If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
There have been plenty of precedence since the buddy deal of free agents quoting early, so we should have no trouble getting out of it should he be cut short.
The challenge Mike has, is that if he goes too hard at his guests, the list of willing candidates will dwindle quickly.
That, in a nutshell, is precisely what is wrong with the football media (and I might add, a great deal of the political media as well, but that's another story). Mike Sheahan is a career journalist. That carries a responsibility to ask probing questions in the search for truth. If he is not prepared to do that, if the program is premised on him taking a soft line with his guests, then it is not worth a cracker and should be taken off air. At the very least, it should not pretend to be anything other than a matey chat show, and Sheahan, who can be a very good journalist, should stop pretending to be one.
There have been plenty of precedence since the buddy deal of free agents quoting early, so we should have no trouble getting out of it should he be cut short.
- - - Updated - - -
^quiting^
In purely legal terms, you are probably right. But that doesn't factor in the League's propensity for vindictiveness. The Swans would be reluctant to test it in court for fear of retribution. I firmly believe this - at a time when we looked like picking up Heeney and Mills - is why the Swans let the trade ban slide when they probably did have legal options.
Of course he wasn't pressed on COLA issue. Cosy Melbourne AFL journos buddy club. Fear of offending a very vindictive outfit as well.
What people don't know is that Sheahan was the go to man for the AFL when they wanted to selectively leak news. He always seemed to get the AFL scoops first so of course he would be soft on the hand that fed him. He is not going to jeopardise his standing with the AFL.
And to be fair to Open Mike, it doesn?t hold itself out to be anything other than a cosy chat. It is somewhat bland (as an earlier poster described it) but I don?t think Sheahan has any illusions that it is hard hitting journalism.
That, in a nutshell, is precisely what is wrong with the football media (and I might add, a great deal of the political media as well, but that's another story). Mike Sheahan is a career journalist. That carries a responsibility to ask probing questions in the search for truth. If he is not prepared to do that, if the program is premised on him taking a soft line with his guests, then it is not worth a cracker and should be taken off air. At the very least, it should not pretend to be anything other than a matey chat show, and Sheahan, who can be a very good journalist, should stop pretending to be one.
Spot on B05. He has been a good journo but like Caroline, ultimately he is matey with the big boys.
In purely legal terms, you are probably right. But that doesn't factor in the League's propensity for vindictiveness. The Swans would be reluctant to test it in court for fear of retribution. I firmly believe this - at a time when we looked like picking up Heeney and Mills - is why the Swans let the trade ban slide when they probably did have legal options.
Spot on again B05. Very vindictive outfit if you go against it. Cola and trade ban says it all. That's why basically not a dicky bird about Gil and Clarko meeting. You would go in the AFL's little black book for payback.
- - - Updated - - -
Originally posted by Hotpotato
And who?s actually had more balls to stay true to their own convictions ?
Abbott had no balls as prime minister. Only grown them after losing job. Worst prime minister ever, including Billy Mcmahon.
Comment