Knocks to the reader's head

by Arc Media Watchist, Seamus Neustead

Don’t be mistaken, the Arc is a big fan of Brad Sewell. Despite his “backwards man” appearance and awkward gait, he is tougher than most others to have strapped the boots on in the recent era of athleticism and beep tests. He is just below Max Rooke on the Arc’s official hierarchy of Tough Men of the Australian Game. However, unless Brad has additionally been blessed with the Doogie Howser gene, the Arc has no reason to trust Brad’s medical opinions.

Becoming a doctor involves more training than most other occupations. It would take a normal person about 11 years to become a recognized medical doctor. That’s four years of university, four years of medical school, and three years working in a hospital. Brad was born in 1984, was drafted by the Hawks in 2003 and made his AFL debut in 2004 and has played a little over 100 games since. It’s fair to say that football has been a major preoccupation for Brad.

Now why the fuck are two rival newspapers reporting that Brad has given the “all clear” for his team mate, Brent Renouf, to play on the weekend against the Bombers? The story, provided by AAP, reports that Renouf is set to return this weekend on the basis of a response given by Sewell. When asked about the ruckman, who was a late withdrawal for the clash against North Melbourne due to “illness”, Sewell answered that he had “no doubt” that the ruckman would play. Nowhere did the story mention the basis for Sewell’s assessment.

Ok. This is not a criticism of Sewell. Clearly he is trying to remain positive and give its fans some hope that his team will be more competitive against an old foe on the weekend. But the media’s use of Sewell’s assurance for the basis of a story that reports Renouf is fine to play on the weekend is an utter, utter outrage and an example of the media’s contempt for its readership.

It brings to mind one of the polls from The Age recently. Under the title “Knocks to the head”, readers were asked if AFL players should be allowed to return to the field after they have suffered concussion during a game and invited to respond in the negative or affirmative. In a disclaimer at the bottom, The Age kindly reminds us that these polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate. The polls also reflect a lame attempt to draw readers into the spectacle of disinformation.

Perhaps the disclaimer was implied in the AAP story.