because they were told to, then they have no credibility (I'm not suggesting this happens at all, others are).

FWIW - I don't think DH is anywhere near the worst, and I have read a couple of his books and enjoyed them. He seems a nice bloke and clearly loves the game, but that doesn't mean he is immune from criticism.

I've read the article and to be honest I can't see anything that isn't accurate or factual. Dave has written many more positive articles than negative ones and he lives and breathes the game. What's wrong in telling it like it is now and again?

[Rob]

I've read the article and to be honest I can't see anything that isn't accurate or factual. Dave has written many more positive articles than negative ones and he lives and breathes the game. What's wrong in telling it like it is now and again?

Try reading the second sentence. It isn't accurate or factual. Its one of the main points on which his argument is built. The article falls apart before it even gets started.

[Dave T]

I've read the article and to be honest I can't see anything that isn't accurate or factual. Dave has written many more positive articles than negative ones and he lives and breathes the game. What's wrong in telling it like it is now and again?

I didn't claim it was inaccurate.

[Terry Mullaney]

I didn't claim it was inaccurate.

I didn't say you did Dave. I'm just saying the truth is the truth whether it goes down well or not and I'd rather read that than some of the spin that occasionally comes from the game's corridors of power.

[Rob]

I'm sure Dave Hadfield is big enough and ugly enough to take some criticism of his public articles, I'm not sure why others would be unhappy or get offended on his behalf.

Articles like this do not show off any his flair:
http://www.independe...is-8135589.html
It is a cheap article listing a load of things that are wrong in the game, which could easily be a post on here.

The problem that we have is that if even RL journalists are writing negative stuff about how the game is struggling, then why would editors give space in their national newspapers to this dying sport? I'd expect the journalists do write many more pieces that are more positive and never see the light of day, but ultimately they can only be judged on what is published. When you listen to these journalists on podcasts and RL programs though I do wonder whether some of them are capable of writing positive features that are not previews or reviews.

People are obviously free to write whatever they want, but as a journalist surely you would expect to have your views challenged?

Finally, to anybody who suggests that he is writing what his paymasters want, well then personally I think that leaves him open to criticism. I would never put my name to a piece of work that I did not believe in and I suspect the RL journos are the same, so I will take them as their views rather than making excuses for articles. If they do decide to write things they don't believe because they were told to, then they have no credibility (I'm not suggesting this happens at all, others are).

FWIW - I don't think DH is anywhere near the worst, and I have read a couple of his books and enjoyed them. He seems a nice bloke and clearly loves the game, but that doesn't mean he is immune from criticism.

Exactly my feelings too.

I commented on the original article. What angered me, other the convenient omission of the salient facts, was a number of things:

1) The strapline of the article is factually incorrect - not simply a difference of opinion - but clearly not true! He presented his speculation with regards to the London Broncos as fact, which has subsequently turned out to be incorrect. This was one of the main points on which his article is built.

2) Paragraph 2 presents 'lingering doubts' about the viability of RL in its present form. You could pull a quote like this out of the media for every year of the game's existance. He doesn't quote anyone, lets assume the 'lingering doubts' are actually his own.

3) Paragraph 3 is a critisism of the Bradford club - 'Had it been another club in the same position' was the phrase he used. Dave: IT WASN'T which negates your point entirely.

And you could go on with the rest of the article.

Some of it is simply his opinion, which whilst not neccessarily agreeing with, I can accept.

But it sounded like it was written by someone who doesn't know any better. Dave clearly does, and I would have expected better from him.

I'm very appreciative of the right of reply both on the original article and on here so that it cannot go unchallenged.

I cannot understand why people are sensitive about critisism of his opinions. He's aired his views - and we're airing ours.

[Dave T]

I didn't say you did Dave. I'm just saying the truth is the truth whether it goes down well or not and I'd rather read that than some of the spin that occasionally comes from the game's corridors of power.

My point was that it was hardly powerful insightful stuff. It was a basic moan like you would expect to see on here. DH is better than that. His article was pretty much a list of things that have gone wrong this year.

[Johnoco]

Had it been a 'I love RL and the RFL are doing a good job' I'm pretty certain the people praising him for being honest would be accusing him of spin.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

My point was that it was hardly powerful insightful stuff. It was a basic moan like you would expect to see on here. DH is better than that. His article was pretty much a list of things that have gone wrong this year.

exactly

look at any sport and you will be able to put together a list far longer and much more malignant than Hadfield's.

I mean is everything even supposed to be completely hunky dory in any asoect of sport, or even real life? Of course not.

But this is Rugby League.
It's hip tyo be self serving, rto want their own particular small corner to be taken care of, otherwisew it's 'not fair', it's 'a joke'and all the other garbage, which personally I've had my life time supply of.
Stuff like this plays into the hands of the miserableists, the 'victims' and the parochial.
An article like this wouldn't matter that much anywhere else but this is the land of the whinger, the moaner, the victim the can't see beyond the bottom of station lane.

[Saintslass]

His article was pretty much a list of things that have gone wrong this year.

That's the problem, for me anyway. Why didn't he list what has gone right this year? A celebration at the end of the season rather than yet another moan about the state of the game? Who on earth would want to watch our game with so many pundits pulling it down, using the tiny amount of print space we actually get in which to do so? It's discouraging; it really is.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

That's the problem, for me anyway. Why didn't he list what has gone right this year? A celebration at the end of the season rather than yet another moan about the state of the game? Who on earth would want to watch our game with so many pundits pulling it down, using the tiny amount of print space we actually get in which to do so? It's discouraging; it really is.

because it wouldn't reinforce peoples' pathetic agendas

[Dave T]

When you compare some of the old school journalists articles to the likes of George Riley on the BBC and the articles on Sky Sports website then you see how depressing some of them are.

Im not sure if its because Sky and BBC cover our game but they both seem capable of highlighting challenges without going into doom and gloom mode.

[Jarv]

Maybe slightly off topic but I gave up worrying about the coverage years ago. Far more important is that someone like Wayne Rooney tweets the positives of our game to 5 million people than an article in the back of a paper which most people dont buy