Ben Ikin talks salary cap

[Sproj]

No, I'm saying the opposite of that. A quick ring around confirms the rumour is rife, you tender it as a rumour, with the source withheld. When someone goes on record, you are reporting what they are saying. The burden of proof is on them.


I'm explaining how the media works. If any of this is shocking to you, you're a bit sheltered. The underlying premise in all this is that Badel is "lying for the clicks." I'm saying that's bullshit, and I've explained why it's bullshit.

I reckon you should put you should try the experiment and see how you go betting against Badel being right. My casual observation here is generally that's a losing bet.


You're just ranting again under the premise that Badel is wrong constantly. He's not. You're wrong constantly. Prove me wrong.

As for "click bait" really what the **** are you talking about? That more describes BHQ than the Courier Mail. Except the dick enlargement ads. That shit is cash.

I'm not replying to anyone here other than your quote of mine but Badel follows the Phil Gould principle - if you talk / write enough, eventually you'll get something right.

However, this year alone, Badel has got several signing rumours wrong, he has put out exclusives that have already been reported elsewhere and you simply shift the goal posts to use a version of exclusive that no one in the world uses and just say this is the media version.

I'll also suggest this, do a comparison of Chris Garry and Peter Badel and see which one is right more often, before the other and has more respect among readers / fans. Why would you say that is?

I'll give you a hint, one tries to make his stories up and one tries to check his facts before publishing.

 

[McHunt]

I'm not replying to anyone here other than your quote of mine but Badel follows the Phil Gould principle - if you talk / write enough, eventually you'll get something right.

However, this year alone, Badel has got several signing rumours wrong, he has put out exclusives that have already been reported elsewhere and you simply shift the goal posts to use a version of exclusive that no one in the world uses and just say this is the media version.

I'll also suggest this, do a comparison of Chris Garry and Peter Badel and see which one is right more often, before the other and has more respect among readers / fans. Why would you say that is?

I'll give you a hint, one tries to make his stories up or more importantly, tries to check his facts before publishing.

I follow Garry an Badel, and they're about on par in terms of credibility, but Badel writes about ten times more about the Broncos.

We've discussed your issue with his "exclusives" before. I find that a bit pedantic, but it's a valid point he likes to overbeat his own drum at times. But if you go down that track, he pales beside "the Mole," Dobbo and whoever that muffled dickhead on Triple M is. Yet lately, Dobbo has become remarkably reliable. Because he's chummy with Kevvie.

Signing rumours are just that: rumours. They're also prone to negotiation. For example, the Gagai, Su'a and Hynes signing rumours were true, but they fell at the last hurdle. That doesn't make them wrong. Reynolds could've gone another way too. But sure, some have more weight than others. I'm really not noticing Badel to be abnormally wrong with his rumourmongering. Perhaps you could give me some examples.

What if the rumour that Badel is usually wrong is a rumour that turned out not to be true? Whose credibility would be shot? Not mine.

 

[Sproj]

I follow Garry an Badel, and they're about on par in terms of credibility, but Badel writes about ten times more about the Broncos.

We've discussed your issue with his "exclusives" before. I find that a bit pedantic, but it's a valid point he likes to overbeat his own drum at times. But if you go down that track, he pales beside "the Mole," Dobbo and whoever that muffled dickhead on Triple M is. Yet lately, Dobbo has become remarkably reliable. Because he's chummy with Kevvie.

Signing rumours are just that: rumours. They're also prone to negotiation. For example, the Gagai, Su'a and Hynes signing rumours were true, but they fell at the last hurdle. That doesn't make them wrong. Reynolds could've gone another way too. But sure, some have more weight than others. I'm really not noticing Badel to be abnormally wrong with his rumourmongering. Perhaps you could give me some examples.

What if the rumour that Badel is usually wrong is a rumour that turned out not to be true? Whose credibility would be shot? Not mine.

Where are people saying he is worse than the Mole, whoever? 99% of them suck, the NRL media in general is appalling and that is the point. It isn't just Badel but he is a big part of the idiocy of it all.

