by JessicaRabbit69 » Mon May 08, 2006 2:40 pm
by Bluedemon » Mon May 08, 2006 3:49 pm
by sydney-dog » Tue May 09, 2006 7:49 am
by dash61 » Tue May 09, 2006 9:50 am
by JessicaRabbit69 » Tue May 09, 2006 10:02 am
by Punk Rooster » Tue May 09, 2006 10:14 am
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by dash61 » Tue May 09, 2006 10:18 am
by JessicaRabbit69 » Tue May 09, 2006 10:23 am
by JK » Tue May 09, 2006 11:11 am
JessicaRabbit69 wrote:I didn't say Chris was a villain. But I said he's got what he deserves - including the media coverage of his situation.
He's lucky he was dropped from the Crows list or else it would have been on the back page of the paper, not a few paragraphs on the inside.
If my husband was a SANFL footballer, it would have been reported in the paper, too. By playing sport at that level, you also need to accept the added responsibility of public scrutiny.
I'm sure Chris will learn from his mistake. I'm sure he's also learned he needs to be accountable for his actions.
BTW, how about easing off on the extra-large fonts. There's no need to shout.
by Blue Boy » Tue May 09, 2006 11:15 am
Constance_Perm wrote:JessicaRabbit69 wrote:I didn't say Chris was a villain. But I said he's got what he deserves - including the media coverage of his situation.
He's lucky he was dropped from the Crows list or else it would have been on the back page of the paper, not a few paragraphs on the inside.
If my husband was a SANFL footballer, it would have been reported in the paper, too. By playing sport at that level, you also need to accept the added responsibility of public scrutiny.
I'm sure Chris will learn from his mistake. I'm sure he's also learned he needs to be accountable for his actions.
BTW, how about easing off on the extra-large fonts. There's no need to shout.
Given half the SANFL players earn less than they could from playing in that comp than country or SAAFL, and still have full-time jobs, then no, I personally don't believe they should be subject to more scrutiny than the average Joe.
No doubt Ladhams has made a mistake and will receive punishment accordingly and thats enough in my book, leave his private life to himself ... It's a pity the SANFL receives buggerall coverage in the major papers in this state UNTIL such time as something negative occurs!
by drebin » Tue May 09, 2006 11:23 am
by JK » Tue May 09, 2006 11:28 am
by sus » Tue May 09, 2006 11:55 am
JessicaRabbit69 wrote:But I said he's got what he deserves - including the media coverage of his situation.
by Bluedemon » Tue May 09, 2006 12:03 pm
by JessicaRabbit69 » Tue May 09, 2006 12:18 pm
sus wrote:JessicaRabbit69 wrote:I don’t believe its the role of the media to deliver punishment - that’s why we have legislation and law courts. In fact you couldn’t argue that the Advertiser published the article out of some moral duty to add to Ladham’s punishment or because they want to make our community a better place to live. They are only interested in selling papers by sensationalising stories.
by Jimmy » Tue May 09, 2006 12:25 pm
by sus » Tue May 09, 2006 12:32 pm
JessicaRabbit69 wrote:sus wrote:JessicaRabbit69 wrote:I don’t believe its the role of the media to deliver punishment - that’s why we have legislation and law courts. In fact you couldn’t argue that the Advertiser published the article out of some moral duty to add to Ladham’s punishment or because they want to make our community a better place to live. They are only interested in selling papers by sensationalising stories.
The Advertiser ran three paragraphs on Ladhams, which basically said when and where the incident occurred and not much else. They didn't pass judgement or give an opinion - just reported the facts. That's hardly sensationalising the story, is it?????
I also don't see how in this instance the media hs delivered punishment, as you put it. The simply reported the facts of the incident. It is a newspaper, after all.
In regards to SANFL players not deserving to be mentioned when they do something wrong - well, they are public figures and role models (as the NAFC media release suggested).
On one hand you want the SANFL to receive more coverage - yet you also want the media to ignore them when something like this happens. You can't have it both ways.
by doggies4eva » Tue May 09, 2006 12:33 pm
kookas wrote:the most dissapointing thing about this is that he got caught at the early hours of saturday morning, the morning after playing the game from the previous night. you would think most players go home after the game, relax, then get up the next morning and meet as a team for there recovery session.
by JessicaRabbit69 » Tue May 09, 2006 12:36 pm
No, but they reported it in a similar fashion to when other public figures have committed an offencesus wrote:Did they just publish the facts in the same way on any other recent DUI offences of non-footballers?
sus wrote:Im interested in the clubs, their football and all the community positives – that’s what I want to hear more about. What about you JR?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |