It's got nothing to do with the media, or their stupid questions. It's about his character.
When he hopped into Stephen Milne, what came of that? Instead of him saying he did it and he shouldn't have. He openly stated 'let's get one thing straight, I didn't speak to Milne". Even when the footage proved it he still tried to bullshit his way out of it until the club told him to pull his head in.
Yes Stephen Milne is a dog, yes he deserves the scorn he receives but that doesn't change the fact Malthouse lied and refused to take responsibility for his actions.
Fast forward to the recent match where he blasted Ling at half time. Same thing. Malthouse denies he was talking to Ling and refuses to take responsibility for his actions. Even when the footage clearly shows he was talking to Ling, he refuses to take responsibility for his behaviour.
Yet people are telling me he's a good role model.
Where do you think Didak and Heath Shaw learnt to lie their way out of trouble? From their great role model.
Now some of you like Clayman choose to totally overlook that and blame the media for everything. Others think it's all about the football and if he brings success, character isn't important.
Others like Dane are here to shit stir and have offered nothing to the site since day one.
I don't believe he's good for the club. Yes he may be a good coach but coaching experience and knowledge is only part of the puzzle IMO. Others disagree. So be it.
As for this nonsense about me hating the bloke and running an agenda about him. Go back and look at my posts over the past 18 months. I've given Malthouse a fair run until his stupidity of the past couple of weeks.
But when people come on here portraying him as a victim of the media and a great mentor and role model to the players, please. Let's not be totally moronic about it.
I actually think that you have a point BV - the lying thing does bother me. What I don't know though, and I'm assuming you don't either, is whether that behaviour extends beyond the media conference. I'm not totally comfortable with any dishonesty, but if it's limited to simply dead-batting a hounding media pack that he clearly has no wish to engage with at all ... then maybe I can live with it.
I think you're stretching claims of culpability a bit though with Didak and Shaw. I don't expect Pagan would take a lot responsibility for Angwin and Norman and nor should MM for those two.