What I am saying is that I would prefer journalists to be more like Chris Garry. I take note of what he says. Badel and almost everyone else I just ignore because they are gutter journalists, no matter how much twisting of it you put forward. A lie / made up story is a lie / made up story.

I've used the point about exclusives before because it is still valid. Your explanation, to be frank, is a load of rubbish and just because I don't keep going on about it doesn't mean I accept this really silly version of the word meaning. No reader is reading an article / tweet / 360 'exclusive' and thinking, yeah that is the made up media version, I know it isn't really an exclusive and so that's ok. He is just being a little too sweet with his use of the word exclusive.

 

[Foordy]

Where are people saying he is worse than the Mole, whoever? 99% of them suck, the NRL media in general is appalling and that is the point. It isn't just Badel but he is a big part of the idiocy of it all.

the reason Badel is so frequently used as an example of the trash media IMO, is because we're Broncos fans and he is the main bloke writing articles about this club, so of course we are more likely to react to that than some other trash reporter writing about a Sydney club we don't give a shit about

 

[tommy]

Implying talking about sport isn't always talking shit?

You know what I meant but nice deflection.

 

[McHunt]

Where are people saying he is worse than the Mole, whoever? 99% of them suck, the NRL media in general is appalling and that is the point. It isn't just Badel but he is a big part of the idiocy of it all.

What I am saying is that I would prefer journalists to be more like Chris Garry. I take note of what he says. Badel and almost everyone else I just ignore because they are gutter journalists, no matter how much twisting of it you put forward. A lie / made up story is a lie / made up story.

I've used the point about exclusives before because it is still valid. Your explanation, to be frank, is a load of rubbish and just because I don't keep going on about it doesn't mean I accept this really silly version of the word meaning. No reader is reading an article / tweet / 360 'exclusive' and thinking, yeah that is the made up media version, I know it isn't really an exclusive and so that's ok. He is just being a little too sweet with his use of the word exclusive.

Noted you are triggered by the word "exclusive." I explained what it means. I don't get your angst over it. If Chris Garry posts about something on Twitter, and nowhere else, that's an "exclusive" to Twitter. It doesn't matter if Brent Read did it before him. "Exclusive" doesn't mean you have secret information that's never before been shared. It about the medium being "exclusive" not the information. If you keep getting upset by this word, it's because your definition isn't right. It's not even a term I would begin to put weight on.

Back to Chris Garry, he's a lot more personable than Badel, and I like him more as a person. But he's more often wrong than Badel. I don't hold that against either of them. But pound for pound, Badel over Garry for Broncos news. Garry over Badel as someone you might want to hang out with. Not even a contest really. Badel is all business, turns up with a rumour/angle and a bunch of prewritten questions and gets the quotes to back it up. The pressers are, in fact, the fact checking. The direct quotes are the meat of the story. The filler around it, the context, I don't pay a lot of attention to that.

Neither are "gutter journalists." Read the Daily Mail, Guardian or even The Sydney Morning Herald for the gutter stuff. They're more interested in relationships and scandal.

 

[Kooly87]

Noted you are triggered by the word "exclusive." I explained what it means. I don't get your angst over it. If Chris Garry posts about something on Twitter, and nowhere else, that's an "exclusive" to Twitter. It doesn't matter if Brent Read did it before him. "Exclusive" doesn't mean you have secret information that's never before been shared. It about the medium being "exclusive" not the information. If you keep getting upset by this word, it's because your definition isn't right. It's not even a term I would begin to put weight on.

Back to Chris Garry, he's a lot more personable than Badel, and I like him more as a person. But he's more often wrong than Badel. I don't hold that against either of them. But pound for pound, Badel over Garry for Broncos news. Garry over Badel as someone you might want to hang out with. Not even a contest really. Badel is all business, turns up with a rumour/angle and a bunch of prewritten questions and gets the quotes to back it up. The pressers are, in fact, the fact checking. The direct quotes are the meat of the story. The filler around it, the context, I don't pay a lot of attention to that.

