Reading the DT this morning I was struck by the main headlines on the front pages of the news and business sections which led me to wonder whether anyone takes an overall look at the paper before it goes out.
Front page of the main paper – “Price of petrol to remain high for eight years.”
Front page of Business pages – “Why oil could soon come barrelling down.”
I rest my case.
Put Simply 
Just the other day I saw a headline; a HEADLINE for God’s sake, on the front page of the Times that read something along the lines of ‘Harrison Ford defeated by art house’, meaning ‘the art-house cinema scene of Cannes Film Festival. Compound adjective anyone? Was Ford defeated by a brightly painted house?
I found ‘Eats Shoots and Leaves’ smug, middle class and pedantic in its criticism of grammar. Radio-four-esque, if you will. Imagine my shock when I realised that I was beginning to sound like this.
Speaking of coverage in the newspapers, (but apropos of almost nothing; I just want to mention this):
Did anybody see the picture that has hit the papers of the man being burned alive during the race / immigration riots in the South African townships?
This unfortunate individual had a petrol-filled tire put around his neck and set alight. This unsurprisingly, made the front page of all the South African papers.
Am I alone in being shocked that this was published, unedited, in The Metro? Seems in very poor taste. And has anyone else noticed that inclusion of such violent pictures in papers seems to be on the increase? Sensationalist journalism can sometimes leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth.