I like this.
Some fair points but a bit of over the top foot stamping as well.
It was bad enough when the headline for an article about the Palace Papers referred to GOFF Whitlam. Someone should be sacked for that.
This is gold…
" It’s understood the decision was made because the AFL believes Cleary’s obligations are as an AFL employee before his obligations as a journalist.
AFL Media has in the past declared it is independent from the league."
So the AFL are finally publicly admitting that all articles by AFL accredited meda are, in effect, approved by the AFL themselves. Not a surprise to anyone here who has followed the saga reporting and persecution of Hird by Caro, Barrett and co.
More noise needs to be made about this. The AFL must be pressured into re-instating Mitch Cleary.
I don’t even really have that much time for journalists but this is so wrong on so many levels.
Wonder if that purple headed ■■■■■■■ will have the pills to stand up and call it out. He’s the chief reporter for AFL media…
Surely it’s up to the journos to take a stand. After all they have the platform to do it.
laughing uncontrollably at the idea of AFL Media having journalistic integrity oh god i can’t stop laughing please help me
P.S. For the younger members here who may think we’re just meme-ing around, a reminder that the AFL loves the phrase “communications specialist”, though not necessarily primarily for the dictatorial reason.
This is beyond hilarious… I’m honestly in stitches that anyone thought the AwFuL Media was anything but a PR department…
I’m pretty sure everyone knew that they were (and are) a PR machine. It’s not that.
It’s just about how blatant a move this is by them for a ‘transgression’ that seems non existant. Reporting something that Brooke Cochin had put into the public space herself and which had already been discussed on radio??
Like, I could see them standing him down because he wrote some sort of huge story that exposed the AFL’s incompetence and suggested corruption etc.
If they cared about keeping up appearances like we think they do, then the AFL in standing Mitch Cleary down for this seems mighty odd.
Right, I’m going to entertain the idea of integrity for 20 seconds
Perhaps Cleary did do something against protocol that we just don’t/won’t know about. For example, contacting Ms Cotchin to get permission to share her content, got an explicit “no” but went ahead anyway.
Ok done back to hysterical laughter
she’d already shared it, it was public property.
Yep. What choppsuey said.
Incorrect. Still have to get permission to share in a commercial media outlet.
May as well argue that a movie being put out at the cinema makes it public property.
If she hasn’t copyrighted the content, it’s fair game.
As distinct from every movie you’ve ever seen which is copyrighted.
So for instance every single tweet that’s published in an article must have been approved by the original tweeter in order to be published?