She reports that Sanders was forced to distance himself from his vicious Bernie Bro online supporters renowned for their bullying tactics, mostly on Twitter when the issue bled into the real political sphere and become a problem for him in the presidential nomination debate

Maley notes that Twitter is a negligible source of readers for the Sun Herald where people clicking through links posted on Twitter accounted for only 1 per cent of traffic.

But, on the score of noise, she concludes that we seem to have reached a strange spot in our public discourse where we have swapped meaningful debate for the amplification of voices and views we claim to despise.

In other words, bullying on the internet is a big problem, which is not news to many Australians and their kids, including the little guy heading up the news on the Indigenees-Maori NRL match last weekend.

I am not a great fan of either the SMH or Maley, but they make a good point.

Re "Bruce,there is at least 1/2 dozen example's of "Bullshit,lie's,innuendo's & untruth's " in that story,along with inaccuracies.Also,whilst on this subject,hypocracy & pidgeon holing...as far as giving the " detail's " respectfully mate,read the story again,& you will see it in,written & documented in THEIR WORD'S,not what greyhound participant's " read into it ".One thing always "annoys me " Bruce is you never hear about a certain animal shelter's policy re euthanizing Animals once their time has expired,again Bruce,where's the balance ??,

I have read the article several times, printed it out (10 pages) and made notes and queries on just about every page. Maybe I could argue the toss about this and that but I would be pin-pricking and getting away from the prime purpose of the article.

Given that it is a very public piece of information, I tried to put myself into the position of the average reader and assess how useful it was. I found it informative and interesting, as did the SMH editor.

As someone with above average knowledge of the industry, I also tried to assess its worth from that angle. On balance, I found it to be helpful to the industry's objectives.

Absolutely, I could find small holes here and there in matters where I have detailed knowledge. That's always true of similar articles on any subject. However, I would not dare to take on the myriad aspects of who does re-homing, how and why. That's not my bag. That's for people with greater knowledge and experience than me - and they should certainly write to the SMH accordingly.

You see, whether you like it or not, from the viewpoint of the author (and of the public) the article is pretty thorough and plausible. Plus, I had no trouble assessing that the overall industry would not suffer because of it. Mind you, I would have loved him calling me and asking if parts of it could be improved. But that's not how it works in mainstream media.

I might add that I have written thousands of words to the Special Commission, GA and others calling them to account for errors. That included correcting those mistakes and asking that they publish a revised version. Sadly, that rarely happens and is not going to happen here.

Please re-read my responses addressed to Nathan.

I gather you have not read the whole article - or perhaps any part of it.

If you do that you will find that Robson did ask GA for the data but got only a weak and waffly reply and no figures. IF you are an observer of the industry you would expect its peak organisation to have facts at its fingertips.

As a matter of interest, you will have similar problems getting those figures on horses or, indeed, any animals, largely because there are so many people doing the euthanasing, including most local Councils and every individual vet. RSPCA (which is also state-based) publishes lots of figures but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

You then point out that GWIC has very good stats - which is true - but please note that the GWIC website is only one of three which embraces NSW (GRNSW has two of its own). On top of that, every state has a different way of disclosing figures and often more than one organisation doing the disclosing.

At the moment, there are not only no national figures on euthanasia but no national figures on anything - they all stopped after 2015. So whatever stuff you need you will have to browse thru piles of garbage on a dozen websites to find the answer - and it will not always be there anyway.

To coin a phrase - that shortcoming is a dog's breakfast which shames this racing code.

In other words, you expect a journalist to spend a large amount of time ferretting out data in perhaps a dozen websites and, even then, not being sure of getting the whole picture, after having already been told they are not available.

Surely, you would be better off asking why GA is five years out of date with its national figures (which have never included euthanasia anyway).

Sure, a journalist must make reasonable attempts to check any available source. More or less, Robson did that. You or I might have gone further if we really wanted the complete story so why don't you try that and find out how long it all takes and whether you ended up with the full bottle - nationally.

PS: The sentence you criticised - "No statistics on the number of greyhounds bred or put down annually are available from the industrys independently managed state and territory jurisdictions" - is 100% accurate in national terms.

It is that mishandling which got us into difficulty in the first place - see the "confidential" memo from GA's previous CEO, written prior to the 2016 Special Commission. Take that out and we would probably not have so many extra rules and restrictions.

I read the whole article

If you do that you will find that Robson did ask GA for the data but got only a weak and waffly reply and no figures. IF you are an observer of the industry you would expect its peak organisation to have facts at its fingertips.

Where in the article does it say Robson got a "weak and waffly reply"? GA may well (and probably does) have the figures at its fingertips but

1) GA are NOT greyhound racing's peak body.
2) Who says they have to provide assistance to people that (a) are just repeating the same old, tired garbage and (b) are doing a hatchett job on the industry?

As a matter of interest, you will have similar problems getting those figures on horses or, indeed, any animals, largely because there are so many people doing the euthanasing, including most local Councils and every individual vet. RSPCA (which is also state-based) publishes lots of figures but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

1) RSPCA isn't state based, the A stands for something. See if you can work it out...
2) How many councils are euthanising greyhounds?

You then point out that GWIC has very good stats - which is true - but please note that the GWIC website is only one of three which embraces NSW (GRNSW has two of its own). On top of that, every state has a different way of disclosing figures and often more than one organisation doing the disclosing.

