In yesterday’s edition of The Irish Independent Oliver Callan writes a page-long comment piece on the Re-turn scheme.
The comedian and radio presenter is extremely critical of everything to do with the Re-turn scheme. And what a rant it is.
It’s difficult to understand how the newspaper gave the comedian a full page to write what he writes.
What does this sentence mean: "Why can’t we actually recycle the bottles collected here”
What about this paragraph: "We had been making major strides with the green bin, with an increase of 12pc between 2012 and 2021 to reach 41pc household recycling. The direction was good. Sadly, the Green Party was in power, at least while Eamon Ryan wasn't napping, and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael spotted a scapegoat to sneak in an ugly EU demand and blame it on the vegans.”
What added value does foul language add to an opinion piece? In this case none, indeed, it tells its own tale about the quality of the piece and the mindset of the author.
There is neither a beginning nor an end to the article.
What about this: “Who feels good or that this is easy? This is a hated scheme."
Elsewhere he writes: “Its 12 directors got a 50pc pay rise last year. Why? We’ll never find out.”
Did Mr Callan think of asking them?
This full-page comment piece must be well up there for winning an award for a piece of nonsensical writing.
Oliver talks about the scheme raising his blood pressure; did he give any thought what his writing might have on the blood pressure level of his readers.
And then there is the poor syntax and grammar.
2 comments:
Always a good idea to play the man rather than the ball when you have nothing of substance to say about the argument itself.
Why anonymous? It tells its own story. Obviously, you are confusing the ball with the man.
Post a Comment