This week the areas of my past and present university life have intersected. It has been proposed that the Melbourne Football Club be put on the National Trust Heritage register.
This is an interesting thing, because intangible heritage is still a new and contested area among heritage studies and practice, so much so that Australia is yet to become states party to UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the National Trust are having a conference next week to discuss the issues surrounding intangible heritage.
I wont bore you with the details here. The intricacies of the world of national and international heritage legislation are interesting to only a very few. Find me in a pub after about 3 wines if you want to hear the full story.
Were the Melbourne Football Club to be listed, which incidentally I think there is a lot of merit in doing, it would not afford the club and protection whatsoever. And this is where the media always get it wrong. They don’t understand heritage and report everything to do with it badly - when they report it at all.
‘Club spokesman Leigh Newton rejected suggestions the push for heritage listing was a strategic move to stave off extinction or stymie attempts to forcibly relocate Victorian clubs interstate.’
No kidding. The reason it is not a strategic move, is because there is absolutely no strategic advantage to doing so. National Trust heritage listing is a plaque, a little recognition, advice on advocacy from the National Trust if it is threatened, and if the planets align correctly, a marginally more favourable attitude from Heritage Victoria – thought at present they have no capacity to recognise intangible heritage at all.
I think there is value in listing the football club, in recognition of its development of the game and as a founding club. But no one should be deluded into thinking such a listing could have any impact on the chances of the club's survival.
Update: Jake Niall gets its almost half right:
'Similarly, it would be wonderful to maintain the presence of the game's oldest club. But Stynes can't ensure the survival of the Melbourne Football Club via a heritage listing. It will live or die on the basis of its present-day relevance.'
Its still a really annoying article though.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The MFC, nightclubs and other things I dont know anything about
Radio silence over. Apologies for the slackness people, I discovered Friday Night Lights and a month of my life disappeared.
The last month has been an interesting one in the world of football. My football team has celebrated its 150 years of being in style (I gather - the tickets were so hugely expensive I didn’t go and I don’t know anyone who did). And the team now oscillates between half-arsed, bullshit, membership tearing losses, and impressive, really quite near to good, gallant losses. Its heady days! One day, sometime, we might actually get a W. But looking at the fixture and our “forward line”* I don’t think its going to be this year.
By the end of toady we will also have a new board. It all looks good to me, everyone seems pretty qualified and like all Melbourne supporters I think Jim Stynes is a dead-set champion who can do no wrong. I would, however, like to note the lack of women on his ticket. At the end of this rigmarole we will have only one woman on the board. This is not pleasing.
The topic of footballers and nightclubs has arisen a couple of times in the last month, and what I have to say is this:
I don’t actually know anyone who has been thrown out of a nightclub, and given the behaviour of some people still inside, I’m inclined to believe that it probably pretty difficult to get thrown out.
Can these footballers not keep their head down, have a beverage with their mates, take a few happy snaps on their mobile phones and bugger off home like the rest of us? Apparently they can't because they are harassed by people wanting autographs and blokes wanting to test their manhood by picking a fight. I believe them, and that doesn’t sound like very much fun to me. So my question is, why are footballers still going to nightclubs?
These guys are on enormous paychecks, they all have shiny houses they live in with their footballing mates, so I’ve got an idea, a quick post game trip to Dan's and they can enjoy themselves in the comfort of their own home free from harassment, bouncers and Herald Sun photographers. The only front window they will take a piss on is their own. Problem solved. Next…
Having said that, Buddy didn’t really do anything terrible, and it seems Richo didn’t do anything at all, so I think we should all just take a chill pill.
Round 12 here we come.
On reflection, its possible I might have read a little too much wwtdd today, so things are more acerbic than usual. I’ll aim for something more cerebral for the next installment.
*These quotation marks are on purpose. Something else entirely is going on with these.
The last month has been an interesting one in the world of football. My football team has celebrated its 150 years of being in style (I gather - the tickets were so hugely expensive I didn’t go and I don’t know anyone who did). And the team now oscillates between half-arsed, bullshit, membership tearing losses, and impressive, really quite near to good, gallant losses. Its heady days! One day, sometime, we might actually get a W. But looking at the fixture and our “forward line”* I don’t think its going to be this year.
