Bigfooty and the new sports media

[rdhopkins2]

Not sure why the Hun are getting so upset and hanging the source of half their footy stories (BF etc)...where else are they going to find their headlines!

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I should have used the term libel rather than slander as we're talking about written remarks.

I understand your point that this happens on the net all the time. Nevertheless this does not make the behaviour correct. Defamation cases regarding internet blogs have been won.

Sure, people have the liberty to mock, curse call names defame people etc, etc and to even write it down. However if people or groups with heaps of money take legal proceedings then it's their own problem. Even if the case doesn't win it would create headaches.

I'm not going to second guess the motivation of the media in pushing this but I'm certainly not convinced that they're trying to stop the popularity of the blogs and forums. Infact if they're not (why would they be, it's not possible!) then everybody who accuses them of this is guilty of libel.

Bottom line is there is no escuse for abusing, swearing at people, etc. We all know this. What possible justification is there for people behaving in this manner?

I think on most foums such as this the moderators are pretty careful of abuse becoming too personal or if it's possibly defamatory. Usually the abusers are cutoff before it goes too far.

As for saying a player is crap, can't kick, wimped out at a contest then I think this is part of territory of someone in the spotlight. Whether you agree or not it's part of being a sports fan and has been going on since day 1.

You say what justification is there for people behaving in this manner, well what justification was there to publish photos of Ben Cousins lying asleep on a bench? Surely this is far more damaging to the player's well being and to the guys' family than some anonymous poster saying he pulled out of a contest???

Or a TV station releasing names about possible drug abusers at a certain club with no real proof.

Surely Mark Harvey suffered more mentally on 'The Couch' the other week when Robert Walls asked him stupid questions (what do Freo stand for??) and Harvey probably wondering to himself "Gee Robert i've only coached for 7 games whilst Ross Lyon, the bloke you helped appoint, has got an easy ride in his first 30 games". Having an anonymous bloke on here saying he's a crap coach is nowhere near as "harmful"

Basically Robbo's story was crap, and I know you don't agree, but so crap and frivolous that it had to have another motive behind it.

I don't agree these places will replace newspapers but it does have some effect (hence Robbo's crap article), especially the smaller publications. Love to know Inside Football's circulation figures last few years.

 

[btdg]

It hasn't usurped the traditional media's primary function, which is the reportage of news.

Well, then you're kidding yourself.

You can write a comment/analysis piece on your favourite team and post it on here.

Mike Sheehan can run an interview with that team's coach and captain.

Which article will attract more interest?

Official sources are where it's at.

Are you kidding me?

If anything, the football media has too much of a negative skew.

Every other week, one team or another gets the acid put on them for a poor performance.

If it's not the Saints, it's the Dockers, or the Demons or whoever.

There's long been a pattern of the worst-performed side getting canned in ther papers on Monday. I don't think it's admirable, but it definitely happens.

Any player who messes up off-field can also expect a hammering.

More than enough negativity to go around.

But hang on - you've just insisted that they only run puff pieces and never go negative.

Now you're saying they go too far in the other direction.

Which is it?

I agree that this coverage is ho-hum, but I don't see why you think BigFooty (or any other online forum) would provide an antedote.

These forums are a breeding grounds for the same kind of shrill, knee-jerk BS that you're bagging the traditional media for publishing.

But you've written two lengthy posts claiming that's exactly what's happening.

Mate, I think you need to focus your ideas a little bit and figure out what exactly you're arguing.

At the moment, you're just having a general whinge about the traditional media and blowing smoke up BigFooty's arse. But the reasons you've presented for this are pretty wishy-washy.

I don't think you've actually understood what I've said at all.

First off, what makes Mike Sheehan's interview with the coach and captain so riveting? They always say the exact same rubbish; we're taking it one game at a time, there's lots of positives to come from it, whatever. And the journalists rarely ask the top follow-up questions that might actually make something of it. There is a formula to match reports, complete with a list of about 10 quotes that get inserted in to every one.

