Talk:Australian media focuses on Olympic prospects against US for women's basketball

Journalist notes

I am having some major internet problems. I cannot upload all my notes in PDF format that is readable. I type them from relevant parts of my notes here. --LauraHale (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This confirms the female print reporter was probably the Canberra Times. One of the cameras said Fox Sports. Another camera I saw said WIN Television, and there was a guy in a suit talking to the Basketball Australia media guy while the WIN Television Camera was near. --LauraHale (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee and Tim stayed at the AIS while I went to a meeting. They restarted their training at 3:00pm according to Bidgee and their schedule. I arrived back at 4:20 or so. I asked both Bidgee and Tim if there were any other press while I was there. No, they had not seen anyone. While I was there, I did not see any press myself outside of some one with a video camera who had a shirt on that identified him as being affiliated with the Opals. --LauraHale (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To help support one of the key points regarding the issue of establishing a narrative: The media already has this narrative. It has been covered in several other news pieces prior to this training camp. When you watch television, you get subjected to Australian Olympic coverage is coming up. Count down to the Games. Do you know how many days until the games? When they run clips, they run them of their best sports where the medal chances are there and this includes women's basketball. --LauraHale (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The press conference ogg files should verify parts of the notes outside media observations as you can listen to the responses. --LauraHale (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, the audio of the press conference makes it abundantly clear that the USA and Australia are not in the same pool for the pool round of the Olympic tourney while in contrast, the UK team is in their pool. This can be confirmed here if another source is needed. --LauraHale (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be good to add that as a source. It could also be useful to link to wikipedia:2012 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament for Women so people can see what other countries will be facing Australia in Group B. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Except the article says that, and the press conference says that. It isn't necessarily one of the most pertinent details in my opinion. The only matches the media cared about were GB and USA. In the press conference, Lauren Jackson said something about how the Czech Republic would be a challenge as they are quite good... but they aren't necessarily playing the Czechs. --LauraHale (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Press conference

The following are files from the press conference at AIS that started at approximately 10:46am UTC+11 today. Carrie Graf, Lauren Jackson and Jenna O'Hea were in attendance.

Press conference 14-5-12 Lauren Jackson 1

Press conference 14-5-12 Lauren Jackson 2

Press conference 14-5-12 Lauren Jackson 3

These were recorded using my iPhone and memo only allows files so big. :( Erk. :( Bidgee may be able to get video from it uploaded later. --LauraHale (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

COI?

As a general disclaimer, I was attending as a member of Wikimedia Australia and Wikinews accredited reporter. (Talking my way into press coverage comes on the strength of Wikipedia/WM-AU work more than Wikinews sadly.) Thus, references to Wikimedia Australia might be viewed as potentially COI in this context. On the other hand, it wouldn't be accurate to state no media was there when clearly WE WERE there. --LauraHale (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To make this a bit more clear: Two photographers from Wikimedia Australia were present for the afternoon session. One was present for the morning training session and press conference. I was also there, and it is my copy of the sound file and my notes from which the article was written. I did not ask any questions during the press conference. I did not speak to any players. The extent to which I really interacted with people was clarifying media times with the Basketball Australia representative. --LauraHale (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1499037 [Not ready]

