Joyless fun sponge writes some more words

[Worzel]

14 minutes ago, Ash Hope said:

The key tenet was about personal attacks.

Journalists do homework and research when they write articles : https://thirteenrugby.com/2021/02/18/my-struggles-with-anxiety-and-grief-took-me-to-the-brink-but-after-learning-the-importance-of-talking-it-wont-define-me-anymore-itsokaytotalk/

Disagree with an opinion, sure. Disagree with mine. But research a man before you make wild assumptions about his personal life or family, more for your own sensibility and image - if anything else.

 

I'm happy to concede that point. It was a flippant work of fiction, but if you think such a think is likely to be genuinely wounding to a man then I'm willing to accept it. 

Whilst we're both sitting in our glass house together having that cup of tea though, you with your trilby with a bit of paper sticking out the band, will you reciprocate those feelings given you responded in kind? Or do you believe in an eye-for-an-eye. After all, as a journalist you researched my own background and did a proper risk assessment before throwing your own stones, right?

I mean, we wouldn't want to be hypocritical here would we?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

As someone who buys the Guardian, I think their coverage is really good over the course of the year.
 

As a leaguie, the biggest story of the off season was Salford being  awarded a licence and then having to go begging for a handout, before being saved by a non leaguie run property business. the article was fair - my issue is that we get so little coverage (excepting the Guardian from that criticism) that we are right to be aggravated when our limited bandwidth stresses negatives. 
 

I would go easy on Bower - we would be very very much poorer without his coverage. Oh, and as for piling onto Ash, that level of bullying has become par for the course on thread after thread. 

This is where I disagree. 

The biggest story of the off season was a minor bump on the sporting landscape. We talked about it here because we are leagueies and love an argument. But there were no defaults, no clubs going bust - whilst there was plenty to discuss in the technical aspects of this, a club being in financial difficulties with modest debts and being bought out was a minor story really.

The big issue here is that people aren't interested in creating other stories - the clubs and the governing body deserves some criticism here, but so do the journalists and media organisations. As you point out, we don't get coverage that balances this stuff out, the tone in much of the media covering RL is negative. 

Bower has had three features on the Guardian site this month - two use the same format of leading with a positive before adding the 'but...' and morphing into a negative article.  

1. Challenge cup romance returns but has RFL's revamp backfired...

2. Bright lights of Vegas cannot dim the dark clouds over SL

His third article is a season preview and talks about the biggest opening night crowd in the comp's history, before going into a standard club-by-club preview.

On Bower himself, I find it disappointing - he is one of the RL journos who has some credibility, if you see his name or Shaw's I always think there is something in their content. I find it a shame that they have both tended to lean far too much into the negative space that is occupied by many journos repeating the same issues and little else.

Edited February 12 by Dave T

[Archie Gordon]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is where I disagree. 

The biggest story of the off season was a minor bump on the sporting landscape. We talked about it here because we are leagueies and love an argument. But there were no defaults, no clubs going bust - whilst there was plenty to discuss in the technical aspects of this, a club being in financial difficulties with modest debts and being bought out was a minor story really.

The big issue here is that people aren't interested in creating other stories - the clubs and the governing body deserves some criticism here, but so do the journalists and media organisations. As you point out, we don't get coverage that balances this stuff out, the tone in much of the media covering RL is negative. 

Bower has had three features on the Guardian site this month - two use the same format of leading with a positive before adding the 'but...' and morphing into a negative article.  

1. Challenge cup romance returns but has RFL's revamp backfired...

2. Bright lights of Vegas cannot dim the dark clouds over SL

His third article is a season preview and talks about the biggest opening night crowd in the comp's history, before going into a standard club-by-club preview.

On Bower himself, I find it disappointing - he is one of the RL journos who has some credibility, if you see his name or Shaw's I always think there is something in their content. I find it a shame that they have both tended to lean far too much into the negative space that is occupied by many journos repeating the same issues and little else.

Agree with this.

If Bower had turned those articles around - things to tweak but the romance of the Cup is back!; bumps in the road but SL returns with a swagger, with Vegas just around the corner! - that would seem to be a fairer balance. And I say that as someone who is a right misery.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Agree with this.

If Bower had turned those articles around - things to tweak but the romance of the Cup is back!; bumps in the road but SL returns with a swagger, with Vegas just around the corner! - that would seem to be a fairer balance. And I say that as someone who is a right misery.

I think this is it. Similar content, packaged differently.

But - as we know, they aren't here to be cheerleaders!

[Ash Hope]

35 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I'm happy to concede that point. It was a flippant work of fiction, but if you think such a think is likely to be genuinely wounding to a man then I'm willing to accept it. 

Whilst we're both sitting in our glass house together having that cup of tea though, you with your trilby with a bit of paper sticking out the band, will you reciprocate those feelings given you responded in kind? Or do you believe in an eye-for-an-eye. After all, as a journalist you researched my own background and did a proper risk assessment before throwing your own stones, right?

I mean, we wouldn't want to be hypocritical here would we?

Thanks for accepting that, as much.

Count my risk assessment as leaving out anything I didn't know about you and allowing you to (insert whatever you want, here). I couldn't possibly personally attack someone who is anonymous, never mind someone I could take my time to find out about. Which is why I'm now leaving this conversation, entirely. With no bad blood, not personally, because I don't you know from Aaron.

[Worzel]

25 minutes ago, Ash Hope said:

Thanks for accepting that, as much.

Count my risk assessment as leaving out anything I didn't know about you and allowing you to (insert whatever you want, here). I couldn't possibly personally attack someone who is anonymous, never mind someone I could take my time to find out about. Which is why I'm now leaving this conversation, entirely. With no bad blood, not personally, because I don't you know from Aaron.

Sorry, that isn't intellectually coherent. Either as a writer you have a concern for the feelings and reaction of your subject, who of course knows themself even if you don't know them, or you do not.

It is hypocritical to suggest I was negligently uncorncerned for the feelings of my subject, whilst giving yourself an amnesty from the same moral obligation. Of course you know this. The only possible explanation is that you don't really mean it, and were instead cynically weaponising the mental health of a third party to pursue an argument on the internet.  

This is the standard you put forward, not mine. You fail your own test sir. Good day. 

 

[Exiled Wiganer]

56 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is where I disagree. 

The biggest story of the off season was a minor bump on the sporting landscape. We talked about it here because we are leagueies and love an argument. But there were no defaults, no clubs going bust - whilst there was plenty to discuss in the technical aspects of this, a club being in financial difficulties with modest debts and being bought out was a minor story really.

The big issue here is that people aren't interested in creating other stories - the clubs and the governing body deserves some criticism here, but so do the journalists and media organisations. As you point out, we don't get coverage that balances this stuff out, the tone in much of the media covering RL is negative. 

Bower has had three features on the Guardian site this month - two use the same format of leading with a positive before adding the 'but...' and morphing into a negative article.  

1. Challenge cup romance returns but has RFL's revamp backfired...

2. Bright lights of Vegas cannot dim the dark clouds over SL

His third article is a season preview and talks about the biggest opening night crowd in the comp's history, before going into a standard club-by-club preview.

On Bower himself, I find it disappointing - he is one of the RL journos who has some credibility, if you see his name or Shaw's I always think there is something in their content. I find it a shame that they have both tended to lean far too much into the negative space that is occupied by many journos repeating the same issues and little else.

Maybe.
 

I follow our game very closely indeed, and consider by far the biggest story in the off season was Salford’s being awarded a licence and then immediately asking for a cash hand out. That thread has run to nearly 100 pages (and I would have added more of my own posts but for the tone of attacks on non conforming views that were all too frequent).

I would have preferred a different emphasis, but Bower stands up for our game over and over again, and so this singling him out seems harsh to me. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Sorry, that isn't intellectually coherent. Either as a writer you have a concern for the feelings and reaction of your subject, who of course knows themself even if you don't know them, or you do not.

It is hypocritical to suggest I was negligently uncorncerned for the feelings of my subject, whilst giving yourself an amnesty from the same moral obligation. Of course you know this. The only possible explanation is that you don't really mean it, and were instead cynically weaponising the mental health of a third party to pursue an argument on the internet.  

This is the standard you put forward, not mine. You fail your own test sir. Good day. 

 

Christ, you are such a bully. What is wrong with you?

[Worzel]

16 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Christ, you are such a bully. What is wrong with you?

I'm responding to an equally-weighted comment, in a dialogue. What's bullying about that? He's a grown man. I see you don't call him out equally... why's that?

No doubt you'd say I'm "bullying" you now, by simply responding to your accusation... good grief 

[Ash Hope]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Christ, you are such a bully. What is wrong with you?

I appreciate this and thank you - first, I came for professional loyalty, and then I came to cynicise someone's mental health issues. Save your energy for worthwhile exchanges. Peace and love.

[Worzel]

30 minutes ago, Ash Hope said:

I appreciate this and thank you - first, I came for professional loyalty, and then I came to cynicise someone's mental health issues. Save your energy for worthwhile exchanges. Peace and love.

I guess by our Exiled friend's standards, you expect to be able to bully people into silence? Well not this person. If you speak about me, I'm perfectly entitled to respond.

I accepted your point, but just asked the same of you. All you needed to say was, "fair enough, me too", but reciprocity was beyond you. 

[DoubleD]

This thread should probably be locked now. Whilst tongue in cheek, there is no need for personal insinuations on others. 

I agree with the notion that certain journalists have an unnecessarily negative spin on the game which does us no favours, certainly to the uneducated who may come across the articles and take them as read. It’s also a reason why mainstream media is dying, because people are fed up and switching off from the agenda being pushed.

However, it’s clear that in the sad state of society we live in, that crises drives clicks so if Mr Bower did not have the autonomy to write his thoughts freely, I would be interested in his thoughts if he was allowed creative freedom to express himself

[Exiled Wiganer]

Bower has published a new piece with his predictions for the year ahead. Freely available on the Guardian website. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/feb/11/super-league-2025-team-by-team-guide-new-season
 

Hope this works!!