Regardless, I've never said that I can write a better summary on bigfooty. What I have said is that Mike Sheehan, with all his football knowledge, experience and access to coaches, could be writing better stories. What he does instead, is write terribly bland stories that basically just recap the events that took place. My point is that for basic recaps, we can go to bigfooty. I don't think bigfooty writes it better, but it provides it quicker, and that is a huge advantage. More and more, people go to Bigfooty for basic info; they want more from newspapers. And quotes and 'inside sources' aren't sufficient; you have to tell us what those quotes mean, and you have to make it interesting. You may have a difference of opinion on that point, but thats my argument, and enough people on here have agreed with me for it to be relevant.

As for the skew between positive and negative journalism, I guess when I talk about puff pieces I'm also talking about the formulaic, 'player x was caught speeding, oh the humanity, won't someone please think of the children' pieces. I stand by my conviction; 95% of journalists only write bland match reports and formulaic puff pieces. A rare few 'break' negative stories (and have an interest in doing so), but generally do so only when clubs have already taken a stance of opposition to the player/coach/team in question. So when they rip the poorly performed team of the weak, its because the coach has already done so publicly. And once the big guns (Sheehan, Wilson, Smith) open fire, everyone jumps on board and blows it out of proportion. I also stand by my conviction that their desire for locker-room access causes journalists to hold back; not so much on writing the 'big' negative stories, but on really questioning what clubs tell them, and writing what they really think about a team or a game. No-one ever writes that (for example), coach x cost his team the game due to poor matchups, because you can bet if they do that coach x doesn't give them an interview the following week.

Finally, I have never said that Bigfooty, or any other forum provides an antidote. In fact, I think the complete opposite. I think that now that we have Bigfooty to give us up to the minute reporting, newspapers can provide us with deeper analysis. We don't turn to page 3 to read about what happened, we turn to page 3 to read about why it happened, what it means, and what went on behind the scenes that we might have missed (put those sources to good use). Give us entertaining, insightful articles that analyse the game in detail and I'll stop bitching.

That said, my original intention wasn't to criticise the print media. It was to highlight an on-going series of attacks by the print media on Bigfooty and other forums, and my belief that these attacks are linked to the changing role of media forms and the failure of some journalists to adapt. And I stand by that contention too; in fact, its been confirmed by a Hun journalist that they are running a campaign against Bigfooty (although he indicates different reasons to me).

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

First off, what makes Mike Sheehan's interview with the coach and captain so riveting?

People would rather here from those on the front-line than some random, anonymous supporter with no credentials.

Regardless, I've never said that I can write a better summary on bigfooty. What I have said is that Mike Sheehan, with all his football knowledge, experience and access to coaches, could be writing better stories. What he does instead, is write terribly bland stories that basically just recap the events that took place. My point is that for basic recaps, we can go to bigfooty. I don't think bigfooty writes it better, but it provides it quicker, and that is a huge advantage. More and more, people go to Bigfooty for basic info; they want more from newspapers. And quotes and 'inside sources' aren't sufficient; you have to tell us what those quotes mean, and you have to make it interesting. You may have a difference of opinion on that point, but thats my argument, and enough people on here have agreed with me for it to be relevant.

In many ways, this post is an example of why people will always read newspapers.

Most posters, even relatively clever ones like you, simply don't have the skill to communicate information concisely.

Do you reckon people want to read slabs of text like these?

Furthermore, you've backed off quite a bit from your OP.

All you're saying now is that BigFooty provides a response quickly, which is true. But I don't think the immediacy is the be-all and end-all, not when those responses are garbled, unbalanced and inarticulate.

As for the skew between positive and negative journalism, I guess when I talk about puff pieces I'm also talking about the formulaic, 'player x was caught speeding, oh the humanity, won't someone please think of the children' pieces. I stand by my conviction; 95% of journalists only write bland match reports and formulaic puff pieces. A rare few 'break' negative stories (and have an interest in doing so), but generally do so only when clubs have already taken a stance of opposition to the player/coach/team in question. So when they rip the poorly performed team of the weak, its because the coach has already done so publicly. And once the big guns (Sheehan, Wilson, Smith) open fire, everyone jumps on board and blows it out of proportion. I also stand by my conviction that their desire for locker-room access causes journalists to hold back; not so much on writing the 'big' negative stories, but on really questioning what clubs tell them, and writing what they really think about a team or a game. No-one ever writes that (for example), coach x cost his team the game due to poor matchups, because you can bet if they do that coach x doesn't give them an interview the following week.

