The post title is of my choosing.
If I left it to the BBC or other
attention grabbing news reporting institutions, I could expect to read instead:
The ethics committee of the US House of Representatives has opened an inquiry into a scandal over a former Republican congressman’s explicit e-mails.
(For the whole article, click here.)
Please note, I am not making light of Foleys alleged behaviour but I am hi-lighting how it is further sensationalised.
I’m even amused by the article title.
It’s wonderfully generalised, ensuring that those of us who had absolutely sod all interest in Foley, might read the article nonetheless because huge numbers of us have email : –
US Congress begins e mail probe.
Bugger being paranoid in Tehran – headlines like this are liable to have a few Americans worrying 😉
Apparently, the state of affairs in Iran is creating paranoia…
So says an article in Time – Paranoid in Tehran.
I started to read it with some interest, looking for the political slant.
I didn’t have to get any further than the opening line.
” The U.S. talks about regime change and promoting democracy, but all it’s done is turned Iran into an even more oppressive police state.”
So… what be the difference between a regime and a government – barr the emotional connotations?
Politicians are masters of verbal fallacy.
When I start my day, I don’t sit back as many do and just let the news wash over me.
Instead, I listen and within moments I am nigh assured of an opportunity of mirth.
Today, one of the BBC Top 10 World Headlines is an interview of Nigel Farage – newly elected leader of the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party)
He is quoted as saying,
Mr Farage told the BBC: “We’ve got three social democratic parties in Britain – Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative are virtually indistinguishable from each other on nearly all the main issues,” he said.
“Frankly, you can’t put a cigarette paper between them and that is why there are nine million people who don’t vote now in general elections that did back in 1992.”
Let’s just look at that for a moment – especially the three pieces I’ve placed in bold.
What on earth does ‘nearly’ mean?
And how can Nigel be assured that it is because of this – alledged – lack of difference between the three main parties that 9 million people chose not to vote?
As to the cigarette paper comment – now there’s a fallacy but an effective one! 🙂
In fact, Nigel is such an empath that he knows this: –
He said that “a lot of people… feel like me that we’re not being given a choice, we’re being given no opportunity, that there is no real voice of opposition in British politics – that is what UKIP is here to provide”.
What is ‘alot’, Nigel?
7 people, maybe?