Skip to content

A small mistake but telling in what it reveals

July 18, 2014

Labour, like most parties, is making use of social media this election. David Cunliffe, the current Labour Party leader, has a fairly strong Facebook presence and when he posts there is a coterie of fans who lap up his comments.

It was perhaps a little unfortunate that the proof reading gremlin struck this post:-

David Cunliffe - The technological revolution will open up opportunities for our kids that we can't even imagine today. Every kid should have those opportunities. Under a Labour Government I lead, ever kid will.

David Cunliffe – The technological revolution will open up opportunities for our kids that we can’t even imagine today. Every kid should have those opportunities. Under a Labour Government I lead, ever kid will.

 

It was unfortunate in the extreme that a post concerned with education highlighted either an inability to spell, or a lack of vocabulary, or a lack of comprehension or a lack of proof reading by anybody who understood the use of language. Was the error noticed? Did someone just assume the audience would never notice? Perhaps the author assumed nobody would read the graphic closely!

Then of course the folksy use of the descriptor kids for children, when the graphic used the word child.  Finally the blanket promise that every child will have unimaginable opportunities. That is a promise which is just not capable of fulfillment. A moment of reflection will convey that to the reader. The statement fails on so many levels, it is just not credible.

Oh and by the way simply giving children a computer or tablet or whatever, will not of itself solve issues of opportunity, attitude or ability.

This leads me to ponder the question as to whether Cunliffe and his team assume that the electorate are fools to be bought off with the modern equivalent of brad and circuses?

Advertisements
3 Comments
  1. Angry Tory permalink
    July 19, 2014 11:59 pm

    Oh – the hardware in the graphic is a fucken Chromebook pixel – about $2000 NZD if you were allowed to buy them in NZ. Which you’re not.

    Someone should tell WhatTheHeckAreYa – or Cam, I guess. Cam would be more fun.

  2. adamsmith1922 permalink*
    July 18, 2014 8:31 pm

    And the gremlin struck my post as well. so much for the spell checker. As Alwyn noted it was the Pitts, so I might as well be Jolie about it.

    All Brads aside though the validity of my other points stands.

  3. alwyn permalink
    July 18, 2014 7:26 pm

    An error like your own one leaves me feeling that your comment is totally in the Pitts.
    “modern equivalent of brad and circuses?” indeed!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: