SA Footy

Mind you, it was posted here too...

I think posting here is slightly different to the ABC.

And the post here was just what was reported

The whole Shield round has been abandoned

Brodlach wrote:I think posting here is slightly different to the ABC.

And the post here was just what was reported

How is it any different? If it is showing disregard to Tweet it, is it not to repost?
I'm not having a go at Booney, who I think reposted it, but he didn't think there was a problem reposting it and no-one here had a go at him for doing so.
If it was so irresponsible, I'd have thought someone here would've said something to him.

Dogwatcher wrote:I think there's a lot of hysteria about that Tweet.
They asked a question, they were given a response.
How is it any different to posting images of the incident? If anything, it was further highlighting the seriousness of the situation.
There was a lot of supposition etc going on from all who were Tweeting about this horrible situation.
If this was a car accident or a siege (just think of some of the stuff reported during the Clavell siege) and a media organisation reported that, there'd be no concerns.
Furthermore, how is having other media gloating about it and writing faux outrage pieces in response any better?

i agree that faux outrage is just as bad, but basically they weren't sure of his condition, nobody was. they kind of tweeted that but in the most inflammatory way possible.

kind of like tweeting "dogwatcher denies being a XXXX" even if it is not true or unconfirmed the assertion is there...

The way I read the situation:

The Grandstand reporter was there and would've had sources. He would have been told what had happened. So he knew, but needed someone to confirm it. He asked the NSWCA official. The official said "no we can't confirm it" *even though we know it's true*. It's not that they didn't know. It's that they didn't wish to confirm it (and I understand why).


Whatever people might think of the Tweet, right or wrong, my question still remains, how is it any different to showing those images over and over and over, Tweeting the pics to get readers? I don't see how they're any different.

The pics of him laying face down also were very poor Imo.

Yet, no backlash on that from anyone, anywhere, from what I've seen.

Dogwatcher wrote:

Brodlach wrote:I think posting here is slightly different to the ABC.

And the post here was just what was reported

How is it any different? If it is showing disregard to Tweet it, is it not to repost?
I'm not having a go at Booney, who I think reposted it, but he didn't think there was a problem reposting it and no-one here had a go at him for doing so.
If it was so irresponsible, I'd have thought someone here would've said something to him.

IMO Booney was reiterating what the ABC reported whereas the ABC may have embellished the story to create more drama and followers

I also agree that the footage and pictures do not need to be shown

Dogwatcher wrote:I think there's a lot of hysteria about that Tweet.
They asked a question, they were given a response.
How is it any different to posting images of the incident? If anything, it was further highlighting the seriousness of the situation.
There was a lot of supposition etc going on from all who were Tweeting about this horrible situation.
If this was a car accident or a siege (just think of some of the stuff reported during the Clavell siege) and a media organisation reported that, there'd be no concerns.
Furthermore, how is having other media gloating about it and writing faux outrage pieces in response any better?

Imagine if some of his family members saw that. Imagine if thats the first news they saw about him.

How would you feel if you saw a tweet from a national news agency that said they couldn't confirm if someone in your family was alive after an incident.

They couldn't confirm it because they didn't know either way. So why say anything that extreme in the first place. They could have just said his condition is unknown at this stage.

Imagine? They've already seen the photo which one of the newspapers posted, which said "the ball that got Phil Hughes".
They would have scooted past dozens of links to websites with photos, videos showing the incident and stories speculating on the injury and stories about cricket's worst injuries (did you know Shaun Tait broke AB Devilliers' hip?), including photos of Bernard Thomas with Ewen Chatfield after swallowing his tongue.
They would have seen all of that before they even saw that Tweet from Grandstand (which was gleefully reported on by other media, so imagine if the family had seen that...) - I was following it on Twitter yesterday and at the peak there were new posts regularly from a variety of sources, including Sportal, which suggested people "follow their coverage for Phil Hughes updates".

If family and friends at that point even had time, opportunity to read social media. I know when I was involved in a family accident, I didn't have time for that sort of thing.

I understand some people find that Tweet offensive. But I'm not sure why people are so willing to isolate that post as so offensive in comparison to everything else.

Not all family and friends would have known about Phil before that tweet was written.

From what was on Twitter yesterday, if they were on there, I'd be surprised if they weren't aware of what was going on.
And given the immediacy of today's communications, I'd be pretty certain anyone remotely connected with the family would have known pretty quickly what was going on.

Read my post again:

Dogwatcher wrote: They've already seen the photo which one of the newspapers posted, which said "the ball that got Phil Hughes".
They would have scooted past dozens of links to websites with photos, videos showing the incident and stories speculating on the injury and stories about cricket's worst injuries (did you know Shaun Tait broke AB Devilliers' hip?), including photos of Bernard Thomas with Ewen Chatfield after swallowing his tongue.
They would have seen all of that before they even saw that Tweet from Grandstand (which was gleefully reported on by other media, so imagine if the family had seen that...) - I was following it on Twitter yesterday and at the peak there were new posts regularly from a variety of sources, including Sportal, which suggested people "follow their coverage for Phil Hughes updates".

I reckon there's a lot of selective outrage from people on this one.

Not if they opened Twitter and that was the top post. You also assume they all follow the same people on Twitter as you. They might have ABC, but no other news one. Maybe they don't follow any sport ones.

I would've thought speculating that someone is dead, before knowing anything, would be considered bad media practice. Guess not.

bennymacca wrote:The pics of him laying face down also were very poor Imo.

Totally agree, plenty of images that we don't need to see, let alone his family and loved ones.

Front page of the advertiser terribly distressing to see and awful. Can't believe they used it.

HH3 wrote:Not if they opened Twitter and that was the top post. You also assume they all follow the same people on Twitter as you. They might have ABC, but no other news one. Maybe they don't follow any sport ones.

I would've thought speculating that someone is dead, before knowing anything, would be considered bad media practice. Guess not.

Twitter users are news followers, they would have more than one news service on their Feed and all of them were posting about the incident. Any family member of a Test/first class cricketer on Twitter would have plenty of cricket, sport organisations on their Twitter feed.

I agree that it's bad media practice, but to isolate this one Tweet and not condone any of the others is hypocritical for mine. There were many, many equally as distressing things on my Twitter feed yesterday.

Dogwatcher wrote:

HH3 wrote:Not if they opened Twitter and that was the top post. You also assume they all follow the same people on Twitter as you. They might have ABC, but no other news one. Maybe they don't follow any sport ones.

I would've thought speculating that someone is dead, before knowing anything, would be considered bad media practice. Guess not.

Twitter users are news followers, they would have more than one news service on their Feed and all of them were posting about the incident. Any family member of a Test/first class cricketer on Twitter would have plenty of cricket, sport organisations on their Twitter feed.

I agree that it's bad media practice, but to isolate this one Tweet and not condone any of the others is hypocritical for mine. There were many, many equally as distressing things on my Twitter feed yesterday.

Im not gonna argue with you. They were the only ones that insinuated he was dead. Stupid, irresponsible tweet. You even agreed it was bad media practice. So what point are you arguing now? That you know what tweeter feeds his family follows?

Like I said earlier, we tend to hold the abc to a higher standard than the tabloids. But all were bad.

10 years ago these pics/video wouldnt have been seen. Its purely the nature of the beast today with technology, everyone wants to know everything, straight away. The majority dont care if the info is filtered, they just want whatever info they can get, no matter the sources credability. Rightly or wrongly of course....