Pathetic as it is I am sure you're right. Moreover, for me the remarkable thing is that so very little of useful substance for rugby readers comes from these ARU 'inside leaks', media conferences, post-game chats, 'friendly conversations with leading players', and such like. What does get so communicated is typically PR output, superficial guff and deliberately manipulated story lines all designed to suit the provider. Most overrated are the player interviews which hardly ever reveal anything of much value or fresh insight beyond the banal and ARU-trained motherhood worldview of all things Wallaby. And which ARU or S15 media conference ever revealed anything of engaging novelty or useful, uncontrolled information?
That so many of today's mainstream rugby writers treasure their access to the above types of sources and outputs says it all, namely: they are typically incapable of compiling original, well-researched stories providing genuine and fresh insight into rugby matters. Further, they are clearly intellectually lazy - paid for 40 hrs pw and working no more than 20 real hrs I'd guess - and simply can't be bothered to go where others don't, and look hard for the data that can generate real insight and useful educative writing for rugby enthusiasts.
No wonder 'old media' is in strife. In today's Aus rugby mainstream 'journalism' we see partly why - the reader is so poorly served, and the level of education of the average reader is pulsing ahead faster than that of the encrusted journalist mired in past habits and dying contacts.
Enter GAGR where the likes of Scott Allan and USARugger show what can be done with a mix of rugby passion, sharp intellect, a fresh perspective and a desire to find the better truth through the examination of facts and deeper data. They are truly the new frontier of rugby knowledge and enlivening insight. Long may they run.
I disagree with a lot of this, particularly the implication that rugby journos are lazy idiots.
Firstly I think your expectations are out of kilter with the average sports fan. And that is who these guys are writing for, not hardcore types like you and me. The midweek player interviews aren't particularly engrossing, but they are readable and have a human angle that will interest the regular sports reader.
Take the recent G&GR piece on the ARU finances. A few commentators (including yourself) came back with the question 'why isn't the mainstream media covering this?'. And whilst it is a fair question, I believe the answer goes beyond your two ideas- namely that they are lazy and they want to protect their relationships with the ARU.
Firstly, that financial stuff is very complicated. Note that the the guy who did most of it for us (Scott Allen) works daily in that sphere, and hence is somewhat qualified to write about it. I would suggest a rugby journalist is a bit like me- didn't do anything numbers-based at uni, and has very little idea about how to read an annual report and pick out financial irregularities. So why should these people have to cover it for a national newspaper? They possess no qualifications to cover what is in essence a financial story, and a dense one at that.
The point is, contrary to what you have said, that these guys work bloody hard. They are made to do more with less resources (an example of this is Iain Payten having to cover the Ashes squad announcement). The role of the 'rugby journo' is no longer what it used to be. So the truth is these guys don't have the hours it takes to comb through reports and run long campaigns focusing on ARU finance.
And even if they did do the mainstream sporting public care? Well if it was obvious mismanagement or fraud then yes. But an increase in corporate expenditure? That may have a possible explanation? I don't know. It certainly isn't front page stuff though.
And to the point on protecting relationships with the ARU- it is true, but only to a point. Yes they rely on these bodies for access to players, coaches, games. But this stuff doesn't get withdrawn because of a negative story. The ARU isn't North Korea. You seem to want these guys to run prolonged campaigns against the ARU, with the assumption that there is a Watergate-esque story happening that is going undiscovered because our journos are too lazy and precious to pick it up.
But again it comes back to two things- Is there actually a story there? If so, does anyone care? I'd say the answer to both is 'probably not'. Yes, hardcore rugby fans like us may care about financial irregularities, but I'm not sure the man in the street does- how many stories do you see on the NRL or AFL Annual Reports? I can't remember many, though I confess those aren't sections I peruse with any great interest.
Even with this changing landscape, the end output is roughly the same as it always was. Reviews of the weekend's matches. Previews of upcoming matches. Midweek stories about injuries, selections, debutants, veterans, etc. I don't think the death of so-called 'old media' has much to do with the quality of the output, especially in the sports sphere.
G&GR does so well because the writers have freedoms that mainstream journos would kill for- no time pressure, no deadlines, no need for daily output, no need for accompanying images, no need to worry about defamation or advertising, no need to worry about relationships with controlling bodies, coaches or players. This freedom comes through in what we put out, and ultimately it makes us what we are.
I refer back to
an article I wrote a year or so ago for the front page that I think still holds true. Worth a read if you missed it.
.