Another long-winded slab. This is why BigFooty posters play second-fiddle to people who write professionally.

And I think your conclusions are wide of the mark.

Poorly-performed teams will get castigated regardless of whether the coach has opened the door to it. Why do you desperately want to see these stories anyway?

It's pretty easy to bag a losing side. It doesn't take much skill.

This negative/positive divide is a bit of a joke anyway. There should always be a balance. You can't have one without the other. As long as coverage is accurate, insightful and well-written, then I'm relatively happy with it.

 

[btdg]

People would rather here from those on the front-line than some random, anonymous supporter with no credentials.

In many ways, this post is an example of why people will always read newspapers.

Most posters, even relatively clever ones like you, simply don't have the skill to communicate information concisely.

Do you reckon people want to read slabs of text like these?

Furthermore, you've backed off quite a bit from your OP.

All you're saying now is that BigFooty provides a response quickly, which is true. But I don't think the immediacy is the be-all and end-all, not when those responses are garbled, unbalanced and inarticulate.

I don't think I've backed off - I just had to clarify the main points. The prime reason newspapers have to adapt is because people now get their basic info online.

But Bigfooty does other stuff as well - at the moment, its our only source of analysis. That was in my original post, and maybe what confused you into thinking I though Bigfooty would surpass the traditional media. On Bigfooty, you get analysis, fairly immediately too. Of course, its a lower standard of analysis than we could be getting in the newspaper; thats where newspapers can win. On Bigfooty, its interactive, too - we can hold other posters accountable, contribute our own views, etc. That fits in nicely with analytic journalism because the journalists give us a starting point with their well-written, argumentative pieces that are entertaining and contain some emotion. All of a sudden, Bigfooty and the newspapers become symbiotic, and everyones experience of footy overall improves. Isn't that what we all want?

I still also stand by my comments that many journalists are lazy, rely too heavily on sources, and are being found out by the new media such as bigfooty - where they are being criticised relentlessly. You only had to look in todays herald sun to see the number of articles that were clearly force-fed by clubs or the AFL directly. There was only one article (if I remember correctly) labelled 'commentary' that was a short side-bar, that even tried to sort through any of the others and make some meaning of it. Basically, I think people are sick of reading reports that are basically just AFL or club media releases with a few words shifted around. That sort of thing was fine 10 years ago, but nowadays we can read the media release on the club website; its old news by the time the newspaper hits. Either tell us what you think it means, or just save paper!

I also still believe firmly that the current series of attacks on Bigfooty and other forum and blog sites by the print media is at least partially informed by those journalists who are being criticised for their laziness and shoddy reporting, and who want to go back to the good old days when everyone believed everything they wrote (or at least didn't have a forum to vent about it). There's an element of 'well, its a story now so we'll run with it', but its not really a story, is it? And getting the mothers of people suffering from depression to write, throwing in stuff about legal action and all the rest is just scaremongering and pathetic.

As for the slabs of text; this thread has had plenty of positive feedback, and its gone to 6 pages or whatever. I realise if I'd just written a one-line post titled 'Dale Thomas is a girl' it would probably be at 20 pages right now, but thats the nature of bigfooty. At least this thread has 5 stars and hasn't been moved to Bay 13 yet...

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I don't think I've backed off - I just had to clarify the main points. The prime reason newspapers have to adapt is because people now get their basic info online.

But Bigfooty does other stuff as well - at the moment, its our only source of analysis. That was in my original post, and maybe what confused you into thinking I though Bigfooty would surpass the traditional media. On Bigfooty, you get analysis, fairly immediately too. Of course, its a lower standard of analysis than we could be getting in the newspaper; thats where newspapers can win. On Bigfooty, its interactive, too - we can hold other posters accountable, contribute our own views, etc. That fits in nicely with analytic journalism because the journalists give us a starting point with their well-written, argumentative pieces that are entertaining and contain some emotion. All of a sudden, Bigfooty and the newspapers become symbiotic, and everyones experience of footy overall improves. Isn't that what we all want?