By the end of toady we will also have a new board. It all looks good to me, everyone seems pretty qualified and like all Melbourne supporters I think Jim Stynes is a dead-set champion who can do no wrong. I would, however, like to note the lack of women on his ticket. At the end of this rigmarole we will have only one woman on the board. This is not pleasing.
The topic of footballers and nightclubs has arisen a couple of times in the last month, and what I have to say is this:
I don’t actually know anyone who has been thrown out of a nightclub, and given the behaviour of some people still inside, I’m inclined to believe that it probably pretty difficult to get thrown out.
Can these footballers not keep their head down, have a beverage with their mates, take a few happy snaps on their mobile phones and bugger off home like the rest of us? Apparently they can't because they are harassed by people wanting autographs and blokes wanting to test their manhood by picking a fight. I believe them, and that doesn’t sound like very much fun to me. So my question is, why are footballers still going to nightclubs?
These guys are on enormous paychecks, they all have shiny houses they live in with their footballing mates, so I’ve got an idea, a quick post game trip to Dan's and they can enjoy themselves in the comfort of their own home free from harassment, bouncers and Herald Sun photographers. The only front window they will take a piss on is their own. Problem solved. Next…
Having said that, Buddy didn’t really do anything terrible, and it seems Richo didn’t do anything at all, so I think we should all just take a chill pill.
Round 12 here we come.
On reflection, its possible I might have read a little too much wwtdd today, so things are more acerbic than usual. I’ll aim for something more cerebral for the next installment.
*These quotation marks are on purpose. Something else entirely is going on with these.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
City of Casey?
This all sounds great to me. I really really want my football club to have a single place for training and administration. There's just one problem. I'm a snob. And a large number of Melbourne's members are snob.
Are they going to want to go here for family day?
Are they going to want to go here for family day?
Monday, May 05, 2008
After the Second Siren
Yesterday afternoon my football team won. It was awesome.
What was also really good was that the crowd were allowed out onto the ground after the game. And I’m pretty sure all 19,000 of us took up the opportunity.
It was lovely -mildly dangerous- but lovely. Amidst the wayward species, the flailing arms and the shanked kicks, there was a real sense of community. People marked each others balls, there were smiles everywhere (even the faces of Freo supporters - which I thought was especially magnanimous) and everyone relished the opportunity to stand in the middle of the G and look up.
The community spirit and sense of fun on display that evening under the lights of the G was worth every patch of damaged turf, and I sincerely hope the MCC and AFL consider allowing it more often –again.
Actually, when I say the crowd got to stand in the middle of the G, that’s not strictly correct, they fence off the centre square to protect it from wear and tear so only two people got to stand right in the middle of the ground. Me and little boy called George.
I was enjoying a bit of kick to kick with my companions when a little boy near to me got clocked in the head with a football. Tears welled in his eyes and those in the vicinity all rushed over to see if he was alright. It transpired that poor little George had not only copped a footy to the side of the head, he was also lost and after many minutes of trying to work out where his dad might be, I went to security. They then got George and me to stand right in the middle of the ground so that George’s dad might see him.
Standing there with George, trying to pick a face I had never seen out of the crowd I was overcome with that same gut wrenching feeling I has as a kid, that George was having right at the moment, of being lost and totally helpless. The feeling passed in a moment, but I was surprised it had come at all. I was the grown up, confident and consoling, but it seems that feeling is never too far from the surface no matter your age.
Don’t worry, this is a happy story. I have never seen a little boy run so fast as George when his dad did finally emerge out of the crowd and I’m pretty sure the bump on the head was long forgotten! I'll wager, if you could ask him, George would still be keen to run onto the ground for a kick after next week's game too.
What was also really good was that the crowd were allowed out onto the ground after the game. And I’m pretty sure all 19,000 of us took up the opportunity.
It was lovely -mildly dangerous- but lovely. Amidst the wayward species, the flailing arms and the shanked kicks, there was a real sense of community. People marked each others balls, there were smiles everywhere (even the faces of Freo supporters - which I thought was especially magnanimous) and everyone relished the opportunity to stand in the middle of the G and look up.
The community spirit and sense of fun on display that evening under the lights of the G was worth every patch of damaged turf, and I sincerely hope the MCC and AFL consider allowing it more often –again.
Actually, when I say the crowd got to stand in the middle of the G, that’s not strictly correct, they fence off the centre square to protect it from wear and tear so only two people got to stand right in the middle of the ground. Me and little boy called George.
I was enjoying a bit of kick to kick with my companions when a little boy near to me got clocked in the head with a football. Tears welled in his eyes and those in the vicinity all rushed over to see if he was alright. It transpired that poor little George had not only copped a footy to the side of the head, he was also lost and after many minutes of trying to work out where his dad might be, I went to security. They then got George and me to stand right in the middle of the ground so that George’s dad might see him.
Standing there with George, trying to pick a face I had never seen out of the crowd I was overcome with that same gut wrenching feeling I has as a kid, that George was having right at the moment, of being lost and totally helpless. The feeling passed in a moment, but I was surprised it had come at all. I was the grown up, confident and consoling, but it seems that feeling is never too far from the surface no matter your age.
Don’t worry, this is a happy story. I have never seen a little boy run so fast as George when his dad did finally emerge out of the crowd and I’m pretty sure the bump on the head was long forgotten! I'll wager, if you could ask him, George would still be keen to run onto the ground for a kick after next week's game too.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Insufficient
Just so Channel 9 know, An offical rebuke is not an adequate response.
And where is the AFL exactly?
And where is the AFL exactly?
Shrieking, Hysterical and Desperate
It seems Sam Newman might have trouble escaping his own ignorance this time.
The highlight for me was his comments on radio:
I don’t think I have the energy to go line by line through the wrongness of these comments. I think you get the point. There is a recording on The Age if you feel the need.
He and Garry Lyon made things worse on The Footy Show last night, first with Lyon trying to dismiss the letter written to the station by prominent football women by arguing that Caroline Wilson accepted the apology so everyone else should let it rest. And then by letting Newman argue his case – badly.
Let me make this clear, Caroline Wilson was not the only person offended by Newman’s comments and actions.
Newman said something very revealing on live television last night, something that those who do care about the role of women in the game should take notice of,
That’s it right there people.
That is the attitude of Newman, and one can only assume the large portion of the overexcited sycophantic Footy Show audience who cheered him on. For many, women are not an equal, they are not even relevant.
Newman comes from the school of thought that if you never played, you’ll never know and you can never be a part of the game. Women can be taxi drivers for their sons, they can be fundraisers, they can dress up and look nice on best and fairest night, but they cannot have anything to do with the running of the game – How could they possibly? They never pulled the boots on. These people may have been forced to keep their opinions to themselves but that doesn’t mean they are going to change them.
I believe Caroline Wilson is right. Women in football do have to ‘just keep plugging away’, making our presence know, showing individuals that hold this opinion that the time for attitudes like theirs has passed. That is the only way we are going to change opinion. And we just have to come to terms with the fact that we probably never will change everyone. But I also believe that The Footy Show and Sam Newman make that fight harder by every day by giving that misogynistic attitude a public voice.
In this instance ‘just plugging away’ is not a satisfactory response. Newman has to be publicly held to account for his actions. A private apology (or even a half-hearted public one) is not enough. To those who agree with him, silent resignation sounds much the same as quiet approval.
Those that watch The Footy Show need to understand that his attitude is wrong and that it has no place in the game today. I don’t care that Newman thinks women ‘serve very little purpose’ but I care that by publicly stating his opinion he gives permission for many more to agree with him.
The only consolation in all this is that with every opportunity for comment Newman digs a deeper hole for himself. One I sincerely hope he cannot get his way out of.
The highlight for me was his comments on radio:
"I love women. Been married to two or three of them," he said. "(But) tell me what they've ever done in football or for football.
"I'm talking about the people on football clubs. I'm talking about women in football who use football as a vehicle to do whatever else they wish to do that's got nothing to do with football ... they have an agenda."
He continued: "The AFL does not need shrieking, hysterical, desperate women trying to bob up with causes that they just get their excitement out of, or some self-fulfilling gratification out of very minor and trivial issues."
I don’t think I have the energy to go line by line through the wrongness of these comments. I think you get the point. There is a recording on The Age if you feel the need.
