I was a little surprised to see this promo box at the bottom of my browser window when scrolling down the Daily Mail home page today, missing at first pass the fairly important comma (easily missed, given the eye sometimes sees what it wants to see). It goes without saying, I clicked on the link straight away only to be confronted with the same unfortunate split in the headline:
Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I am more than happy to show the headline in full but the Mail may like to give some thought to its line breaks, just so childish idiots like me don't get confused, or click on articles only to be massively disappointed.
Of course, widows, orphans and unhappy line breaks have always been a hazard of print publishing, with unintended innuendo never far away. I remember once being a little shocked to see a second column in the sports pages begin with the words "cum-shot cleared the cross bar and landed among dejected away supporters behind the goal"... or words to that effect.
Fortunately, on closer inspection the previous column had ended, down the bottom of page, along the lines of "..in the 87th minute, Beckham's cross-".
A "cross-cum-shot" of course being a speculative lob into the box which looks intended as a cross but comes close to goal, or even ends up in the back of the net. A cum-shot in certain artistic circles is altogether different and not for discussion here. (If you're still confused about the difference though, click here to see Brazilian footballer Ronaldinho lobbing Seamen from 35 yards - a famous example from 2002 of a cross-cum-shot.)
Lol! That has really started my week off well. I predict this is going to be one of the most viewed posts of the week. Nice to see 'childish idiocy' still has a place in the ultra-serious new media world.
Posted by: Martin Cloake | Mar 22, 2010 at 09:24