1) Where did I point this out???
2) But haven't you just told us that GA is the peak body responsible for these figures? Why does it matter if GWIC, etc, don't have them (which they do)

At the moment, there are not only no national figures on euthanasia but no national figures on anything - they all stopped after 2015. So whatever stuff you need you will have to browse thru piles of garbage on a dozen websites to find the answer - and it will not always be there anyway.

Why do I need to browse for national euthanasia figures? I'm not an anti.

To coin a phrase - that shortcoming is a dog's breakfast which shames this racing code.

No, it doesn't

In other words, you expect a journalist to spend a large amount of time ferretting out data in perhaps a dozen websites and, even then, not being sure of getting the whole picture, after having already been told they are not available.

I expect journalists to get it right, even if they have to put in a FOI request, which is commonplace. Obviously Robson didn't feel that need for the real truth in this article.

Surely, you would be better off asking why GA is five years out of date with its national figures (which have never included euthanasia anyway).

No

Sure, a journalist must make reasonable attempts to check any available source. More or less, Robson did that. You or I might have gone further if we really wanted the complete story so why don't you try that and find out how long it all takes and whether you ended up with the full bottle - nationally.

How do you know Robson made reasonable attempt to check any available source? As pointed out by other posters, it's not that hard to find the NSW figures. Did he ask a participant, maybe? From what I read, he wasn't interested in what participants have to say.

PS: The sentence you criticised - "No statistics on the number of greyhounds bred or put down annually are available from the industrys independently managed state and territory jurisdictions" - is 100% accurate in national terms.

I didn't criticise any sentence. You simply made that up.

It is that mishandling which got us into difficulty in the first place - see the "confidential" memo from GA's previous CEO, written prior to the 2016 Special Commission. Take that out and we would probably not have so many extra rules and restrictions.

I didn't mishandle anything and if everyone in the industry had my beliefs the whole shemozzle wouldn't have happened. I tried to warn them (GRV) and posted as much in here but was shouted down at the time by the biggest figure in the industry. Of course, admin here wanted that person's input so deleted most of that little spat but as it turned out I was right and he was wrong.

Yes Tornado we do expect a little bit more research before exposing more bullshit and lie's but this is typical of the Leftist paper Robson writes for..

Tornado Quote

Sure, a journalist must make reasonable attempts to check any available source. More or less, Robson did that.

WRONG Tornado ... Robson did not attempt to source the FACTS Robson didn't attempt Jack Sh1t he LIED ..

The facts and the numbers say that Robson is a Journalist on the way out ...his paper is almost gone with numbers dropping for sales each month each year they will not survive past 2022 .

Since you endorsed the quotes from Nathan I have to accept that they are also your views.

GA is the only peak body we have and frequently is called upon to speak for the industry. That's why Robson spoke to them. The weak and waffly description is mine, based on his direct quotes of what GA told him (ie we do not know plus we have great policies, etc)

In any event, GA has a poor record in the PR stakes.

All Councils which have pounds also practice euthanasia.

RSPCA has a national body (I think based in Canberra) but each state operates more or less independently. For example, NSW wants to ban greyhound racing while Victoria does not - and has been told by government to concentrate on its brief which is to address welfare matters and the like.

Your FOI comment is irrelevant as GA had already told him they did not have the figures. To an inquirer, that means there is nothing to issue an FOI for.

My use of the word "mishandling" related to what GA did previously (not your comments)so your reaction is out of context.

* * * *

In the final analysis, some people here are incensed at what Robson has said and classify it as harmful to the industry. Unfortunately, they don't say exactly why. I don't read it that way (I said 80/20), largely because I am generally familiar with how reporters and media work, which is why I tried to put myself in Robson's position when reviewing the article.

I have written some 1,500 paid articles on which I have dealt with several media publications including SMH and The Australian.

On the other hand, I have strongly criticised a now-retired SMH environment/greyhound reporter directly and to the editor. She was heavily biased.

Time will tell.

You are 100% correct Graeme.....and its great to see you posting again.....but you do know you're bashing your head against a 'brick wall'.....lol

Please keep posting mate......you make a lot of sense!

Greyhounds Australia Nil info
Queensland (RQ and QRIC) Nil info
NSW (now with GWIC) 281 for the six months Jul/Dec 2019.
Victoria Nil info
Tasmania Nil info
Western Australia Nil info
South Australia 127 in 2018/19.

No doubt phone or email contact might have located more data or it may not. Either way, the nations peak body says it has not worked it out yet so that would have satisfied 99% of reporters, particularly when it was only background information for the article in question. Robsons subject was not euthanasia but re-homing.

As for you, did you look for the breeding stats? Why not? To think this Robson goose has achieved far more as a 'journalist' than certain others ever did speaks volumes.

As for GA, they never told him they didn't have the figures at all. My reading of what they reportedly told Robson was that they're working with the various States on HOW they're reported at the national level.

"Cherie Nicholl tells Good Weekend that GA is still in the process of scoping a consistent national data framework to provide figures for greyhound breeding and euthanasia."

PS. Experience tells me that 99% of reporters are lazy sods who'll just throw up whatever they can to make a story, preferably one that creates some controversy.

Its a stupid report because 12 years is 8 or so years before the LB scandals that saw major changes

If they were objective they would present statistics before and after LB to show how the industry has improved

These fucking journalists are agenda driven