Paul Thomas: McCaw beat-up shows need for media scrutiny

For 24 hours, it seemed distinctly possible the greatest career in rugby history would end not with a bang but a whimper: Richie McCaw was at risk of missing the RWC final (and, in all probability, his swansong) through being suspended for foul play.

We'll never know if there really was any likelihood of that happening. But there's reality and there's what the media tells us is reality, and they're not necessarily the same thing.

As it happened, the citing never eventuated and, with the ease and artfulness of Nehe Milner-Skudder sidestepping a tighthead prop, the media changed tack: the bombshell that would have reverberated through the game for months, if not years, was actually a storm in a teacup, a 24-hour wonder, a beat-up.

It raises the question of how something so obviously bogus was treated as real in the first place and why All Black fans and McCaw's reputation were put through the wringer.

The answer lies in the troubling tendency of contemporary journalism, locked as it is into the 24-hour, internet-driven news cycle, to assume that what another media outlet decides is news is indeed news and can therefore be re-published without being subjected to critical analysis or basic fact-checking.

It appears the story originated in the London Daily Telegraph's sports department.

Shortly after the All Black-Springbok semifinal, an unbylined story headlined "Could Richie McCaw miss the Rugby World Cup final after elbowing Francois Louw in the head?" was posted on the Telegraph website with accompanying video footage.

It stated McCaw sent Louw "reeling" with a blow to the forehead that was "sure to interest the citing officer".

The Bok flanker had suffered two wounds to his forehead requiring 20 stitches; he wasn't sure how he'd acquired them but thought it was "at the bottom of a ruck". If deemed to be deliberate, McCaw's action would earn him a minimum two-week suspension.

Telegraph columnist Brian Moor tweeted a vine of the incident with the comment "This could be interesting" and we had lift-off.

The story flashed around the world, being reproduced verbatim on news and rugby websites here, in Australia, South Africa and no doubt everywhere else the game is played.

We now know the Telegraph's gleeful assumption of citing officer interest was mere wishful thinking.

The wider issue is why wasn't the non-story dismissed and ignored since in the space of a couple of sentences it makes three assertions purporting to be statements of fact that are clearly nothing of the sort:

• McCaw didn't strike Louw with his elbow.

• Louw wasn't struck on the forehead.

• He didn't go reeling back.

An accurate account, which would never have seen the light of day, would read as follows:

Without him being aware of it, the All Black captain's hip brushed Louw's shoulder, unbalancing the Springbok flanker who was already on his haunches.

Clearly unhurt, Louw swiftly regained his feet and rushed to the next phase of play where he gratuitously planted his boot on All Black halfback Aaron Smith, causing him to grimace and clutch his back.

Although at the bottom of the offending scale, Louw's stamp might interest the citing officer.

Although the story doesn't attribute Louw's wounds to McCaw's contact, it implies a cause and effect relationship.

Yet a cursory glance at the video reveals Louw's face is unmarked and remains so for a further seven minutes, at which point he emerges from a post-lineout scrap for the ball with blood on his face. It's impossible to tell what happened but quite likely that he copped an accidental nudge from a teammate.

In the end, no damage was done although, if history is any guide, future accounts of the 2015 World Cup will include a mandatory reference to the 24 hours when McCaw's fate hung in the balance as officials pored over the contentious footage.

Journalists have to be on their guard against spin and manipulation from politicians, business and interest groups. Perhaps it's time they applied the same scepticism and rigour to material generated by fellow journalists.

Alternatively, all concerned can shrug and smirk and trot out the old line about not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

But there are risks attached to that. After all, freedom of the press has never conferred the freedom to make a stuff up.