If you're a football fan and a consumer of modern media, there's a fair chance you've had at least some cause in recent times to ponder the popular expression "making a mountain out of a molehill".
Nuance is not something either footy or media does particularly well these days. So I'm sure I wasn't the only one far from surprised when news that some Brisbane Lions observations about its upcoming Essendon opposition had been leaked into the public domain had within hours been breathlessly christened "Whiteboardgate".
As any seasoned media professional will tell you, the addition of the "gate" suffix to a subject bestows instant gravitas on a news story, and for several hours on Fox Footy's "Super Seismic Sensational Saturday" or whatever it's now called, Richard Nixon, some incompetent burglars in Washington DC, and a massive government cover-up had nothing on this scandal.
Okay, I jest, but seriously, wasn't this pretty much a classic case of everyone else keeping their heads while much of football's fourth estate lost its head? And isn't that in itself a comment on why much of the footy public now takes its coverage of the game with not just a grain, but several shakers full of salt?
Not to say that the story in itself wasn't interesting. It was. As is any peek we outsiders (and yes, media folk, that's you, too) can get into what goes on inside those mystical "four walls" of an AFL club.
Just what a team, and in this case the premiers, honestly thinks of their opposition beyond their very guarded public utterances desperate not to offend and thus offer psychological ammunition, is fascinating.
But every team does similar reconnaissance. They scout their upcoming opponents for several weeks in the lead-up to a game, and if anything, have information overload. The trick is how best to boil it all down into easily digestible "bites" for their players.
Brisbane's assessments of its upcoming Essendon opposition were hardly over-the-top. And aside from the only "pro" mentioned for Essendon's Jaxon Prior in the "pros vs. cons" list -- his partner Bronte (and yes, we'll come back to that) -- was there anything startling? Hardly.
Yeah, okay, Zach Merrett got called selfish. Honestly? He's been called that on occasion by the Bombers, too. Peter Wright a "confidence player"? You don't say. Andy McGrath can cough up the footy? Not really a massive revelation.
Funnily enough, what struck this observer most was how relatively diplomatic it all was. I've been fortunate enough to spend a week inside several AFL clubs over the years, sitting in on exactly these sorts of meetings, and most have contained at least a couple of criticisms of or tips about how to exploit opponents which were, let's say, a little more robust.
I'm pretty confident few people who saw the reporting of Whiteboardgate on Saturday (not including the Prior reference) would have been shocked or outraged by what they read. And that needn't have diminished it as a story.
Perversely, I'd say the desperation to play up the "conflict" angle actually diminished the story rather than drove more of those all-important clicks. Even the most "salacious" part concerning the gag about Jaxon Prior's partner.
Why? Because sometimes several things, even seemingly opposite views, can all be true.
What do I mean? That when I read the quip about Prior, it made me laugh. Did I simultaneously recognise the objectification of his partner? Yes. That's a far broader discussion, and yes, one which is valid even if Prior and his partner were comfortable with it. But I recognise the validity of both views.
Special mention here, too, to News Corp's convenient flexibility on this one. It had the chutzpah to chastise Brisbane for the Prior quip on moral grounds, whilst neatly overlooking the fact it recently spent at least a month giving daily updates on Lachie Neale's marriage breakdown (they still appear to be offering that service weekly, mind you).
Chris Fagan's anger at the member of the public who captured the information on the whiteboard, then posted it on social media? Yes, I get the frustration. But no, I don't agree the punter who took the picture should be wearing the coach's wrath.
"We've been doing it for nine years."
— AFL (@AFL) May 2, 2026
Chris Fagan has addressed the club's whiteboard listing strengths and weaknesses of Essendon players getting leaked.
Full post-match press conference: https://t.co/Tglg9F6i6X#AFLDonsLions pic.twitter.com/mZCA8g2edn
What was on the board was clearly of interest to anyone who has even a passing engagement with AFL football. If the info was that sensitive, maybe make sure it's not left visible to anyone beyond the inner sanctum?
But my main point here is that once the finger-pointing and grandstanding and appropriation of events to whip up a conflict-driven narrative has been done, in 2026 that appears to be about as far as the media caravan's interest goes.
Did it have to be that superficial, though? From a purely football perspective, couldn't both written media and the broadcasters have engaged one of their sizeable army of "AFL greats" to run through the more interesting Brisbane comments on the Essendon players?
Could they not have explained, with visual examples, just why the Lions might think Merrett is selfish, Jade Gresham has "tunnel vision" near goals, or Archie Roberts might have an issue with work rate?
Call me old-fashioned, but I reckon that would have been of considerable interest to the football public even without the presence of Person A "slamming", "hitting back" or "lashing out" at Person B, the "conflict for clicks" template upon which so much of today's media models are built.
There you go, there's my little rundown on the weaknesses of some opposition media. Don't tell anyone, will you?
You can read more of Rohan Connolly's work at FOOTYOLOGY.