Neither are "gutter journalists." Read the Daily Mail, Guardian or even The Sydney Morning Herald for the gutter stuff. They're more interested in relationships and scandal.

I'm not saying you're wrong as I've never personally compared the two, but I can't see how Garry could be wrong more than Badel?

Just on weight of content alone you'd have to assume Badel gets more wrong than Chris Garry if for no other reason than he pumps out vastly more content so he's going to be wrong more than someone who puts out far less.

Putting that aside though, I can't really remember Garry being wrong about anything I'd consider signficant in the last few years? Maybe I'm wrong here but I generally feel like when Chris Garry calls it he's done his homework and it's usually turned out to be true.

 

[McHunt]

I'm not saying you're wrong as I've never personally compared the two, but I can't see how Garry could be wrong more than Badel?

Just on weight of content alone you'd have to assume Badel gets more wrong than Chris Garry if for no other reason than he pumps out vastly more content so he's going to be wrong more than someone who puts out far less.

Putting that aside though, I can't really remember Garry being wrong about anything I'd consider signficant in the last few years? Maybe I'm wrong here but I generally feel like when Chris Garry calls it he's done his homework and it's usually turned out to be true.

Name three instances where Badel was wrong and Garry was right. I've noticed Garry wrong quite a bit this year, starting with his prediction that John Asiata would be the game changer for us.

 

[Sproj]

Noted you are triggered by the word "exclusive." I explained what it means. I don't get your angst over it. If Chris Garry posts about something on Twitter, and nowhere else, that's an "exclusive" to Twitter. It doesn't matter if Brent Read did it before him. "Exclusive" doesn't mean you have secret information that's never before been shared. It about the medium being "exclusive" not the information. If you keep getting upset by this word, it's because your definition isn't right. It's not even a term I would begin to put weight on.

Back to Chris Garry, he's a lot more personable than Badel, and I like him more as a person. But he's more often wrong than Badel. I don't hold that against either of them. But pound for pound, Badel over Garry for Broncos news. Garry over Badel as someone you might want to hang out with. Not even a contest really. Badel is all business, turns up with a rumour/angle and a bunch of prewritten questions and gets the quotes to back it up. The pressers are, in fact, the fact checking. The direct quotes are the meat of the story. The filler around it, the context, I don't pay a lot of attention to that.

Neither are "gutter journalists." Read the Daily Mail, Guardian or even The Sydney Morning Herald for the gutter stuff. They're more interested in relationships and scandal.

I will tell you a secret, I am an academic in language studies at a university, I feel confident in my understanding of the word 'exclusive'. You can twist it however you like, the reality is, no one uses this definition of the word exclusive except possibly media hacks, of which Badel is very much one.

As for the rest of your post, it is fun to watch you dig your own grave. You say the quotes are the meat and bones, you don't pay attention to the rest around it...which shock horror, is the Badel part of the article. So you are saying he is accurate but you don't listen / read the stuff he adds. I mean come on bro, this is hilarious.

 

[McHunt]

I will tell you a secret, I am an academic in language studies at a university, I feel confident in my understanding of the word 'exclusive'. You can twist it however you like, the reality is, no one uses this definition of the word exclusive except possibly media hacks, of which Badel is very much one.

As for the rest of your post, it is fun to watch you dig your own grave. You say the quotes are the meat and bones, you don't pay attention to the rest around it...which shock horror, is the Badel part of the article. So you are saying he is accurate but you don't listen / read the stuff he adds. I mean come on bro, this is hilarious.

I keep asking for examples, but of course, you have none.

In the academic world, what does "exclusive" mean?

 

[Kooly87]

Name three instances where Badel was wrong and Garry was right. I've noticed Garry wrong quite a bit this year, starting with his prediction that John Asiata would be the game changer for us.

I just said I hadn't compared them directly. I'm simply saying I don't recall Garry getting his facts wrong in any meaningful way in the last few years.

As for Asiata, well as you pointed out that is obviously a prediction and just speculation. That's not the same as reporting facts about current events and I'm frankly stunned that needs to be explained here.

