The AFL website has my cynicism gland pumping out the hard stuff, so I thought I'd link to an article, share some 'spin criteria' and see if anyone else is

Here is your text for today - 'What's the Verdict - Waite and see"

"Apply the following criteria to determine whether the text could be considered 'spin' (an emotionally argumentative text)"

1. Set the favoured party as the protagonist.

From whose perspective is the text being experienced? Whose personal story is being followed?

2. Use familiar language.

Is casual flourish and rhythm used to give the impression of 'friendly sharing' rather than a stranger or anonymous observer?

3. Create the impression of existing general agreement.

Does the text imply 'everyone' sharing certain views and to 'we/us' having reached a consensus? Does the text indicate that other opinions would be incomplete or rash? Is there minimal or no acknowledgement that contrary opinions are held?

4. Prepare the emotional response 'zone'.

Are quotes and decisions prefixed by narrative characterisations?Eg. 'cleverly', 'sensibly', 'unsurprisingly'.

5. Minimise contestible statements.

Does the text refer to as few relevant and particular 'facts' or 'events' as possible, relying on generalisations and semi-relevance?

Edited March 26, 201114 yr by Little Goffy

You're thinking too much.

Of course it's spin. Look at the NFL website. Hell, the NBA site is major spin.

It's part of the game. It's great for the casual supporter.

Edited March 25, 201114 yr by Cudi_420

Your poll is confusing. One could vote "Yes" because they think it's a legit article, or "Yes" because they think it's AFL HQ Spin. You should re-word the question. Something like "Is the article AFL HQ spin."

I personally think it is. I don't want to cite all the examples of why, but suffice it to say that it fits many, if not all of your criteria.

Edited March 25, 201114 yr by Chook

AFL website is, was and always will be garbage. You read it at your own peril.

The journos of the Hun and the Age are too scared to rock the boat in case they stop getting invited to free lunches but at least they get the grapefruits to write one or two critical articles every year.

Yes, I am kind of stating the obvious and overthinking it, but what I'm looking to do is to take somthing that 'everyone knows', and make it explicit.

Assemble the evidence so there is no grey area on whether it is 'just generally trash', 'soft on HQ', or whether the site and its supposedly independent writers are specifically a mouthpiece not so much for the AFL, as for the executive clique of the AFL.