Sport, Media, Drugs vs Media, Media Drugs

[Squawk]

Gossip Columnist Genevieve Meegan published the following on (wait for it!) - page 118 of the Sunday Mail today:

"Take a Guess

There is a well-known media man who may want to be a tad more discreet when it comes to his drug-taking habits. This guy excused himself from a social get-together recently to partake in a spot of illegal drug-taking in a nearby toilet. After joining the group again, the fella was very open about the nose candy action, saying, 'everybody does it' and commenting that his love of cocaine means he now doesn't feel the need to dink alcohol. "

Would the story have been approached differently if the person in question was an AFL player, Cricketer or Olympian? One paragraph or one page if it was a "well known" sports person? Page 1 or 3 or page 118 if it was a "well known" sports person?

Double Standards? I wonder.

[GWW]

I'm not sure that double page towards the end of the SM has much credibility anyway Who knows it could have been her story and she wanted it on her page and not towards the front of the paper.

Certainly got me thinking about who this media personality could be though (got my suspicions although obviously wont say it on here).

[Wedgie]

Journos/Media people get up to much worse than sports people, you just never seem to read about it for some reason.

[Magpiespower]

Reakon you'll find journos - in most cases - err on the side of caution with sports stars as well.

Last thing they want is to be frozen out by the clubs, players and so on...

[Pseudo]

Genevieve Who?

[stan]

Genevieve Who?

Boom Tish.....

[Dogwatcher]

Reakon you'll find journos - in most cases - err on the side of caution with sports stars as well.

Last thing they want is to be frozen out by the clubs, players and so on...

Let's remember how long it was before any stories about Cousins' alleged drug problem were printed. The more important the individual, the longer it stays out of the press.
They only printed the Cousins situ when it was patently obvious there was a problem.
Unlike Angwin, who the media was quick to hop on.

[Mic]

Gossip Columnist Genevieve Meegan published the following on (wait for it!) - page 118 of the Sunday Mail today:

"Take a Guess

There is a well-known media man who may want to be a tad more discreet when it comes to his drug-taking habits. This guy excused himself from a social get-together recently to partake in a spot of illegal drug-taking in a nearby toilet. After joining the group again, the fella was very open about the nose candy action, saying, 'everybody does it' and commenting that his love of cocaine means he now doesn't feel the need to dink alcohol. "

Would the story have been approached differently if the person in question was an AFL player, Cricketer or Olympian? One paragraph or one page if it was a "well known" sports person? Page 1 or 3 or page 118 if it was a "well known" sports person?

Double Standards? I wonder.

I would think most people have no interest in journalists and therefore wouldn't care.

[Magpiespower]

I would think most people have no interest in journalists and therefore wouldn't care.

Still doesn't stop the fourth estate from going in for the kill when they sniff blood.

Just ask Peter Meakin, Alan Jones, Jessica Rowe, Naomi Robson, John Alexander, Glenn Milne, Stephen Mayne and a host more in the past year alone.

The hatchet job News Ltd did on Eddie McGuire while he was bunkered at Willoughby was vicious...