Tweet
The Sydney Morning Herald has been full of 'Ruffled Roosters' type articles over the last three days. 'Serious questions' need to be answered by the Roosters we're told. Well I'm probably not the only one on this site who thinks the Sydney Morning Herald has serious questions to answer...
1) Has the SMH got the facts right?
We were told by the Herald in the first week of the finals that the loser of the Roosters Manly game would play the winner of the Bulldogs Knights game. Seriously. The paper actually reported that. I think such basic lack of fact checking brings into question the bona fides of anything the paper does. So, in relation to their investigative reporting on the roosters, has the SMH got its facts rights?
Do they know the precise levels of human growth hormone of the tested players? They've used Marty Kennedy as the witness for the prosecution by quoting him as saying the results were 'off the charts', but do they have any actual data, any numbers?
Is it possible that the reported elevated levels of human growth hormone occured without the use of performance enhancing drugs? If so, is it the actions of a responsible newspaper to saturate their publication with the implication that the roosters have done something wrong? (And why in this week, when the story has been around for months?)
2) Is there any anti-Roosters bias in the SMH?
Normally you wouldn't want to question the integrity of a newspaper, to shoot the messenger, but given that other media groups have been less hysterical on this issue I think the SMH has some questions to answer.
In the past Kate McClymont suggested that rooster players had thrown the last game of the 2009 regular season. In response the NRL rejected the claim. The Herald repeated the claim. Sound familiar? This time around both the NRL and ASADA have said the roosters have done nothing wrong and yet the Herald, like a dog with a bone, blithely goes on.
Bias can be subtle. Referees argue that they're not biased, yet home town teams often get the benefit of penalty decisions. In the same manner I'm sure the Herald believes it is 'reporting the facts' but maybe their reporting is based on subtle, perhaps unconscious, anti rooster bias?
So, some questions -
Has there been any anti rooster sentiment voiced in the corridors of the Herald this week? Ever?
Have any of the many reporters on this case every expressed anti rooster sentiment?
Would any of the many reporters on this case like to see the roosters lose this week?
Is there a reporter who does not like rugby league, and would like to see sport have less of an influence in Australian society?
3) Should the roosters be under suspicion because the details of the HGH testing were found on the mobile phone of a known criminal?
Surely this is the most absurd aspect of the whole investigation. The Herald should have clearly delineated between possible illegal conduct by rooster players and the fact that the HGH results were found on the phone. Another publication has written that this information was stolen and sold to criminal interests. (The Herald has not reported this possibility.) Yes, this relevation is serious, but it does not reflect badly on the roosters. More likely it's possible that some players were being set up to be blackmailed.
1) Has the SMH got the facts right?
We were told by the Herald in the first week of the finals that the loser of the Roosters Manly game would play the winner of the Bulldogs Knights game. Seriously. The paper actually reported that. I think such basic lack of fact checking brings into question the bona fides of anything the paper does. So, in relation to their investigative reporting on the roosters, has the SMH got its facts rights?
Do they know the precise levels of human growth hormone of the tested players? They've used Marty Kennedy as the witness for the prosecution by quoting him as saying the results were 'off the charts', but do they have any actual data, any numbers?
Is it possible that the reported elevated levels of human growth hormone occured without the use of performance enhancing drugs? If so, is it the actions of a responsible newspaper to saturate their publication with the implication that the roosters have done something wrong? (And why in this week, when the story has been around for months?)
2) Is there any anti-Roosters bias in the SMH?
Normally you wouldn't want to question the integrity of a newspaper, to shoot the messenger, but given that other media groups have been less hysterical on this issue I think the SMH has some questions to answer.
In the past Kate McClymont suggested that rooster players had thrown the last game of the 2009 regular season. In response the NRL rejected the claim. The Herald repeated the claim. Sound familiar? This time around both the NRL and ASADA have said the roosters have done nothing wrong and yet the Herald, like a dog with a bone, blithely goes on.
Bias can be subtle. Referees argue that they're not biased, yet home town teams often get the benefit of penalty decisions. In the same manner I'm sure the Herald believes it is 'reporting the facts' but maybe their reporting is based on subtle, perhaps unconscious, anti rooster bias?
So, some questions -
Has there been any anti rooster sentiment voiced in the corridors of the Herald this week? Ever?
Have any of the many reporters on this case every expressed anti rooster sentiment?
Would any of the many reporters on this case like to see the roosters lose this week?
Is there a reporter who does not like rugby league, and would like to see sport have less of an influence in Australian society?
3) Should the roosters be under suspicion because the details of the HGH testing were found on the mobile phone of a known criminal?
Surely this is the most absurd aspect of the whole investigation. The Herald should have clearly delineated between possible illegal conduct by rooster players and the fact that the HGH results were found on the phone. Another publication has written that this information was stolen and sold to criminal interests. (The Herald has not reported this possibility.) Yes, this relevation is serious, but it does not reflect badly on the roosters. More likely it's possible that some players were being set up to be blackmailed.
Comment