He and Garry Lyon made things worse on The Footy Show last night, first with Lyon trying to dismiss the letter written to the station by prominent football women by arguing that Caroline Wilson accepted the apology so everyone else should let it rest. And then by letting Newman argue his case – badly.
Let me make this clear, Caroline Wilson was not the only person offended by Newman’s comments and actions.
Newman said something very revealing on live television last night, something that those who do care about the role of women in the game should take notice of,
When co-host Garry Lyon said the game had come a long way in its treatment of women, Newman retorted: "We've been forced to come a long way."
That’s it right there people.
That is the attitude of Newman, and one can only assume the large portion of the overexcited sycophantic Footy Show audience who cheered him on. For many, women are not an equal, they are not even relevant.
Newman comes from the school of thought that if you never played, you’ll never know and you can never be a part of the game. Women can be taxi drivers for their sons, they can be fundraisers, they can dress up and look nice on best and fairest night, but they cannot have anything to do with the running of the game – How could they possibly? They never pulled the boots on. These people may have been forced to keep their opinions to themselves but that doesn’t mean they are going to change them.
I believe Caroline Wilson is right. Women in football do have to ‘just keep plugging away’, making our presence know, showing individuals that hold this opinion that the time for attitudes like theirs has passed. That is the only way we are going to change opinion. And we just have to come to terms with the fact that we probably never will change everyone. But I also believe that The Footy Show and Sam Newman make that fight harder by every day by giving that misogynistic attitude a public voice.
In this instance ‘just plugging away’ is not a satisfactory response. Newman has to be publicly held to account for his actions. A private apology (or even a half-hearted public one) is not enough. To those who agree with him, silent resignation sounds much the same as quiet approval.
Those that watch The Footy Show need to understand that his attitude is wrong and that it has no place in the game today. I don’t care that Newman thinks women ‘serve very little purpose’ but I care that by publicly stating his opinion he gives permission for many more to agree with him.
The only consolation in all this is that with every opportunity for comment Newman digs a deeper hole for himself. One I sincerely hope he cannot get his way out of.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Neitz
It is always sad to watch a footballer finishing off his career. Particularly when the heart and mind are there, but the body just can't do it anymore. More so when it is your own team captain.
David Neitz has been an excellent footballer and a strong leader. Under his leadership, the Melbourne football club has had a quiet strength and stoicism that has served it well through the ups and downs of the seasons and got the job done with a minimum of fuss. I do hope that if he wants to return after this injury he will get that opportunity but if he is forced to retire he can begin his life after football proud of his achievements.
Chris Connelly described him thus:
"I have never come across a player who loved his football club or would do more for his football club than David Neitz," Connolly said. "He is the most passionate club man I think I've ever met."
I don't think there is any higher praise.
Trial by Media
Helen’s comment on my last post about Barry Hall posed some very interesting questions, which are more than worthy of a post in and of themselves. It has taken me several days of pondering to venture a response.
Helen wrote
I suspect I am likely to tie myself in knots of contradiction on this topic, but here goes…
I think trial-by-media is absolutely an important issue in sport, and has been for as long as someone pointed a camera at a game. I will focus my attention on its role in football, but pretty much everything to be said can be applied to all sport.
Football and media have a mutually dependent relationship that has grown more important, and more dangerous with every passing year and every passing dollar. Just ask the staff of the Age who argue the independence of their journalism is a threatened by The Age’s cosy relationship with Melbourne Victory. Journalistic integrity in football reporting at the Herald Sun has long gone out the window, though I hazard to guess few of its readers noticed.
Is the media capable of controlling itself and resisting reporting on such events? Sadly the answer is no. A few years ago now, newspapers and nightly news programs noticed that articles about sport sell. And big. So sport sections, grew and grew to the point where now, the weekend papers (and Monday, and Friday) are all about the sport. Not that I’m complaining, its all I ever read. Oh no, wait, I am complaining. I complain almost every weekend as I open the paper and read another bullshit article cobbled together to fill column inches around some really good photography.