I still also stand by my comments that many journalists are lazy, rely too heavily on sources, and are being found out by the new media such as bigfooty - where they are being criticised relentlessly. You only had to look in todays herald sun to see the number of articles that were clearly force-fed by clubs or the AFL directly. There was only one article (if I remember correctly) labelled 'commentary' that was a short side-bar, that even tried to sort through any of the others and make some meaning of it. Basically, I think people are sick of reading reports that are basically just AFL or club media releases with a few words shifted around. That sort of thing was fine 10 years ago, but nowadays we can read the media release on the club website; its old news by the time the newspaper hits. Either tell us what you think it means, or just save paper!

I also still believe firmly that the current series of attacks on Bigfooty and other forum and blog sites by the print media is at least partially informed by those journalists who are being criticised for their laziness and shoddy reporting, and who want to go back to the good old days when everyone believed everything they wrote (or at least didn't have a forum to vent about it). There's an element of 'well, its a story now so we'll run with it', but its not really a story, is it? And getting the mothers of people suffering from depression to write, throwing in stuff about legal action and all the rest is just scaremongering and pathetic.

As for the slabs of text; this thread has had plenty of positive feedback, and its gone to 6 pages or whatever. I realise if I'd just written a one-line post titled 'Dale Thomas is a girl' it would probably be at 20 pages right now, but thats the nature of bigfooty. At least this thread has 5 stars and hasn't been moved to Bay 13 yet...

Dude, make your points more concisely.

You don't need to write 400 words to make these points.

You have some general criticisms of the traditional media. Fair enough.

But BigFooty is a circus.

Your OP suggests that new media is eroding the relevance of newspapers. I think that's a stretch. I think most people still overwhelmingly rely on the Age or the Herald-Sun or whichever paper before using BigFooty as a source of real news or information.

 

[skilts]

Dude, make your points more concisely.

Keep up. It's not difficult to apply yourself and concentrate for more than thirty seconds. Not all significant thought can be contained within a paragraph, nor a transitory soundbite.

Speaking of which, how well are you writing at the moment? Or, as with other alleged journalists, is that not an issue for you?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Keep up. It's not difficult to apply yourself and concentrate for more than thirty seconds. Not all significant thought can be contained within a paragraph, nor a transitory soundbite.

It's not a matter of keeping up. It's a matter of other posters being a bit more disciplined in how they write. It's pertinent, because economy of expression is one major advantage trained journos have over punters. Journos write with their readers in mind. If posters think they could do that job as effectively, maybe they should think about how readable their stuff is.

When every post is a mini-essay, it's a bit indulgent. It's possible to have a developed conversation without posting in slabs.

Speaking of which, how well are you writing at the moment? Or, as with other alleged journalists, is that not an issue for you?

In general? Or on BigFooty?

Not sure I understand the question.

 

[skilts]

It's not a matter of keeping up. It's a matter of other posters being a bit more disciplined in how they write. It's pertinent, because economy of expression is one major advantage trained journos have over punters.

When every post is a mini-essay, it's a bit indulgent. It's possible to have a developed conversation without posting in slabs.


In general? Or on BigFooty?

Not sure I understand the question.

Q.E.D.

You're trying to assert that your way of writing is more effective, nay acceptable, than that of btdg. As evidenced by your response to the question which required you to examine the quality of your recent work, you have no clue. The quality of your work is not an issue, as long as that work conforms to the strictures placed upon your like by those anonymous sub-editors who really determine what appears in our newspapers.

One of the great things about BigFooty is the people on here who write immeasurably better than journalists. It's a pity their skills are wasted on the likes of you.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

You're trying to assert that your way of writing is more effective, nay acceptable, than that of btdg. As evidenced by your response to the question which required you to examine the quality of your recent work, you have no clue.

What do I have no clue about?

All I've done is ask for clarification, and you've tried to claim some momentous victory. It's a bit desperate.

The quality of your work is not an issue, as long as that work conforms to the strictures placed upon your like by those anonymous sub-editors who really determine what appears in our newspapers.

Subs fine-tune.

Generally speaking, they don't drastically re-shape stories or select quotes. Sometimes a bit of re-ordering, but they don't add anything of their own.

One of the great things about BigFooty is the people on here who write immeasurably better than journalists.

Pfffttt...

If only that were true.

 

[btdg]

Q.E.D.

You're trying to assert that your way of writing is more effective, nay acceptable, than that of btdg. As evidenced by your response to the question which required you to examine the quality of your recent work, you have no clue. The quality of your work is not an issue, as long as that work conforms to the strictures placed upon your like by those anonymous sub-editors who really determine what appears in our newspapers.

