Following a comment by Davidmatzdorf about posters responding to the spin put on comments by players or Harry by the media rather than responding to the words themselves I find the recent Van Der Vaart situation interesting.
Under the headline 'Annoying' Rafael Van Der Vaart on his Official Website comments on either being excluded from the Europa squad for the opening games or for not being consulted about the decision, it is not clear to me which.
'I still think it's a peculiar situation. Spurs could at least have consulted me. Anyway it's up to the point of no return. I will be focusing on the game against Liverpool. I'm pretty convinced I will be fit by then thanks to Dick van Toorn.'
(This phrase is a bit obscure too and may have lost something in translation which is another difficulty.)
Whether he will or not be fit remains to be seen and whether Harry ever intended him to be part of the first phase of the Europa Cup competition is open to doubt
Most media outlets have the bare bones of the story correct but almost all present the matter in a different way with a different slant. Remember all papers have an agenda, most of them love Harry at the moment because he gives good copy and is very accessible and he might well be the next England Manager. Plenty of time for the knives to come out then. In the meantime as far as the media and Harry are concerned what's not too like?
In this case it is fairly easy to access the actual content from the Website but a quick trawl of Newsnow on the day produces the following :
:
'annoying' which is Rafael's own word although even this is not clearly from Van Der Vaart himself but could be a sub heading by an editor; Rafael 'irked' (the Telegraph as you might guess); Van Der Vaart 'snubbed' which may or not be true; 'unhappy' possibly but not in the piece; 'fuming' unsupported by any evidence; 'rants', not in the piece; 'disappointed', possibly but not in the piece.
None of these words appears on the website apart from 'annoying' and are all spin.
When an interview is transferred from sound to print as Harry's often are, there is even more likelihood of misinterpretation or deliberate manipulation.
The words on the page rarely reflect the tone or mood of the interview.
Throwaway lines or 'jokey' asides which are Harry's forte are clear opportunities to distort the meaning of the words. Smiles, raised eyebrows, shakes of the head, telling glances are all missing.
Interviews are often printed as if they were continuous speeches when they are usually question and answer sessions which leads to statements sounding much more positive than they actually are.
'Would you like to play in Italy sometime Mr Sandro?'
Becomes 'Sandro seeks Italy move'.
So when fans on SC spin the spin serious errors can occur particularly if members have an agenda of their own and let's face it most of us do to some extent.
'Harry Haters' will use the situation to criticise Harry's 'man management skills', the typical high-handed Harry not consulting his senior players kind of line. Exactly what 'consulting' means is open to discussion too. Is it informing him before the announcement or discussing the matter with him in advance. It is difficult to tell.
Van Der Vaart haters who regard his injury as a 'blessing in disguise ' will see this as another example of his self important attitude and refusal to accept that he is just a big fish in a smaller pool after Real Madrid.
It now becomes in the media's mind a battle of wills between Harry and the Dutchman which is to insert some sort of back story into an event unsupported by the facts on this occasion.
He says himself that he is 'annoyed' in the same way that Gomes is 'unhappy' about his situation. But unless you access the original material or watch the video then you are responding to someone else's version of events.
Even in this simple situation with the original material short and easily available a quick glance at the Spurs Chat or even the Front page will reveal a host of hidden agendas which have little to do with the original story.
The facts get lost in a whirl of opinions. Fun it may be but a search for truth and beauty it most certainly is not.
So before you go off on one try to make sure that your opinions are supported by the facts; access the original material if possible and make sure you are not building your castle on sand.
Under the headline 'Annoying' Rafael Van Der Vaart on his Official Website comments on either being excluded from the Europa squad for the opening games or for not being consulted about the decision, it is not clear to me which.
'I still think it's a peculiar situation. Spurs could at least have consulted me. Anyway it's up to the point of no return. I will be focusing on the game against Liverpool. I'm pretty convinced I will be fit by then thanks to Dick van Toorn.'
(This phrase is a bit obscure too and may have lost something in translation which is another difficulty.)
Whether he will or not be fit remains to be seen and whether Harry ever intended him to be part of the first phase of the Europa Cup competition is open to doubt
Most media outlets have the bare bones of the story correct but almost all present the matter in a different way with a different slant. Remember all papers have an agenda, most of them love Harry at the moment because he gives good copy and is very accessible and he might well be the next England Manager. Plenty of time for the knives to come out then. In the meantime as far as the media and Harry are concerned what's not too like?
In this case it is fairly easy to access the actual content from the Website but a quick trawl of Newsnow on the day produces the following :
:
'annoying' which is Rafael's own word although even this is not clearly from Van Der Vaart himself but could be a sub heading by an editor; Rafael 'irked' (the Telegraph as you might guess); Van Der Vaart 'snubbed' which may or not be true; 'unhappy' possibly but not in the piece; 'fuming' unsupported by any evidence; 'rants', not in the piece; 'disappointed', possibly but not in the piece.
None of these words appears on the website apart from 'annoying' and are all spin.
When an interview is transferred from sound to print as Harry's often are, there is even more likelihood of misinterpretation or deliberate manipulation.
The words on the page rarely reflect the tone or mood of the interview.
Throwaway lines or 'jokey' asides which are Harry's forte are clear opportunities to distort the meaning of the words. Smiles, raised eyebrows, shakes of the head, telling glances are all missing.
Interviews are often printed as if they were continuous speeches when they are usually question and answer sessions which leads to statements sounding much more positive than they actually are.
'Would you like to play in Italy sometime Mr Sandro?'
Becomes 'Sandro seeks Italy move'.
So when fans on SC spin the spin serious errors can occur particularly if members have an agenda of their own and let's face it most of us do to some extent.
'Harry Haters' will use the situation to criticise Harry's 'man management skills', the typical high-handed Harry not consulting his senior players kind of line. Exactly what 'consulting' means is open to discussion too. Is it informing him before the announcement or discussing the matter with him in advance. It is difficult to tell.
Van Der Vaart haters who regard his injury as a 'blessing in disguise ' will see this as another example of his self important attitude and refusal to accept that he is just a big fish in a smaller pool after Real Madrid.
It now becomes in the media's mind a battle of wills between Harry and the Dutchman which is to insert some sort of back story into an event unsupported by the facts on this occasion.
He says himself that he is 'annoyed' in the same way that Gomes is 'unhappy' about his situation. But unless you access the original material or watch the video then you are responding to someone else's version of events.
Even in this simple situation with the original material short and easily available a quick glance at the Spurs Chat or even the Front page will reveal a host of hidden agendas which have little to do with the original story.
The facts get lost in a whirl of opinions. Fun it may be but a search for truth and beauty it most certainly is not.
So before you go off on one try to make sure that your opinions are supported by the facts; access the original material if possible and make sure you are not building your castle on sand.