Actions on the field are now replayed ad nauseum (literally in the case of Nathan Brown’s broken leg) until any infringing player cannot possible get a fair hearing at the tribunal, nor at the local bar or around kitchen table one imagines. This is made easier and more impressive thanks to the instant replay and the numbers of cameras now around the group. But it is the product of the need to fill air time and column inches. We hear everyone’s opinion, get every angle, discuss every scenario before it reaches a tribunal and while our nation’s courts may still have the capacity for impartiality, the football tribunal certainly doesn’t (and I don’t suspect it ever really did). Pressure from public opinion, and indeed from an AFL more interested in protecting its brand that anything else cannot help but influence the tribunal.
Having said all of that, in the case of Barry Hall I think the tribunal did well to hold firm to its decision of 7 weeks, rather than 9 because of Hall’s guilty plea. It was correct within the laws of the game, and showed they were able to resist the pressure of the media, and various members of the Staker family. So maybe I’m wrong.
I don’t agree with suppression, but I suspect that even if the AFL could suppress media reports about an incident, it would be less than effective. There is more gossip, and more loose lips in football than anywhere else I have come across, and as people like Bomber Thompson can probably testify, the truth is never as dangerous or damaging as the rumors that will abound in an information vacuum. I would rather see a glut of uninformed commentary on actual events/facts that a handful of articles made up of innuendo laden speculation. In conclusion, Suppression just wont work – how many episodes of Underbelly have you seen?
So well, what’s the answer? I’m not really sure. I don’t think newspapers and nightly news programs are going to give up the cash-cow that is football lightly and tribunals will always face outside pressure when making decisions. I just hope that editors have enough freedom, ability and integrity to make a reasoned judgment about each story they run, and whether it contributes anything further to a discussion.
Helen wrote
"How do you think trial-by-media relates to sport, given sport's symbiotic and mutually dependent relationship with media? Would suppression of media reports verge on censorship? Is the media capable of controlling itself and resisting reporting on such events? Or is sport outside the realm of natural justice, given it writes and adheres to its own set of laws?"
I suspect I am likely to tie myself in knots of contradiction on this topic, but here goes…
I think trial-by-media is absolutely an important issue in sport, and has been for as long as someone pointed a camera at a game. I will focus my attention on its role in football, but pretty much everything to be said can be applied to all sport.
Football and media have a mutually dependent relationship that has grown more important, and more dangerous with every passing year and every passing dollar. Just ask the staff of the Age who argue the independence of their journalism is a threatened by The Age’s cosy relationship with Melbourne Victory. Journalistic integrity in football reporting at the Herald Sun has long gone out the window, though I hazard to guess few of its readers noticed.
Is the media capable of controlling itself and resisting reporting on such events? Sadly the answer is no. A few years ago now, newspapers and nightly news programs noticed that articles about sport sell. And big. So sport sections, grew and grew to the point where now, the weekend papers (and Monday, and Friday) are all about the sport. Not that I’m complaining, its all I ever read. Oh no, wait, I am complaining. I complain almost every weekend as I open the paper and read another bullshit article cobbled together to fill column inches around some really good photography.
Actions on the field are now replayed ad nauseum (literally in the case of Nathan Brown’s broken leg) until any infringing player cannot possible get a fair hearing at the tribunal, nor at the local bar or around kitchen table one imagines. This is made easier and more impressive thanks to the instant replay and the numbers of cameras now around the group. But it is the product of the need to fill air time and column inches. We hear everyone’s opinion, get every angle, discuss every scenario before it reaches a tribunal and while our nation’s courts may still have the capacity for impartiality, the football tribunal certainly doesn’t (and I don’t suspect it ever really did). Pressure from public opinion, and indeed from an AFL more interested in protecting its brand that anything else cannot help but influence the tribunal.
Having said all of that, in the case of Barry Hall I think the tribunal did well to hold firm to its decision of 7 weeks, rather than 9 because of Hall’s guilty plea. It was correct within the laws of the game, and showed they were able to resist the pressure of the media, and various members of the Staker family. So maybe I’m wrong.
I don’t agree with suppression, but I suspect that even if the AFL could suppress media reports about an incident, it would be less than effective. There is more gossip, and more loose lips in football than anywhere else I have come across, and as people like Bomber Thompson can probably testify, the truth is never as dangerous or damaging as the rumors that will abound in an information vacuum. I would rather see a glut of uninformed commentary on actual events/facts that a handful of articles made up of innuendo laden speculation. In conclusion, Suppression just wont work – how many episodes of Underbelly have you seen?
