Andrew Webster of the SMH - Souths PR campaign to save Burgess

[Spirit of 66]

A must read - employs every trick in the PR book to generate doubt about this incident and cast Burgess and Souths in the best possible light. This is corporate disaster PR management not journalism. Some excerpts:

- “NRL says it is impossible to draw comparisons between the Pearce incident and the claim ...from an anonymous woman” (I.e. anonymous equals not credible)
- “the woman involved in the sexting scandal has identified herself as a Roosters fan who hails from Sydney’s eastern suburbs. There is no suggestion she is trying to sabotage Souths’ run at the premiership.” (i.e. cast doubt on accuser’s motives)
- “The NRL...says it is too premature and the facts too blurred to decide if the Souths player should be stood down” (i.e. ignore the dick...this is actually not what you think
- “Is this harassment? Gross indecency? A honey trap from a scorned admirer? A legal issue or a moral one? It remains murky at best.” (i.e. again, cast doubt on accuser’s motives)
- “It is understood the Souths player has claimed that the explicit photos were consensually shared.” (i.e. she asked for it)

More broadly, who in the NRL is giving this PR man these insights (some might say judgements) before the investigation has finished? Greenburg? The Integrity Unit? The cleaner?

This is so carefully crafted I think there is zero chance now of any NRL action on this. It has been decided and Webster has been instructed to create a fog of innuendo to hide the double standards being applied.


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/sou...16-p50448.html

[Serenader]

Wow.......Just wow......

[Hollus]

What a gutter piece of trash written by none other than the Embarrassing Fat Moron himself.

[Bowzy]

Wow, this is unbelievable. If no repruccisions happen for this than I’m done with this game.

[zac]

I thought the piece alright. Although saying the girl is a Roosters fan without any corroborating evidence is suspicious. That claim puts the matter in a different light and to make it without backing it up casts doubt on Webster's journalistic competence.
I go back to Webster's suggestion that Robbo was 'bizarre' to suggest that Dugan was feigning injury when Latrell tackled him. (To suggest that Dugan has never feigned injury is far more bizarre.)
Two pieces of reporting that cast doubt on Webster's objectivity.

[The Axe]

Should this be covered up, women should boycott women in league weekend in protest

[RoosterFanNZ]

lol no comparison between pearce and this incident, of course not pearce was drunk and didnt know he was being filmed but still didnt have his junk out. burgess was sober videoing himself being a moron

[The Axe]

THe smh article smacks of their legal team distancing the paper from a lawsuit

[Rooster_6]

To be fair I think Webster is just offering a different voice and some new facts on the incident to the very lopsided reporting elsewhere. If the player is saying he is innocent of the accusations being directed at him then he should be allowed to defend that stance until the evidence proves otherwise.

What we do seem to know from one of the Burgess boys admitting that his brother has made a big mistake in one of the English papers is that unfortunately it seems like a family man with kids has done this all behind his wifes back.

I think this is where Webster has missed the point, its not about whether its a legal, moral or other kind of issue. When it comes to these kinds of incidents the game punishes based on whether the game has been brought into disrepute and to what level.

The question that should be asked is has the player not already brought the game into disrepute regardless of whether the pictures were requested or not?

And that is where you can start to draw parallels to the Pearce incident, see Pearce wasn't punished for his actions but rather the perceived damage his actions, given his high profile did to the game.

His high profile in the game being key, the NRL was not setting a precedent for players who pretend to hump a dog just like they wouldnt be setting a precedent for players who cheat (assuming reports are true) but what they have done in the Pearce case is set a precedent on high profile players who bring the game into disrepute. This is the question that needs to be asked when assessing whether the player should have already been stood down.

[ROC181]

Webster is not defending anyone. He is just saying what’s happening at the moment. His story yesterday was about players wanting the media to write nice stories yet they behave like morons. It’s only Monday morning and business hasn’t open yet. I expect this story to get worse for Souths by Wednesday.

[Danish]

Save Burgess from missing a prelim..... but destroyed his marriage in the process.


what an utter scumbag Sammy B is. Heavily pregnant wife and infant child at home, and he is out trawling social media for pussy.

[Bigchook]

I've heard burgess will be stood down for the rest of the year.

[ism22]

Should this be covered up, women should boycott women in league weekend in protest

Bingo. The NRL (not a physical person) thinks/says/does x, y and z. The facts are too blurred for us to say anything about any physical persons who may or may not have been involved. As a general statement of fact, an unidentified claim from an anonymous person about an unidentified player is not the same as a dog humping video being posted online.

Pretty typical stuff there. I wouldn't read too much into it.

[johnnysekret]

There is a claim this was a consensual video chat.

This woman has alleged she was repulsed and hung up immediately.

If this was true, how did she take multiple screenshots?

There is also a screendump inclusive of a woman partly naked. from the chat. which suggests this may well have been consensual.

There is no screenshot of any players face at any time in any photo, making it impossible to identify the alleged flasher.

IF Burgess did this it is totally the wrong thing to do for a married man, no debate about that, and Phoebe must be feeling betrayed.

However that is nothing to do with anyone apart from the couple involved.

I am not defending him as I don't know the facts, none of us do.

What I do know is there is always two sides to a story, and based on the actual evidence it would be very hard for the NRL to suspend him without facing a potential legal mine field.
If his face was in the pics, different scenario.

Sam has already employed two of Sydney's best defamation lawyers who are looking into all media articles, social media and rugby league forums.

There will be more to come.

[Lydon]

lol ridiculous article by Webster yet not surprising,double standards are the norm for the NRL...