Damian Barrets artical in the hun

[tigertim]

Says a lot about a supporters' forum when someone can't spell "article" correctly and the thread goes on for pages.

btw, HeadandShin, Grant wouldn't have written the headline.

Grant is a very good journo. I thought his piece was quite good.

There is of course the subtle difference of a journo being expected to have their basic grammar etc correct whereas the basic poster in a footy forum isn't expected to...would be nice...but isn't expected.

 

[IanG]

Grant is a very good journo. I thought his piece was quite good.

Thank god I'm not the only one.

There is of course the subtle difference of a journo being expected to have their basic grammar etc correct whereas the basic poster in a footy forum isn't expected to...would be nice...but isn't expected.

A sub-editor would have written the headline not Grant. And the Hun have made a lot of editorial staff redundant recently.

 

[tigertim]

Barrett has hit back with a nice fluff piece on Hawthorn and their success. He did include a subtle reference to Norths membership numbers being down on last years.

 

[Tiger74]

Barrett has hit back with a nice fluff piece on Hawthorn and their success. He did include a subtle reference to Norths membership numbers being down on last years.

Reckon this year may be a tough one for the Kangas. between the economic downturn and the non-Kangas supporters not renewing their 2008 pity memberships....

 

[HeadandShin]

Says a lot about a supporters' forum when someone can't spell "article" correctly and the thread goes on for pages.

btw, HeadandShin, Grant wouldn't have written the headline.

Grant is a very good journo. I thought his piece was quite good.

There is of course the subtle difference of a journo being expected to have their basic grammar etc correct whereas the basic poster in a footy forum isn't expected to...would be nice...but isn't expected.

I think it is PRE protocol not to amend an OP's heading.

Without wishing to nitpick further, I agree Grant would likely not have written the headline - but surely some sub-ed should have picked it up? It does go to the quality of the paper itself; and journos should be mindful of attaching their name to a potentially incorrect headline, and check for this (tho' I accept they may not be allowed to have input at that stage). The point about layoffs of staff could explain it.

I actually thought the piece was not too bad until he started saying the board was in disarray - there are a few interpretations possible, and he chose a negative one. It's equally possible that people were saying different things to reserve their position, and to keep other clubs and journos guessing! I thought at the time that the club seemed to be deliberately muddying things for those reasons.

From that point (the "disarray"), he cast doubt on whether we were suitable for Cousins - a very tenuous point. He may be a good writer, but this was not his best work by any stretch.

 

[Streak]

From the anguish that this guy's articles have caused on these boards, I would imagine that Damian is well pleased with his recent efforts. All journos strive for their work to be discussed, and there ain't no such thing as bad press.

Now that he knows he is on a winner, can't see the game plan changing much really.