Hawthorn racism review

[Blood Fever]

Yes, allegations are only allegations until proven as true facts.

However, First Nations (and all minorities) experience allegations all the time without any right of reply, every time they are treated with suspicion by neighbours or police when going about their every day business, when detained without charges etc. The privileged get a right of reply, the downtrodden don't. Clark and Fagan will hire very expensive legal representatives to defend their reputation and refute the claims. The First Nations players don't have the resources or the voice, except through the 'fortune' of the review being initiated and then the ABC interviewing the families/players involved.

Have a listen to this interview all the way to the end with AIME's Deputy CEO, Ben Abbatangelo

AFL Rocked By Review Into Racism Towards Hawthorn First Nations Players - Network Ten

Not disputing the plight of the indigenous and the racism that exists in this country. Doesn't mean you should even up by abandoning the principle of natural justice.

[Matty10]

It is simply way too early in the reporting of this story to be definitive about anything. To be making judgements at this stage probably says more about the individual bias that a person holds than anything else.

I know this investigation is being framed in terms of race, as the initial probe was charged with exploring the treatment of Indigenous Australians within the Hawthorn Football Club, but I think it would be wiser to expand the criteria and look at the treatment of all young recruits at the club (or any AFL club). The power imbalance that exists between player and club, particularly for those who are vulnerable in some way, could see this sort of thing happen to anyone.

It might end up looking like the RCIADIC where the statistical anomalies are multifaceted instances of institutional racism and its legacies that leads to an outcome rather than racism being the cause of the outcome itself.

At this stage, it is a wait and see approach from me.

[Roadrunner]

This discussion has descended into farce. The idea that the ABC should sit on a report like this, having become aware of it, is patently ridiculous. They offered Fagan and Clarkson ample opportunity to comment, and they declined. At the very least they could have denied the allegations and indicated they would be making fuller statements at a later date. To call this "gutter journalism" and raise the spectre of Pell is beyond nonsensical.

You’re entitled to your opinion Bloods05- I beg to differ. Giving Clarko And Fagan 24 or so hours to respond is a joke and should be called out. And the ABC has form in this regard- some of their journos are anything bar that!

[Ludwig]

Just from the manner in which the AFL have taken the allegations, and their follow-up, one would have to think that there must be substance to the allegations. I know that Clarkson and Fagan have denied these allegations, but they did, and still do, have the opportunity to deny specifically that some of the allegations were not true, and they did not do anything to separate the players from their families, as alleged. I'm just waiting for them to come out and deny that these things that are alleged actually are fictitious.

The allegations are serious. Clarkson and Fagan deserve an opportunity to make a detailed response. I'm sure every media channel would give them all the time they want. Let's wait and see what happens.

[Roadrunner]

It's not sensationalist, gutter journalism, if all the claims are made by the interview subjects, rather than the journalist. Also, your claim that there's something wrong with the story because all involved weren't interviewed, is somewhat invalidated by the fact that those who the allegations were made against, were given the opportunity to respond. And apparently, the 24 hour time period is generous in modern journalism. It's also a nonsense, to suggest that obviously newsworthy stories should be canned, because the possibly guilty parties don't want to get involved. If journalists adopted that general rule, then it would essentially kill the already difficult and legally fraught profession of investigative journalism.

Unfortunately the ABC sometimes don’t do investigative journalism. Clarko has come out and denied the allegations. Does he need to respond to the ABC’s 24 hour timeframe? Sorry, but he’s not responsible to the ABC.

[Roadrunner]

And I suspect that in these litigious times, the ABC legal department would have gone over an obviously controversial story, prior to publishing, in order to make sure that the claims being made were defensible.

They have not done this on several occasions and all on taxpayers’ money.

[Bloods05]

Unfortunately the ABC sometimes don’t do investigative journalism. Clarko has come out and denied the allegations. Does he need to respond to the ABC’s 24 hour timeframe? Sorry, but he’s not responsible to the ABC.

This is a pretty standard timeframe, and in any case it was extended to 30. Of course he doesn't have to respond, but if he doesn't, he can't complain about the report being one-sided.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Hawthorn racism review

Let me give you some insights on how the process of a story like this works, not to say it’s right or wrong, just having seen it up close from working 30 years in media and communications.

One - getting the story. It’s not clear here whether the players and their partners approached him here as insurance if they felt the review would lead to nothing or he had knowledge of the review. (I can’t recall whether Hawthorn announced they were doing it so whether it was obvious or he got a whiff of it, I’m not clear). The journalist still has to establish trust with his sources. In this case, I suspect this was critical in saying to Indigenous people he could be trusted to treat them fairly. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-...-hear/12553554

Two - validating what he’s told. The first thing a journo does is look for inconsistencies. I’m sure with a story like this he would have interviewed each person more than once, and if their story varies in the telling, it’s a red flag. The other thing is what he can confirm. Reading this, emails, potentially phone records, proof of change of residence in accordance with the story, medical records, the contact with police at one point and a few other elements can all serve to verify what he’s been told verbally. That’d give him sufficient comfort in the legitimacy of what he’s been told, including bits harder to verify.

Three - legals. That partly relates to above. There would need to be sufficient evidence to give the story sufficient substance and solidity as a baseline for it to get to first base. I’ve heard of stories whether something like this bounces through a legal department for weeks.

Fourth - right of reply. The one part a journo can’t absolutely validate is a conversation. He needs all the elements above to stack up, to then go test the conversational element of this story. A 24 hour notice for response is fairly standard. I’ve seen as little as three or four hours given. Journos won’t give a lot more for fear of being spoiled by the accused. And from what he’s said, he left a messages with Fagan (and I assume Clarko) to say I’ll give you more time if I know you’ll commit to a response.

As I said, I don’t know what happened here, but there you go.

[Mel_C]

Watching AFL360 tonight, two big points got raised.

Eddie Betts made the point it was no surprise. He told the story of being at a pool this year (yes, this year) and being asked to leave because two older, whiter people complained about his presence. Devastating, but it was a lead to the issue of racism being so prevalent it was ingrained in ways large and small and other clubs are unlikely to be immune and should consider their own version of the Hawks’ report. It’s hard to argue against.

Wow, I heard about the pool incident this morning but I didn't realise it occurred this year. Regardless, that makes me really really sad.

[barry]

Buddy was at hawks during this period and left. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew something or something happened to him

[Maltopia]

The Hawthorn external report interviewed 21 former players and families. Gil has indicated that the case studies of players in addition to the three we know about, have similar themes/issues.

That is, there are more than three players who were isolated from families and had SIM cards changed etc.

More to ‘come out’ from Hawthorn scandal

[i'm-uninformed2]

Sydney flagging some sort of review of its own. Micky O involved in the board subcommittee to consider the way to do it.

Good on the club for being proactive.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

[MattW]

Sydney flagging some sort of review of its own. Micky O involved in the board subcommittee to consider the way to do it.

Good on the club for being proactive.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

So good. Really pleased with this. And to be expected from Pridham and Harley.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

So good. Really pleased with this. And to be expected from Pridham and Harley.

I am too, keeping a condition hidden and untreated is never a valid treatment. I'm glad the club is going to get themselves checked out. I hope there is no issue, and trust that if there is, we will take appropriate remedial steps.

I wonder what Elijah Taylor will have to say?

[KTigers]

I'll give you one reason why the Hawthorn players mightn't have wanted their names bandied about. Adam Goodes.