Yesterday, as the latest media got its greasy hands on the newest artistic scandal, one news outlet put out an article that has to be one of the most poorly written articles I've ever seen.
On the one hand, I think it must be hard for the writer to physically write this article as the viewpoint and coincidental names could be seen as "holy shit, I didn't see that one coming," while on the other should have been written a hell of a lot better.
Or at least passed through an editor.
They do have editors as News Limited right?
What I'm talking about is this:
Brendan Nelson to call cops over nude child on magazine cover
When will politicians learn?Last I recall, the police were brought in over the Bill Henson works. That didn't go very far and this image is less confronting than Henson's… so… you think this will work how, Mr. Nelson?
Take that as purely my opinion because this little blog entry has nothing to do with the story presented in the piece but rather how poorly written some of the lines of it were.
In it, we look at "Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson," an official title if you've ever seen one. We get that, followed by "Using the photograph sent a "two-fingered salute" to the rest of Australia, Dr Nelson said today." And then "Dr. Nelson" for the rest of the article.
Cool. Now he's a doctor. I do like it that the media expects us to remember that "Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson" also happens to be "Federal Opposition Leader Dr. Brendan Nelson." It's really nice of them to help point that out, especially when there'll be another official titled Nelson further down the page.
Under the "Child proud of photo" subsection, we switch to a different Nelson: the child-in-question's father, Robert Nelson, an art critic for The Age over there at Fairfax.
He is known as Professor Nelson.
It's a good thing that this story wasn't written for radio. I'd be confused as all hell.