One of the great things about BigFooty is the people on here who write immeasurably better than journalists. It's a pity their skills are wasted on the likes of you.

Thanks for the support - summed it up nicely.

Some things need more than a few lines to support. If other posters aren't capable of reading and understanding a full paragraph, then so be it. I'd rather back up my arguments than just make unsupported contentions.

GL - seems strange to me that you managed to get through my original post, write a series of hefty responses and engage in some pretty weighty dialogue, then somehow on post 1000 you claim my paragraphs are too long...

 

[skilts]

What do I have no clue about?

All I've done is ask for clarification, and you've tried to claim some momentous victory. It's a bit desperate.

Subs fine-tune.

Generally speaking, they don't drastically re-shape stories or select quotes. Sometimes a bit of re-ordering, but they don't add anything of their own.

Pfffttt...

If only that were true.

You were asked how well you're writing. You had no answer, claiming you didn't understand the question. The reason you didn't understand the question is because it's not one which has ever occured to you. If you were wanting to paint yourself as a mindless, shallow hack, you could hardly have done better.

It seems to have escaped your attention that BigFooty is not a newspaper. People on here are writing for a different audience, in a different medium. That people take the opportunity to write in a way you find unacceptable is, in itself, a recommendation.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Some things need more than a few lines to support. If other posters aren't capable of reading and understanding a full paragraph, then so be it. I'd rather back up my arguments than just make unsupported contentions.

This is just a lame excuse for indulgently long posts.

Of course people can read full paragraphs.

But your posts have been unnecessarily long. You could makes the same points in half the space.

GL - seems strange to me that you managed to get through my original post, write a series of hefty responses and engage in some pretty weighty dialogue, then somehow on post 1000 you claim my paragraphs are too long...

It takes more than one over-long post to wear me down.

But the sixth or seventh in a row...

It's not a personal attack. It's just that posts that length are unnecessary. You could trim it back and make the same argument.

Economy of language is part of what makes journos good at their job.

 

[Z_K]

I could name maybe 10 good footy journo's. Maybe.

The rest are shitful and should be ashamed that they rake in a good wage for what they do.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

You were asked how well you're writing. You had no answer, claiming you didn't understand the question.

I didn't understand it - that's why I asked for clarification.

Does that mean you automatically win the argument or something?

Please...

The reason you didn't understand the question is because it's not one which has ever occured to you.

The reason I didn't understand the question is that it was poorly phrased.

If you wanted an answer, why didn't you just provide the clarification I asked for?

I would still happily answer it.

If you were wanting to paint yourself as a mindless, shallow hack, you could hardly have done better.

This is unnecessary.

You haven't actually made any points yet. You've just flown off the handle because I didn't understand your initial question.

It seems to have escaped your attention that BigFooty is not a newspaper. People on here are writing for a different audience, in a different medium. That people take the opportunity to write in a way you find unacceptable is, in itself, a recommendation.

How is it a different audience?

The whole crux of this thread is that it is the same audience.

Woolly, long-winded writing is still just that, regardless of where it appears.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

See - you old blokes get all long winded.

I am old and worked it out,
• Option 8
• put it into point form


Paras are boring as batshit.

 

[btdg]

This is just a lame excuse for indulgently long posts.

Of course people can read full paragraphs.

But your posts have been unnecessarily long. You could makes the same points in half the space.

It takes more than one over-long post to wear me down.

But the sixth or seventh in a row...

It's not a personal attack. It's just that posts that length are unnecessary. You could trim it back and make the same argument.

Economy of language is part of what makes journos good at their job.

Fair enough. But bear in mind this is an internet board. these posts are typed out of a stream of consciousness in between essay writing, in real time, with no chance for revision.

I'm a quick typer, and would rather defend a point up front than make an unsupported contention that takes 30 pages of follow-up to defend later. Plus, if I write 3 paragraphs, and get a response that requires another 3 paragraphs to do justice (which I felt yours did), then thats what I'll write.

And who cares if journalists are better at demonstrating economy of language. Thats their job. this is a message board; we've been over this already. No-one wants to take their jobs, we just want them to do theirs properly, rather than writing unsubstantiated attacks against message boards and forums that really stem from their own insecurities.

