Has anyone else noticed the jarring disconnect between New Vision stories and New Vision story headlines? Is it just me or does it sometimes seem as if the two are in different realms, the story in one parallel universe where one thing is meant and said, and the headline in another, where another completely different meaning is uttered?
Take for example the recent story headlined “Barack Obama Survives Assasination”. Now, I may be a fastidious pissant with tighty-whiteys that hunch up into knots of disconcertment whenever I see the word “everyday” used instead of “every day”, and I understand that in this situation one needs not to attack the grammatical windmill full tilt, but rather, and rather obviously, one needs to loosen up. Loosening up is the wiser option when one’s underwear is in knots.
But when I read “Obama Survives Assasination”, I am sorry, but I begin to think Obama was assassinated and then survived.
I will assume, though, that what they meant was that the fellow survived an assassination attempt, not an actual assassination—because people don’t survive those, not even Obama, though the whole world thinks he is Superman.
From the story, however, (here http://newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/677333 ) it sounds more like there was no actual attempt, either. At most there was a plan to lay a plot to lead to an attempt that may, if successful, have resulted in an assassination. An assassination which would only be successful if the victim did not survive.
Well, any frowns that were inspired by the death and resurrection of Obama were reversed by another later front page story: “Catholic Church to Probe Gay Priests” it said.
No, that one is not on the internet. You have to take my word for it.