So well, what’s the answer? I’m not really sure. I don’t think newspapers and nightly news programs are going to give up the cash-cow that is football lightly and tribunals will always face outside pressure when making decisions. I just hope that editors have enough freedom, ability and integrity to make a reasoned judgment about each story they run, and whether it contributes anything further to a discussion.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
7 weeks - then we'll dredge it up again
Well, Barry Hall got seven weeks and all I have to say is, whatever.
Frankly I’m not quite sure what everyone got so hot and bothered about. As far as I can tell a player infringed the rules of the game- yes it was really really bad, and very dangerous and could possible have killed the guy* – but it was against the rules of the game and Hall has now been punished under those rules. Where exactly did the system fall down? We have already eradicated that kind of violence from the game and this is proof positive.
There will be those that say he didn’t get long enough, there will be those that say he got too long, there will be those that say he shouldn’t start serving the penalty until he is fit to play (though how the game could police this is a pretty big questions). But I think that on the whole the AFL has handled the whole thing with composure while the media worked itself into a tizz.
Please don’t ask Barry Hall why he did it. He wasn’t thinking when he hit Staker and I can just about guarantee you that no clearer or more rational explanation is going arise over time. It’s pointless to ask and Hall’s lame excuse of a ‘mind snap’ is somehow even worse than not saying anything at all.
A fuss will now be made about whether players should be able to be sent off during a game. Call me old fashioned, but leaving players on the field after they have been reported is one of the few rules that distinguish Australian Rules from other forms of football around the world, and it is one of the few rules that hasn't been fiddled with over the game’s 150 years. So I think we should leave it.
In conclusion, a guy hit another guy on the footy field. It was ugly and it was not within the rules of the game. As a result the guy got suspended. Can we all calm down a bit now?
And while we are calming down, can we perhaps discuss the fact that a player broke their arm on an advertising barrier on the side of the ground and will now be sidelined for weeks? I don’t know about you, but I’d be pretty keen to make sure that didn’t happen again.
*Anyone who disputes that a single punch can kill or permanently brain damage anyone (I’m looking specifically at the male panel members of Footy Confidential) is flat out wrong.
Frankly I’m not quite sure what everyone got so hot and bothered about. As far as I can tell a player infringed the rules of the game- yes it was really really bad, and very dangerous and could possible have killed the guy* – but it was against the rules of the game and Hall has now been punished under those rules. Where exactly did the system fall down? We have already eradicated that kind of violence from the game and this is proof positive.
There will be those that say he didn’t get long enough, there will be those that say he got too long, there will be those that say he shouldn’t start serving the penalty until he is fit to play (though how the game could police this is a pretty big questions). But I think that on the whole the AFL has handled the whole thing with composure while the media worked itself into a tizz.
Please don’t ask Barry Hall why he did it. He wasn’t thinking when he hit Staker and I can just about guarantee you that no clearer or more rational explanation is going arise over time. It’s pointless to ask and Hall’s lame excuse of a ‘mind snap’ is somehow even worse than not saying anything at all.
A fuss will now be made about whether players should be able to be sent off during a game. Call me old fashioned, but leaving players on the field after they have been reported is one of the few rules that distinguish Australian Rules from other forms of football around the world, and it is one of the few rules that hasn't been fiddled with over the game’s 150 years. So I think we should leave it.
In conclusion, a guy hit another guy on the footy field. It was ugly and it was not within the rules of the game. As a result the guy got suspended. Can we all calm down a bit now?
And while we are calming down, can we perhaps discuss the fact that a player broke their arm on an advertising barrier on the side of the ground and will now be sidelined for weeks? I don’t know about you, but I’d be pretty keen to make sure that didn’t happen again.
*Anyone who disputes that a single punch can kill or permanently brain damage anyone (I’m looking specifically at the male panel members of Footy Confidential) is flat out wrong.
Monday, April 14, 2008
The Misogynist and the Dummy
It has been a week and a half since the episode of The Footy show where Sam Newman in his inimitable manner demeaned women in general and Caroline Wilson in particular and offended anyone on the planet with half a brain*. I know this is an almost weekly occurrence, but this segment did not just step over the line, it left it several miles back in the distance.
