My friend Brayton
{via his facebook status}
EDIT: Brayton just informed me that while that really did happen to someone (presumably someone he knows, even), it did not happen to him.
G.K. Chesterton, of course.
The backstory: Chesterton, among other writers, was asked to submit essays to the London Times on “What’s Wrong with the World?”, Chesterton submitted, well, the above “essay.”
{via this book, which is apparently available from the authors website for free as an audiobook. We’re reading it for Contemporary Christian Belief, which is a really good class}
That’s the headline of this article.
I expected, given the headline, that these would be criticisms about safety, or quality, something substantial. However, they are:
1. “…doesn’t feel solid.”
2. “…is underpowered.”
3. “…engine is buzzy.”
4. “…is too small.”
I’m not trying to say those things don’t matter; they do, on some level. But the article starts by saying that it was Honda’s goal to create an affordable hybrid, and they succeeded. It also throws critical praise at you, then completely changes course, and then, in the last paragraph, says, “the look and feel of a car is subjective.” Duh! How is this noteworthy? Some people liked this car, some people did not, everyone agreed it worked well, but exhibited some features you might expect of a car made to be fuel-efficient and relatively cheap.
How does that warrant such a headline?
ARGH journalism/ists is/are so frustrating.