Revision 1499037 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Avoid the "narrative" characterization, as that seems inherently POV; it ascribes motive rather than reporting what happened. The two passages here that have POV problems both use that word, narrative. Most POV: "... supporting the ongoing narrative the Australian team going into the Olympics of the 2012 Summer Olympics, with the team cast as pre-ordained as ...". It's one thing to say their questions presuppose something will happen, another to say their questions support the ongoing narrative that it will happen. The former can be neutral description of what was said; the latter is POV ascription of motive to those saying it. The beginning of the second paragraph takes the "narrative" approach again, and again it's a problem; adjust to avoid the word and concept. Working out just how to do this is something I'd like to help with, but for two obstacles. Independence for review — but if that were the only consideration, I might just devise and implement minimal changes I thought would fix the problem, and then consider whether I needed to disqualify myself as a result, and if I needed to I would. Verification. Before making a call on rewording I'd want to listen to the audio files for myself — and unfortunately, on the machine I'm currently using, the most volume I can get out of the files is too low for me to make out a single word said. I might get some time later today on a machine with better audio output. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1499037 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Avoid the "narrative" characterization, as that seems inherently POV; it ascribes motive rather than reporting what happened. The two passages here that have POV problems both use that word, narrative. Most POV: "... supporting the ongoing narrative the Australian team going into the Olympics of the 2012 Summer Olympics, with the team cast as pre-ordained as ...". It's one thing to say their questions presuppose something will happen, another to say their questions support the ongoing narrative that it will happen. The former can be neutral description of what was said; the latter is POV ascription of motive to those saying it. The beginning of the second paragraph takes the "narrative" approach again, and again it's a problem; adjust to avoid the word and concept. Working out just how to do this is something I'd like to help with, but for two obstacles. Independence for review — but if that were the only consideration, I might just devise and implement minimal changes I thought would fix the problem, and then consider whether I needed to disqualify myself as a result, and if I needed to I would. Verification. Before making a call on rewording I'd want to listen to the audio files for myself — and unfortunately, on the machine I'm currently using, the most volume I can get out of the files is too low for me to make out a single word said. I might get some time later today on a machine with better audio output. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I think I have addressed the POV issues. Some of the press conference stuff may be more available in my handwritten notes. --LauraHale (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Media

Talked to media person today. The media did indeed get some coverage wrong, like one television report that said there were 22 players at camp. (There are actually 19. Oddly, it says THIS FACT DIRECTLY on the media hand out they gave to the journos, which I finally acquired today.) The players and organisation are aware the media narrative is they will play the USA in the gold medal round but from a team perspective, the media manager said there is no guarantee they will even make it that far as their competition is that strong. Plus, this narrative puts a lot of additional pressures on people to perform well. This is both good and bad but not ideal.

Randomly, Liz Cambage is awesome. She's a member of the team and called the media guy for us so we could make sure we absolutely had permission to take photographs in the strength and conditioning centre so we could take pictures like File:Australian Opals in the AIS Strength and Conditioning Gym during day three of the Opals camp.jpg though better ones are coming.

And while parts of the camp are open to the media all week, this session was accessible had they chosen to attend, but no one else did. I don't think you get a real appreciation for the amount of work they put into preparation with out that and the media does a good job neglecting some of that stuff outside the basketball court. --LauraHale (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1500475 [Passed]

Revision 1500475 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm satisfied sufficiently to publish at this point. I could wish the OR notes (including audio) were less difficult. The publication process for this article has been SNAFU. Things got off on the wrong foot with the neutrality problem, which took a long time to clear owing to an unfortunate concatenation of circumstances helped along by timezone disparity. Once the article was already less than fresh, it seems to have fallen victim to the priority that tends to go on getting newly written articles (especially if they're synthesis) reviewed while there's still a chance of getting them out the door while still at their freshest (which tends to get articles reviewed toward the young end of the queue). There were also difficulties with the OR notes that further slowed processing (reviewers with limited time will tend to choose an easy article to review, so if there's something awkward about an article that may become a serious disadvantage on the queue). The obvious solution is to not make mistakes and not have anything go wrong, which would certainly make most things in life work a lot better. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1500475 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm satisfied sufficiently to publish at this point. I could wish the OR notes (including audio) were less difficult. The publication process for this article has been SNAFU. Things got off on the wrong foot with the neutrality problem, which took a long time to clear owing to an unfortunate concatenation of circumstances helped along by timezone disparity. Once the article was already less than fresh, it seems to have fallen victim to the priority that tends to go on getting newly written articles (especially if they're synthesis) reviewed while there's still a chance of getting them out the door while still at their freshest (which tends to get articles reviewed toward the young end of the queue). There were also difficulties with the OR notes that further slowed processing (reviewers with limited time will tend to choose an easy article to review, so if there's something awkward about an article that may become a serious disadvantage on the queue). The obvious solution is to not make mistakes and not have anything go wrong, which would certainly make most things in life work a lot better. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.