I think I might just be able to speak about it without losing my cool.
I didn’t see the incident. I long ago gave up trying to watch The Footy Show - it is too dull, too stupid, and too unrelated to football to hold my attention. But I did see a very unhappy Caroline Wilson fronting up for work at Footy Confidential the following Monday night and taking Garry Lyon to task. For anyone who did not hear about it read Sam Lane’s excellent article for the full details.
Over the days that followed I discussed these happenings with many people and had a pretty tragic back and forth with my partner about the lack of interested the football community had in setting things right.
Partner: why don’t the AFL do something about it?
Me: Well the footy show is made by Channel 9 so the AFL can’t control it.
Partner: But couldn’t they boycott and tell the players they’re not allowed to go on the show?
Me: The players aren’t contracted to the AFL they are contracted to their clubs, so the AFL would have to get all of the 16 clubs to agree to the boycott. And even if you could get 15 of the teams, the president of Collingwood is Eddie McGuire and he sort of works for Channel 9 a bit. And even if you had a few of the clubs boycott, some of their players have individual contracts with Channel 9 so they wouldn’t boycott anyway.
Partner: That’s shit.
Me: Yep.
The truth is that while a boycott is a extreme response there was nowhere near the amount of interest in this story and community outrage that there should have been.
The only vaguely prominent article written about it was by another female journalist and Andrew Demetriou gave a bullshit, “check out how much good we’ve been doing with our rights and responsibilities stuff over the last few years” answer when asked about it on Offsiders on Sunday morning (Caroline Wilson was sitting on the couch opposite him while he said it too). Where were the articles from the men of the game and the media who do respect women? The deafening silence leads me to doubt there are any at all.
Caroline Wilson levelled a lot of her criticism at Garry Lyon. As the host of both The Footy Show and Footy Confidential he didn’t even have to courtesy to stick up for his colleague. I am a loyal Melbourne supporter and have long defended Lyon as he has compromised and embarrassed his way into a successful media career. I have little doubt that he apologised off-air, but his miserly on-air apology and the lack of any attempt to make amends for his part in allowing the segment to happen at all, let along continue, has saddened me.
On-air was where an example needed to be made for all those viewers that thought Newman was funny or that the segment was appropriate. The response from Lyon, Craig Hutchison (who was on The Footy Show at the time) and Channel 9 was far from adequate. I doubt I will be so vociferously defending Lyon from criticism in future.
The reality is that until individuals like Sam Newman (and there are many more than just him in the game and the media – including, it appears, Garry Lyon and Craig Hutchison) are publicly held to account for their behaviour and for their unacceptable attitudes towards women nothing will really change. I doubt whether they even realise why what happened was inappropriate and offensive.
Watching Before the Game on Saturday night a friend asked whether I thought they might have considered replacing Peter Hellier with another woman on the panel instead of Mick Molloy. Sadly, I doubt it. A token woman on the panel is seen as all that necessary for television programs and the game to claim that women are equal in the game.
There is no women’s round this year – not that the AFL ever put any effort into promoting it or recognising women as anything more than mothers and taxi drivers anyway.
Sorry, I may have lost my cool anyway.
I think I might just be able to speak about it without losing my cool.
I didn’t see the incident. I long ago gave up trying to watch The Footy Show - it is too dull, too stupid, and too unrelated to football to hold my attention. But I did see a very unhappy Caroline Wilson fronting up for work at Footy Confidential the following Monday night and taking Garry Lyon to task. For anyone who did not hear about it read Sam Lane’s excellent article for the full details.
Over the days that followed I discussed these happenings with many people and had a pretty tragic back and forth with my partner about the lack of interested the football community had in setting things right.
Partner: why don’t the AFL do something about it?
Me: Well the footy show is made by Channel 9 so the AFL can’t control it.
Partner: But couldn’t they boycott and tell the players they’re not allowed to go on the show?
Me: The players aren’t contracted to the AFL they are contracted to their clubs, so the AFL would have to get all of the 16 clubs to agree to the boycott. And even if you could get 15 of the teams, the president of Collingwood is Eddie McGuire and he sort of works for Channel 9 a bit. And even if you had a few of the clubs boycott, some of their players have individual contracts with Channel 9 so they wouldn’t boycott anyway.
