Quick survey

[fitz]

Do you believe what you read in mainstream media reportage of Rugby League to be true?

 

[Thresher]

I believe almost nothing that I read in mainstream media on any subject

 

[djhabib]

Nope not at all

 

[Busted Bongos]

Not at all, it's a bit hard to believe them when most just make crap up!

 

[sharkyboy]

Do you believe what you read in mainstream media reportage of Rugby League to be true?

Depends. Some reporters (although very few) actually just report the truth. Dave riccio is pretty good.

Thing is that because of the bull**** rumours and sensationalism, it's hard to believe them even when they are probably 100% on the money. It's what happens when you cry wolf and like to pretend you are in the know with everyone.

 

[Thresher]

I still believe the 1980's Big League editions

 

[fitz]

I'm not talking about and analytic or cognitive process here but more of an atavistic, reflexive and instinctual reaction.

 

[hitman124]

I believe what I read because I thought there may be some ethics in journalism.

Boy I was wrong.

 

[dylan the villian]

i believe absolutely nothing the MSM produces, i have a bitter distaste for the MSM in general, particularly newscorp. they are sensationalists and profit motivated no matter the cost.

im happy to see with the explosion of social media that teams/organisations are starting to ditch the traditional methods of getting news out to the public and now releasing what they want heard on their own terms using social media, that then just leaves the scabs and vultures to try and twist the words in their worthless columns that no one actually cares about.

The MSM is bleeding money at a crazy rate and will hopefully soon be extinct, which is exactly why abbott and his cronies dont want a first class broadband network in australia.

 

[Gow's Scissors]

Nope.. too many agendas and a history of ex players now involved in the media with axes to grind.

 

[A.Snowden]

Mostly not. I still believe there to be a couple of people i can read without thinking off the bat they are full of ****.

 

[Thresher]

i believe absolutely nothing the MSM produces, i have a bitter distaste for the MSM in general, particularly newscorp. they are sensationalists and profit motivated no matter the cost.

im happy to see with the explosion of social media that teams/organisations are starting to ditch the traditional methods of getting news out to the public and now releasing what they want heard on their own terms using social media, that then just leaves the scabs and vultures to try and twist the words in their worthless columns that no one actually cares about.

The MSM is bleeding money at a crazy rate and will hopefully soon be extinct, which is exactly why abbott and his cronies dont want a first class broadband network in australia.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dylan the villian again.

 

[dylan the villian]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dylan the villian again.

all good man, the whole NBN fiasco in this country really boils my kettle. lol

 

[sharkyman]

Ok, tricky question. For the record im voting 'mostly true'

There is several things to take into consideration here. But excluding, 'what is truth', 'what is one mans truth against another', 'whom has an agenda' etc., most of the reporting has at least a significant element of truth to it.
eg/
'Lichaa was being poached by Des'
'Fifita did talk with union'
'Tinkler was/is having concerns of whether to re-back his guarantee to the knights'

Now aside from the over-emotive journalism, or largely what are referred to as 'opinion pieces' (#Clubincrisis), The question then is how ppl interpret what they read.

ie/
'Lichaa was being poached by Des' (Lichaa was/is unhappy- this may be true, but may also simply be a matter of dollars)
'Fifita did talk with union' (talk ****, talk about how much they could offer him, talk about how happy he was in league, talk about some union coach he had who had since died etc.,)
'Tinkler was/is having concerns of whether to re-back his guarantee to the knights' (this does not suggest he has money concerns, even though it seems apparent he may)

there is clearly a large distinction to be drawn between ****e journalism, and ****e interpretation, which as we all know, are both all too freely and commonly issued.

so i'll say that reportage IS largely true, however, the 'journos' and the 'pundits' alike are all to happy to let misinterpretations flow freely, which is no different to any other mass media.

and for those that think that 'football supporters' are any less knowledgeable than any other reader, or wish to label them alongside 'conspiracy nuts', 'celebrity nuts', or any other type, they can suck my acorns

 

[Bronze Whaler]

The only ones I have faith in are:

Rebecca Wilson
Paul Kent
Phil Rothfield
Josh Massoud
James Hooper

I think they report very objectively, truthfully and give us a fair go.

 

[deano the p]

Mostly not, there is still a bit of truth in some of the stories but the media take things and spin it to suit them.

 

[hamsy44]

Unless it is in quotations no I do not believe it.

 

[Frenzy]

Neutral.

I believe they take a single fact, expand on it, manipulate it and cloud it with ambiguity. I believe this is a deliberate ploy to prey on reader's propensity to display confirmation bias. In this way they will incite either outrage or unwavering support, both of which may lead to the next story and/or propagate the existing "story". It works because IMO most people only skim read print media as they have already made up their minds as to what is true.

Example. Anything written about ASADA is automatically false according to Sharks fans. The same print media write an article about Andrew Fifita, with "quotes", and they suddenly become believable.

I think the audience are as much to blame as the media because they too easily buy into what the media is trying to convey.

 

[Frenzy]

Unless it is in quotations no I do not believe it.

I don't even automatically believe these. Unless I hear it from the person quoted and I hear it in full context they mean nothing IMO. Misquoting is an old favourite of the media, as is changing context.

 

[hamsy44]

I don't even automatically believe these. Unless I hear it from the person quoted and I hear it in full context they mean nothing IMO. Misquoting is an old favourite of the media, as is changing context.

i'm not talking to you how dare you beat me in supercoach.