Tweet
One of the topics getting a lot of air time this week (probably more than it deserves) is the spat between Patrick Dangerfield and Kane Cornes. I don't have a view about "the Danger Show" although I generally have a positive impression of PD as a player and person. However, I do also like Kane Cornes. I only know Cornes from seeing 'The Round So Far' videos on afl.com.au and wasn't watching footy enough back in the day to recall his career but I like the way he goes out on a limb and has an opinion, often quite boldly (as in this case) where he took a (cheap?) shot at a highly regarded player.
Today I listened, for the first time ever, to the 'Damo and Hutchy' podcast, or whatever it's called. I don't like either of them and the show was self-indulgent and self-important, as I often find Barrett to be too. However, I found it a fascinating insight into the media 'game'. Also, whether you like Damo or not (and I don't - did I mention that already?), he is quite influential, knowledgeable (about media, not so much football), breaks a number of stories etc. Anyway, they talked about the Cornes-Dangerfield thing. 'Hutchy' sat on the fence and backed them both (he has business relationships with both of them apparently). Barrett did too but was a bit more supportive of Cornes and, in particular, seemed to marvel at the way Cornes continues to speak his opinion, without ever "learning his lesson". I found that interesting. Perhaps those of you who know more about it than me can explain, is Cornes notoriously controversial? And has he been badly burned for it in the past?
Apart from that I feel like having a quick whinge about the way the Victorian media are quick to portray the Swans as getting the rub of the green from the AFL, despite the preponderance of instances it is the other way. So naturally they have delighted in suggesting that, in consecutive weeks, we have been the beneficiaries of dodgy umpiring decisions costing our (Victorian) opposition close games. Yet, I would have been very interested to see the coverage if both of those (non) decisions had gone the other way. Would they then be bleating, as they were already beginning to, about the outrageousness of our holding #1 draft pick?
Today I listened, for the first time ever, to the 'Damo and Hutchy' podcast, or whatever it's called. I don't like either of them and the show was self-indulgent and self-important, as I often find Barrett to be too. However, I found it a fascinating insight into the media 'game'. Also, whether you like Damo or not (and I don't - did I mention that already?), he is quite influential, knowledgeable (about media, not so much football), breaks a number of stories etc. Anyway, they talked about the Cornes-Dangerfield thing. 'Hutchy' sat on the fence and backed them both (he has business relationships with both of them apparently). Barrett did too but was a bit more supportive of Cornes and, in particular, seemed to marvel at the way Cornes continues to speak his opinion, without ever "learning his lesson". I found that interesting. Perhaps those of you who know more about it than me can explain, is Cornes notoriously controversial? And has he been badly burned for it in the past?
Apart from that I feel like having a quick whinge about the way the Victorian media are quick to portray the Swans as getting the rub of the green from the AFL, despite the preponderance of instances it is the other way. So naturally they have delighted in suggesting that, in consecutive weeks, we have been the beneficiaries of dodgy umpiring decisions costing our (Victorian) opposition close games. Yet, I would have been very interested to see the coverage if both of those (non) decisions had gone the other way. Would they then be bleating, as they were already beginning to, about the outrageousness of our holding #1 draft pick?
Comment