Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:55 pm  

Standee wrote:

appears I owe him an apology on this occasion, so I apologise.

Quite a few people do,well done for owning up, the whole thing has been a disgrace and some of the posters should be ashamed by their comments, the whole thing has been trial,by social media and a witch hunt, and now we know.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:55 pm  

Hardaker needs to make suspicious looking mouth movements at every opportunity during games. Work the RFL into a froth & tie up the match review panel for weeks on end.

No doubt there will be those who say not enough evidence to bring charges doesn't equate to him having done nothing wrong. They would be more convinced if he had been charged & found not guilty?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:22 pm  

Maybe the R.L can move on to more serious alledged incindents that have been happening

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:47 pm  

Apart from the RFL,and the muppets on here that base their opinions of Zak on unsubstantiated allegations, the ones that should be apologising to Zak Hardaker are the members of the media at the post match press conference that created the maelstrom in the first place.Who were they,does anybody know.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:00 pm  

Dwayne Dibley wrote:

Apart from the RFL,and the muppets on here that base their opinions of Zak on unsubstantiated allegations, the ones that should be apologising to Zak Hardaker are the members of the media at the post match press conference that created the maelstrom in the first place.Who were they,does anybody know.

The journalists don't need to apologise. The RFL have along with the clubs, a duty of care towards the players and treating them fair. Journalists job is to make headlines and get people to read/listen/watch and get them reading, listening and talking about......in this case they did their job just fine, the RFL didn't. The harsh reality is journalists have no duty or obligation towards Hardaker.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:07 pm  

Depends if they are R.L. journalists in my opinion

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:18 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

The journalists don't need to apologise. The RFL have along with the clubs, a duty of care towards the players and treating them fair. Journalists job is to make headlines and get people to read/listen/watch and get them reading, listening and talking about......in this case they did their job just fine, the RFL didn't. The harsh reality is journalists have no duty or obligation towards Hardaker.

There is good and bad journalism.That fuelled by innuendo and twitter gossip (based on what?) is bad journalism in my eyes.It makes you wonder was there an agenda.Does the journo highlighting the gossip require anonyminity?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:26 pm  

Dwayne Dibley wrote:

There is good and bad journalism.That fuelled by innuendo and twitter gossip (based on what?) is bad journalism in my eyes.It makes you wonder was there an agenda.Does the journo highlighting the gossip require anonymity?

Some would argue that not going after the story is bad journalism, the guys who pay their wages would at least.

Don't know if they require anonymity, don't know if anybody has previously asked. On BackChat the other week Chris Irvine admitted to being in the post match and being one of those that asked the match commissioner about Silverwood reporting anything.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:36 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Some would argue that not going after the story is bad journalism, the guys who pay their wages would at least.

Don't know if they require anonymity, don't know if anybody has previously asked. On BackChat the other week Chris Irvine admitted to being in the post match and being one of those that asked the match commissioner about Silverwood reporting anything.

I wonder if Andrew Gilligan regretted going after the story on flimsy facts in the Dr David Kelly furore.Some thought his journalism was good journalism, I'm sure David Kelly would disagree.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:42 pm  

Dwayne Dibley wrote:

I wonder if Andrew Gilligan regretted going after the story on flimsy facts in the Dr David Kelly furore.Some thought his journalism was good journalism, I'm sure David Kelly would disagree.

Not exactly in the same league as some RL journalists asking the Match Commissioner post match "did Silverwood hear any Hardaker say anything?"