View source for Powerbase:A Guide to Tone

{{SpinProfiles:Help}}

There are two main ways that Spinprofiles writers can get the tone wrong and put readers off. 

Articles may be so subjective in tone that they hit the reader over the head with their ‘take’ on things. They are heavy on value judgments, but light on evidence. 

Others may be so objective that they are just bare facts, with no hint given as to why this person or organization is even featured in Spinprofiles.

We need to strike a balance. There should be enough ‘objective’ stuff – hard facts about what the person/organization actually said or did, quotes from the target person or from critics, etc. to enable readers to make their own reasoned judgment. But there should also be enough analysis to help persuade them! 

As a Spinprofiles writer, you are like a barrister trying to persuade a jury of your case. Present the evidence – and then suggest the conclusion that readers can draw from it.

Points 1), 2), and 3) below apply more to the over-subjective writers, while point 4) applies more to the over-objective ones.


===1) Show, don’t tell===

This is a general principle of good writing. There should not be any need to call anyone, say, a lying hypocrite, and it’s often counterproductive. The point is to cite facts/words/actions that show the person to be a lying hypocrite, and let the reader make his own judgment. 

It’s fine to give the reader a gentle steer in that direction, but only when the facts have evidenced it -- and use temperate language. Then you are simply confirming what readers have already decided for themselves on the basis of the evidence you’ve provided, not telling them what to think. 


===2) Use broad, inflammatory, and derogatory terms only with care===

Inflammatory, broad, and derogatory labeling terms such as “islamophobic”, “racist”, “sexist”, “anti-environmentalist”, etc. are best avoided in the introduction to an article. You are welcome to make the argument in your article that a person or organization is any of these things – this may even be the point of the article – but you need to present the evidence that justifies that label. Then, if you introduce the labeling term, readers will already have come to that judgment of their own accord and it will not seem like emotive name-calling on your part.


===3) Avoid sarcasm, ranting, and anger===

It helps your case enormously if you sound like a reasonable person who is just showing the evidence and inviting the reader to form the (we hope) inevitable conclusion. Sarcasm, ranting, and anger are counterproductive because they alienate people and make them think that your information is not strong enough to speak for itself. 

Another factor is that sarcasm often ‘translates’ poorly on the web: if you make a statement such as “Gordon Brown is well known for his ‘prudence’ in managing the economy,” meaning that he has made a hash of it, a surprising number of readers will take your words at face value and think that you believe Brown to be a great money manager.


===4) Provide analysis===

Some Spinprofiles are baffling, in that you can read the string of bare facts laid out (“Joe Bloggs is a member of the Something Council and sits on the board of directors at Otherthing Co”) and wonder why this person or organization is in Spinprofiles at all. 

Always keep in mind why you wanted to write about this person or organization in the first place: what is their ‘sin’? Then make sure the readers know.