 

[skilts]

I didn't understand it - that's why I asked for clarification.

Does that mean you automatically win the argument or something?

Please...

The reason I didn't understand the question is that it was poorly phrased.

If you wanted an answer, why didn't you just provide the clarification I asked for?

I would still happily answer it.

This is unnecessary.

You haven't actually made any points yet. You've just flown off the handle because I didn't understand your initial question.

How is it a different audience?

The whole crux of this thread is that it is the same audience.

Woolly, long-winded writing is still just that, regardless of where it appears.

Sorry, my mistake for writing in English. You seem totally unaware of the introspection required to write well. Sad really. That you don't understand a simple question like, "How well are you writing?" says a lot about you. Which part of the question don't you understand? Have I somehow morphed into writing in Swahili?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

And who cares if journalists are better at demonstrating economy of language. Thats their job. this is a message board; we've been over this already.

But it's part of what keeps traditional media relevant.

The fact that the copy is well-written is a big part of why I will read The Age over a fan forum.

That's how this segue began.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

That you don't understand a simple question like, "How well are you writing?" says a lot about you. Which part of the question don't you understand?

Are you talking about how well I write in my work? Or how well I write when posting on BigFooty?

That is the clarification I asked for initially. Pretty reasonable question, I thought. But clearly, you weren't interested in a reasonable discussion.

Let me know when your bizarre little cameo ends. You're yet to contribute anything but unfocused animosity to this thread.

 

[skilts]

But it's part of what keeps traditional media relevant.
The fact that the copy is well-written is a big part of why I will read The Age over a fan forum.

That's how this segue began.

Now I know you're taking the piss. If you think newspapers are well-written you're beyond salvation.

 

[btdg]

But it's part of what keeps traditional media relevant.

The fact that the copy is well-written is a big part of why I will read The Age over a fan forum.

That's how this segue began.

But you are reading a fan forum... at 12:45 at night...

I'd suggest the banter keeps you coming back to the forum, but you have to admit the 24 hour availability is handy too. Now wouldn't it be nice if the newspapers gave us something interesting to talk about, instead of, well, writing about us and our nasty habit of criticising players. that is the essence of my whole argument - newspapers should be embracing and informing forums and blogs, instead of mindlessly attacking them.

What the last 20 posts in this thread suggest to me is that my original long-windedness was worthwhile. I don't see anything to suggest that trying to support yourself upfront and erring on the side of being long-winded is less effective than what you have done - which is to throw out a contention that requires a whole series of clarifying posts to make sense. That isn't clarity; and in a lot of cases, its easily mistaken for trolling.

More than that, it derails a thread, particularly in cases such as this where its about something fairly minor and off-topic - we end up with a whole sequence of off-topic posts instead of the one or two it needed.

 

[skilts]

Are you talking about how well I write in my work? Or how well I write when posting on BigFooty?

That is the clarification I asked for initially. Pretty reasonable question, I thought. But clearly, you weren't interested in a reasonable discussion.

Let me know when your bizarre little cameo ends.

You're not helping your cause.

I'm quite happy to lead you by the nose through the whole process, except it would be casting pearls before swine.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Now I know you're taking the piss. If you think newspapers are well-written you're beyond salvation.

The copy is more readable than the copy on fan forums.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

But you are reading a fan forum... at 12:45 at night...

I'd suggest the banter keeps you coming back to the forum, but you have to admit the 24 hour availability is handy too. Now wouldn't it be nice if the newspapers gave us something interesting to talk about, instead of, well, writing about us...

It's actually mid-afternoon in London, which is where I am.

News services are also available around the clock.

What the last 20 posts in this thread suggest to me is that my original long-windedness was worthwhile.

As an opening post that lays out your case, it's more defensible.

But once the balls are in the air, we can all afford to a little more concise.

I don't see anything to suggest that trying to support yourself upfront and erring on the side of being long-winded is less effective than what you have done - which is to throw out a contention that requires a whole series of clarifying posts to make sense.

It's less readable, that's all.

And it means you have to pore through slabs of text to find the crux of someone's argument.

It's more effective if your contention is front and centre, rather than being buried among other superfluous stuff.