 

[Sproj]

I keep asking for examples, but of course, you have none.

In the academic world, what does "exclusive" mean?

Any post you've put up on here from Badel is just about enough for examples. As for exclusive, I already highlighted one recent example in another thread by putting up an exclusive 15 minutes after Read.

As for exclusive - it is simple mate - you have a story / information / report no one else has. No one uses exclusive to mean I report in on Twitter, you report it on 360.

 

[Dash]

I just said I hadn't compared them directly. I'm simply saying I don't recall Garry getting his facts wrong in any meaningful way in the last few years.

As for Asiata, well as you pointed out that is obviously a prediction and just speculation. That's not the same as reporting facts about current events and I'm frankly stunned that needs to be explained here.

In today's media, "facts about current events" and "prediction and speculation" are the exact same thing.

 

[Tmac]

Just confirms my theory on why Wayne Bennett has been successful where ever he coaches, he's basically the CEO/Football Department/Coach/Recruitment officer.. all rolled into one

The second he left the blokes we had employed in those areas were all shown up to be frauds

Just confirms my theory on why Wayne Bennett has been successful where ever he coaches, he's basically the CEO/Football Department/Coach/Recruitment officer.. all rolled into one

The second he left the blokes we had employed in those areas were all shown up to be frauds

Just confirms my theory on why Wayne Bennett has been successful where ever he coaches, he's basically the CEO/Football Department/Coach/Recruitment officer.. all rolled into one

The second he left the blokes we had employed in those areas were all shown up to be frauds

I suspect you're right although out of all those roles I think Wayne's strong suit these days is coaching well established talented teams such as the Dragons for the 2010 premiership run, the current Rabbitohs side, and rep teams of course.
Apart from Wayne's first stint at the Broncos I don't think he 's shown much form in setting up a club for long term success which is what the Broncos needed during his most recent reign. When he departed we were in trouble already and heading further away from a premiership without a rebuild in sight. So while all the other culprits played their part in the Bronco's appalling decline I think Wayne's fingerprints are on it as well. The key player/leadership group he left for the next coach was a hospital pass and, of course, Seibold/Nolan/White made a bad situation worse.
With Kevvie, Ikin and Donaghy now running the show there's a lot more footy management IQ on tap and the signs are promising. Kevvie's two years as coach will serve its purpose in righting the ship even if he's not extended beyond that. The club has pretty much been a basket-case since Wayne left in 2008 but with the current management it looks like at long last we're heading in the right direction for long term success.

 

[McHunt]

Any post you've put up on here from Badel is just about enough for examples. As for exclusive, I already highlighted one recent example in another thread by putting up an exclusive 15 minutes after Read.

As for exclusive - it is simple mate - you have a story / information / report no one else has. No one uses exclusive to mean I report in on Twitter, you report it on 360.

I don't watch 360. It's too exclusive for me. And that's only one usage of "exclusive." You are talking about "exclusive information," and you are talking about via one channel. Information isn't exclusive. It wants to be free.

Seems a petty argument.

Here's some Garry from the last month or so:

Immediately - by the end of the month




Milford to Eels




Rhys out




Oates and Isaako to be released early




Lodge and Pangai going nowhere

 

[Scorchie]

Any post you've put up on here from Badel is just about enough for examples. As for exclusive, I already highlighted one recent example in another thread by putting up an exclusive 15 minutes after Read.

As for exclusive - it is simple mate - you have a story / information / report no one else has. No one uses exclusive to mean I report in on Twitter, you report it on 360.

It's interesting McBadel only ever posts articles from Badel. The gig is up, Pete

 

[theshed]

I hate this thread

 

[McHunt]

I just said I hadn't compared them directly. I'm simply saying I don't recall Garry getting his facts wrong in any meaningful way in the last few years.

As for Asiata, well as you pointed out that is obviously a prediction and just speculation. That's not the same as reporting facts about current events and I'm frankly stunned that needs to be explained here.

What are these "facts about current events" that Badel is lying about?

Give me an example.