How do the rugby media justify their reporting?
In august this year, Wallabies Lote Tuqiri and Matt Dunning were at the centre of a media storm when a man they met attacked a taxi driver outside their hotel.
Predictably the media went into a feeding frenzy, saying the pair were irresponsible, asking what they were doing drinking in the lead-up to a world cup, and generally getting very hyped up about the whole situation.
And then, after the Rugby World Cup victory over Wales, we get this... Now forgive me for being a cynic, but how are the two any different? If anything, it's worse. A national player in a foreign country, as part of a larger group of clearly inebriated players, engaging in a juvenile contest with some English tourists. It's essentially indecent exposure, in a foriegn country, while drunk as a skunk!
And it's all turned into a bit of a laugh, because the author, Greg Growden thinks boys will be boys. What a load of rubbish. The media made a mistake by going after Dunning and Tuqiri, and the conpiracy theorists who think Tuqiri was targeted because of his rugby league background have more cause for concern, since rugby pureblood Dan Vickerman gets off scott-free.
I'm not advocating either behaviour, but the media reaction to both incidents was absolutely appalling. how no other news source thought it worth a mention is beyond me, and the ARU was extremely lucky not to have wolves at the door baying for sacking of Wallaby staff members.
The players actions were out of line, but the media turned a blind eye to one, and kicked up a storm in a tea-cup over the other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment