I'm not a journalist so I don't know uinder what rules/morals/ethics they operate under.66 Saints wrote:THanks for the response Mr M.
Ralph doesn't mention in this article that the Saints put Ball on the trade table, apologies if this was in an earlier article.
technically Collingwood are the only club that made a play for him in trade week. I don't recall reading of any offers coming in from these other clubs who are now interested.
It would have been nice if Luke and his management opened the field then and we may have done a straight swap for Lovett and kept pick 16. However they didn't and the club tried get him to Collingwood (but only in an equitable deal).
I'd be optimistic of getting to Collingwood if I were Luke Ball as well, yes there are 3-4 other clubs looking at him but none have said they will draft him, until they do you'd be optimistic.
Of course journalists get 'fed' information and don't get by making 'lucky' guesses, thats what being a journalist is. You make phone calls, meet some people, some don't comment, others do and you write about it.
I haven't read all of Jon's articles over the past few weeks so can't comment on the favourable light you mention, however as above, St Kilda have said no more comments, obviously Connors is still commenting and Ralph is employed to write about AFL.
I don't agree that Ralph is deceiptful or an untrustworthy stooge.
BUT if I was and someone 'feeds' me a story that I cannot confirm independantly if it is true or not, I would certainly either not publish it or put in a 'rider' to the effect that what I'm reporting is only 1 side's version of the story.
I ertainly would be avoiding making misleading claims like the one I highlighted previously.
Ralph and for that matter all other journalists know that Ball already had a deal in place with Collingwood when he advised the Club that he wanted a trade.
He didn't ask to be 'put on the trade table', but to be traded to Collingwood.
They are not the same thing, in fact very different circumstances.
For Ralph to write an article which infers/portrays that no other Clubs showed interest in him is , IMHO, deceitful.
I consider it to be deceitful because it tried to convey an image of Collingwood being the only Club that had any interest in 'poor Luke' and that the Saints/AFL/everybody else is 'being mean' to him by just not allowing him to get there.
That is in fact tantamount to acting on behalf of Ball/Connors in their very public campaign to achieve their desired result.
That may not be his 'prime motive' in writing this article but it is noetheless the result he achieves.
And quite frankly, if it requires the term 'technically' to be brought out to justify it, then that's pretty much proof that it was written in a deceptive manner. (again IMO)
We all know that no other Club was given any opportunity to trade for Ball becasue the Saints attempted to do the deal with the only Club Ball nominated.
Had we been the 'heartless disloyal monsters' we've been portrayed I have no doubt we could have arranged a trade for him with another Club that would have been to our benefit, but maybe not his.
Maybe if more journalists were held to account to write accurate articles rather than the mistake riddled and deliberately misleading ones we get, then the standard of journalism may rise from its current level?
