Who's the toothless tiger?

This article might be seen as biting off the hand that potentially feeds. But I don't care. As freelance writers, we're taught to write about topics that ensnare our passion, make us frolic or seethe inside. So, here goes.

Now that the dust has settled and Terry Wallace’s life has returned to relative anonymity – maybe he’s even sleeping and eating again – I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the blowtorch to be turned the other way. In short, the media’s treatment of Wallace this year has been nothing short of savage. Blood-thirsty. A slight on the profession.

The carnage began after Richmond’s first round loss to Carlton. It was Wallace's final year of a five-year plan and he'd yet to make the finals. Richmond needed a strong start to the year to keep the wolves at bay. It didn't. The Tigers were thumped, and they – the wolves – sprang to life. The losses kept coming and the calls for Wallace's head – literally – reached fever-pitch in round four after a loss to cellar-dweller Melbourne.

The media – so often a struggling coach's Achilles heel in April and May – probed Richmond's bigwigs about Wallace's future, to which their position was unequivocally stated – that it would be reviewed mid-season. And yet, amid such headlines as 'Death Row', the same question continued to be asked and the public woke up to the same article – albeit with a few words moved around – every morning for a week.

Even Ben Cousins' return from injury didn't arouse the lower-regions of writers and subs.Remember not so long ago when the Herald-Sun, tired of being hot on Cousins' heals for no result, sent out a plea to readers: have you seen Ben Cousins?

Then came Wallace's 'week from hell', where an unlucky three-point loss to Port Adelaide condemned Richmond to 1-7. Wallace’s sacking was misreported (it would later be dubbed as ‘the non-sacking') amid rumours of a player revolt, and the circus reached proportions that would make our British brethren blush. One article observed Wallace's 'gaunt' features; that he'd lost four kilograms. And yet they continued pushing. That Wallace had been involved in 500 games at the highest level mattered none. The respect and dignity normally reserved for a person of such calibre forgotten in the gluttony of attack.

How long until this sort of treatment puts someone over the edge?

I'm not denying the story was there, and, yes, some of the disclosures were out of the box. But surely when the denials start, and the broken record is immovably stuck on track one, it's time to move on?

Football clubs are like any other employer. They do things on their own terms. When did your last employer get hassle from an outside party and then think to themselves, “Oh yeah, why didn't we think of that?”

Richmond fans, among the most passionate in the competition, would be sick to the teeth of the negativity surrounding their club. They know better than anyone how they're travelling on and off the field. Yes, a new coach should have been appointed earlier in the season. Yes, their club has made some perplexing decisions at draft and trade time. But they don't need their faces rubbed in it. And they especially don't need journalists and cameramen hiding behind pot plants and then reporting fact based on assumption.

Whenever journalists are challenged by players or club management on intrusiveness or shoddy reporting, their usual response is that players' and coaches' salaries are worthy of such scrutiny; that it's not for them to decide what's in the public's interest. What's forgotten is that with the rigours of modern-day football a player's career can end with one bent limb, and, historically, a coach's life only accounts for a small percentage of their life.

And so we get manic sensationalism from editors trying to outstrip their rivals, and, with increased third-party interests in the game, more outlets delivering news to the people they say matter most – the fans.

What codswallop. If fans mattered most then many things would be different, not least the fact that you are still short after handing over $10 for a beer and a meat pie.

Are the media still giving us what we want to know, or is the current climate of reportage based on assumption? If public forums are anything to go by, it's the latter. The on-line tide is turning. The average Joes don't trust what they read anymore. There's one senior writer of eloquent, minimalist prose who should understand this better than most. Bottom last in Herald Sun's tipping competition, among his many privileges is the ability to amend his pre-season predictions. If only the rest of us were able to reconsider the choices we get paid for. Amongst the varied condemnation posted this year, one popular notion is, “I'd have lost my job ten times over if I kept getting it wrong like that”.

How about changing that record, Mr Media? What about some focus on the good side of footballers' lives? Their entertainment value during these grim times aside, what about how the majority of these young blokes carry themselves as role models when so many of a similar age are turning Melbourne's streets into battlefields?

Maybe you could even write about what’s happening on the field. When was the last time two teams remained unbeaten after eleven rounds?