Partner: That’s shit.
Me: Yep.
The truth is that while a boycott is a extreme response there was nowhere near the amount of interest in this story and community outrage that there should have been.
The only vaguely prominent article written about it was by another female journalist and Andrew Demetriou gave a bullshit, “check out how much good we’ve been doing with our rights and responsibilities stuff over the last few years” answer when asked about it on Offsiders on Sunday morning (Caroline Wilson was sitting on the couch opposite him while he said it too). Where were the articles from the men of the game and the media who do respect women? The deafening silence leads me to doubt there are any at all.
Caroline Wilson levelled a lot of her criticism at Garry Lyon. As the host of both The Footy Show and Footy Confidential he didn’t even have to courtesy to stick up for his colleague. I am a loyal Melbourne supporter and have long defended Lyon as he has compromised and embarrassed his way into a successful media career. I have little doubt that he apologised off-air, but his miserly on-air apology and the lack of any attempt to make amends for his part in allowing the segment to happen at all, let along continue, has saddened me.
On-air was where an example needed to be made for all those viewers that thought Newman was funny or that the segment was appropriate. The response from Lyon, Craig Hutchison (who was on The Footy Show at the time) and Channel 9 was far from adequate. I doubt I will be so vociferously defending Lyon from criticism in future.
The reality is that until individuals like Sam Newman (and there are many more than just him in the game and the media – including, it appears, Garry Lyon and Craig Hutchison) are publicly held to account for their behaviour and for their unacceptable attitudes towards women nothing will really change. I doubt whether they even realise why what happened was inappropriate and offensive.
Watching Before the Game on Saturday night a friend asked whether I thought they might have considered replacing Peter Hellier with another woman on the panel instead of Mick Molloy. Sadly, I doubt it. A token woman on the panel is seen as all that necessary for television programs and the game to claim that women are equal in the game.
There is no women’s round this year – not that the AFL ever put any effort into promoting it or recognising women as anything more than mothers and taxi drivers anyway.
Sorry, I may have lost my cool anyway.
* Not The Footy Show’s target demographic to be sure.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Richo. Over here!
Can I just very quickly say how absolutely hilarious I find the commercial they have been running this week to advertise ‘Before the Game’.
I won’t spoil it if you haven’t seen it. Just make sure to keep an eye out.
I won’t spoil it if you haven’t seen it. Just make sure to keep an eye out.
Long Dormant
After a long hiatus I am going to attempt to do this blogging thing again. And to try to do so at semi-regularly*.
The reason for this is that the football season is about to start and I can hardly contain my excitement. After the miserable sham that was this year’s pre-season competition (my cynicism owing in no small part to Melbourne’s inability to win at a single outing of any kind over the pre-season) it will be nice to get down to some serious football business.
I also want to spend more time thinking and talking about football in general. This is a radical shift for me. For the last few years of my life at least, I have tried hard to diversify my interests during the winter months - to hold conversations, and go out on the weekends and stuff. In other words - to not let football rule my life.
But everything has changed. The world has shifted on its axis. I now have perfectly legitimate and even tax deductible excuse to spend my every waking moment immersed in football. I’m writing a PhD about the game and the gentlemen who play. Bring on Round One.
Is that a siren I hear?
*Apologies in advance if this proves less than successful.
The reason for this is that the football season is about to start and I can hardly contain my excitement. After the miserable sham that was this year’s pre-season competition (my cynicism owing in no small part to Melbourne’s inability to win at a single outing of any kind over the pre-season) it will be nice to get down to some serious football business.
I also want to spend more time thinking and talking about football in general. This is a radical shift for me. For the last few years of my life at least, I have tried hard to diversify my interests during the winter months - to hold conversations, and go out on the weekends and stuff. In other words - to not let football rule my life.
But everything has changed. The world has shifted on its axis. I now have perfectly legitimate and even tax deductible excuse to spend my every waking moment immersed in football. I’m writing a PhD about the game and the gentlemen who play. Bring on Round One.
Is that a siren I hear?
*Apologies in advance if this proves less than successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
