I did not think it could get any worse for the NRL or lets face it, Australian Sport after the past couple of years. I was wrong.

However I am not going to focus on this incident as everyone else is, I am instead going to focus on the comments made by Joel’s manager, Jim Banaghan “The fact that someone has sought to compound the situation further by the use of social media only adds to the trauma but Joel accepts that it is his actions alone that are at fault.”

Social Media. We all know its power, we all know how quickly news can spread online. So why, in the age of sharing and engagement do professional sporting leagues, allow traditions such as “Mad Monday” continue?

Someone always has a camera phone, someone will most likely txt the photos, someone will put the photos online and boom, it explodes to millions of people and it will NEVER be forgotten, erased or lived down.

Let do so analysis on yesterdays Monaghan fisco in the online world:

Twitter:

On the 4th of November ‘Monaghan’ trended worldwide.

The photo that I saw early in the day came from @andrewbolt ‘s twitpic account. This is of course not the real Andrew Bolt but the infamous fake account that has been in and out of the press since it began.

Up to this moment (12:15am 5th of Nov), that pic has 58,383 views.

Tweetreach.com analysis: Tweetreach can analyse a maximum of 1500 tweets, so I am only able to give you a snapshot on spread of the incident.

From the 4th of November 7:15pm (and it started circulating on Twitter the day before) the Monaghan incident was exposed to 497,232 people and was directly interacted with by 232,846 people.

@andrewbolt ‘s tweets reached 38,425 alone.

Once again, these figures are based on 1500 tweets from a time period over 12 hours since it went viral. It’s safe to say Twitter users have pushed this to millions.

Google: The query “Joel Monaghan” returned 34,100 results from the past 24 hours.

Facebook: I am unable to get stats regarding news on twitter, however, my news feed is having a field day.

YouTube: I am a YouTube addict and subscribe to many channels. One of my favourites is Phil De Franco. Phil does a news show called “The Phil De Franco Show” where Phil reports on the news he finds of interest, in an insightful humorous light.

Phil is extremely popular on YouTube and throughout social media. He is a long way from being the most subscribed on YouTube but certainly has influence.

I have noticed quite a few sending the Monaghan fiasco on to him. If Phil decides to put it on the show, it will be viewed worldwide by his many viewers. How many?

Some Phil De Franco Stats:

YouTube Subscribers: 1,336,494

Channel views: 51,031,877

Total Video Views: 440,297,571

Twitter followers: @PhillyD 150,437

Facebook Fans: 251,297

I could go on with figures all night, however the point I want to make is, when will those in the spotlight realise the social media is here to stay.

We can see above just how quickly an incident will spread and how far it can spread.

Gone are the days where the txt you send around to the guys will stay there. Gone are the days where “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” is relevant.

I understand the need to let off steam after a long season, but does Mad Monday in its current format, after reading the above figures sound like a good idea or does it sound negligent?

Yes everyone has a right to privacy, but in this era, no one has privacy, especially not those who are in the public eye.

Everyone can be a journalist to an extent. Most have the technology to do so.

When Australian Sport and its athletes, celebrities etc. But more importantly, the professional leagues like the NRL, open their eyes and wake up, they will see that not just Australia, but the world is watching them, always.

Having spent the last five years outside of the county, it’s been a re-indoctrination of sorts to watch the Olympics unfold in front of me on the television screen. As an event, the Olympics are presented the way Hollywood would produce a blockbuster, and all the tag lines are spectacular. Americans love a good show and honour any athlete who can bring the drama. This may be why the word redemption has been iterated and re-iterated at an obvious and ridiculous rate.

Linsdsay Jacobellis, a professional snowboarder who has competed in the World Cup and X-Games circuits, winning multiple titles, blew a significant lead in the snowboard cross final in the 2006 Torino games and took home a silver medal. In the final jump of her final run of the event in 2006, Jacobellis attempted a showboat “method grab” trick and fell, forfeiting her gold medal. Crying as she passed the finish line, she seemed not like an athlete happy to win silver, but sad that she did not win gold. Four years later, commentators have dubbed her the “Redemption-seeking Die Hard.” While this tag may not be incorrect and her drive to win may be commendable, the commentators are somewhat missing the point. Yes, it is true that snowboarding cross is a sport of creativity, spontaneity, and radical shifts – but her choice to throw down that method grab demonstrates a certain bravado; a certain American sense of audacity that has only been addressed by commentators superficially. Perhaps, it is too confronting to ask Jacobellis if she has learned about humility in the past four years, or perhaps you don’t need to be humble in America if you can redeem yourself.

Another athlete, Lindsey Vonn, was celebrated in the American press after she appeared in the recent Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. Vonn was esteemed as a rare cross of grit and beauty, and revered after winning gold in downhill skiing despite injuring her shin before the games opened. Vonn triumphed over adversity and physical pain to redeem all the hours of training she dedicated. Her athleticism is commendable, but her fame has overshadowed teammate Julia Mancuso, who has won two silver medals in downhill events. In my mind, this reveals how Americans just don’t seem to care unless the story behind the triumph is theatrical and remarkable.

As an American I also share a love for a redemption story and admire those who succeed against the obstacles, but having missed the last five years of American redemption programming I am amazed by how thoroughly this story outline is employed. Nationalism is a quality Americans possess wholeheartedly and it’s no wonder why. From the Olympics to Wall Street, the idea of redemption is synonymous with the American Dream: Work Hard, and You Will Succeed.

Follow us on twitter:

www.twitter.com/SocialScapegoat
www.twitter.com/RoxyPismo

As long as we can remember, organizers, advertisers, athletes and commentators have bombarded our television screens with sentiments of unity, and equal opportunity for all. While the first Olympic ceremony was held in Athens in 1896, both the concept and creator was French. Pierre de Frédy, Baron de Coubertin was the one who coined the phrase “L’important n’est pas de gagner, mais de participer” whose English translation is “The important is not to win but to take part”. He was inspired by the British National Olympic Games at the Crystal Palace in the UK in 1866 and wanted to bring the Olympics to the people to advance education in France including, sports and education. He wanted to give sportsmen around the world the opportunity to come together and compete, not for the sake of national egotism but so that national populations could meet each other and look outside of their own experience. As activism increases as the flame travels around the world, I do not think that “the show must go on” is the slogan to stand by in this instance. The 1972 Munich games continued disgracefully, despite the massacres of the entire Israeli Olympic team by members of terrorist organization ‘The Black Hand’. We swore never again, and yet a country that until recently had a one child policy, a country where organized religion is forbidden and where the Tibetan people were massacred and forced out of their religious country of origin – has won the bid to host the Olympic games. Human rights abuses have continued long before China won the bid to host The Olympics and shows no signs of ceasing: it was reported that Tibetan activists in the Sichuan province were gunned down just last Thursday. The people’s right to protest may not be guaranteed in China but they are in France and they certainly are here, and I believe there is no better time than now to be protesting.

The Olympic Games has always been politicized. The 1936 Berlin Olympic Games was filmed by the infamous propaganda film maker Leni Reifenstahl to glorify the Third Reich. The success of Jessie Owens at the same games is another ironical example of how the Olympic games has been used to make a political statement, or break with social convention. Two-hundred-and-one countries participated in the last Olympics – something we were all reminded of ad nauseum for the duration of the games. The opening ceremony of the 2001 Sydney Olympics was choreographed around the concept of reconciliation and discovery, to the tune of ‘ the Power of the Dream’ by Celine Dion. In Athens it was a contrast of history and modernity. And always – always, we are told of how much the game will cost, how many people will be brought to the host country as participators, administrators, trainers or spectators and exactly how much money the nation will benefit from as a result. Whoever said that The Olympics has never and should never be politicized is kidding themselves. There is an argument to be made that hosting the Olympics would encourage China to open its economy and by extension be voluntarily participating in increased global cooperation. Consequently China would be increasingly answerable to the global community and would thereby be forced to grant Tibet its independence, allow its oppressors the right to return without fear of prosecution or persecution, and curb or cease its human rights abuses to become a more democratic nation. Personally, I have found that the people that make the argument for giving China the benefit of the doubt, are those desperately avoiding ‘cynicism’ that China’s successful bid to host the Olympics and that Britain, Australia, and America’s decision not to boycott was financially motivated. We all know, because history has told us so – that money speaks louder than words, even if they come from the will of the people. That both America and Australia are so dependant on Chinese business, neither country is in a position to be bargaining with the leaders of such a robust economy. China’s economy is so strong that if were to suddenly go into a recession, we would experience a global depression so momentous, the extent of which has never before been experienced. We should be boycotting the Olympic Games. Surely if the people can end the war in Vietnam, our government will listen to us in this instance. We should not be bringing massive amounts of tourism and trade to a region that deals in oppression. I am saddened that there is little likelihood that either Australia or America will boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

We are living in dangerous times, The US looks as though it is sliding slowly into a recession, both the US and Australia are desperate for a strong trade relationship with China. When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President Bush and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd urged the Chinese government to hold talks with Dalai Lama representatives, China communicated its displeasure through diplomatic channels. There is some hope, Kevin Rudd has not yet decided whether or not he will be attending the games (though he swears that is has nothing to do with boycott and everything to do with scheduling conflicts). The spirit of protest – non-violent and effective in its imagery, is also being met with hostility and unnecessary force. This evening, anyone that was watching the late news on channel ten saw a man on a bike flying the Tibetan flag, a man that was nowhere near The Flame being tackled to the ground and beaten by the French police. Protesters in Canberra were beaten with batons and threatened with capsicum spray. Of course police and security cannot simply stand aside and let the flame be distinguished, but beatings, punching, kicking and arrests of people protesting – the form of expressing an opposing point of view in a way that advanced the cause of the Tibetan people to a wider audience is being censored by fearful Chinese trading partners. There is also a certain irony that if the games really are about sport, and only sport – why are they trying to save the flame and continue the marathon. Why even have the marathon in the first place? What symbol, what imagery are they so desperately trying to save from being extinguished?