Sick of getting bad heading?

The Bug’s Media Glass House is proud to announce a new annual award: shittiest mainstream mediocre heading in any medium.

The idea was sparked by the online effort (above) from The Age on Thursday.

Punchy and to the point it certainly isn’t. It’s so lame in fact that the MGH could easily believe it was written by Nine Entertainment Co chair Peter Costello, squirting some eau de cologne on the putrid carcass of a corrupt government.

A system for taxpayers? Got any fucking idea what those wishy-washy words were supposed to convey? Nope? We neither. How lucky that the taxpayers have their own system? But it must change? Sounds like it’s good now but it could be better! A fair enough interpretation?

Crowe, chief political correspondent for both The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, was scathing in his analysis of the findings of a superb piece of journalism the day before by colleagues Shane Wright and Katina Curtis into the gold-standard porkbarrel rorting by the Morrison government over recent years.

Crowe’s piece is stamped as opinion so let’s share some of his wise words.

“The brazen, systemic bias is revealed in the tally of $2.8 billion in grants that can be traced to a tick of approval from Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his ministers.”

“…. this bribery is growing unchecked like a political weed, spreading so fast it could smother Parliament House in lantana. The spending is out of control – deliberately, because those who sign the grants do not want questions later.”


“….changes are needed to limit this abuse of public money.”:

“The message to people in “safe” seats, especially people on lower incomes in safe Labor electorates, is shocking: do not bother applying for help.”

“This is a form of corruption. It is the use of public money for the pursuit of private advantage for a political party and its politicians.”

Powerful stuff, right? And the warning is dire. Apart from the entire method of handing out public money for community projects being corrupt, biased and abused, what bunch of school kids would want to go visit our federal Parliament covered in lantana?

So why didn’t the online sub-editor honour Crowe’s evisceration of Morrison government skulduggery with something like this?

Is there anything in those words at odds in any way, shape or form with what Crowe was opining? Are those words not a fair telegram of his basic argument? The real guts of what he thinks?

For that was clearly Crowe’s point. That everything flows from that basic observation of a system horribly corrupted. That the system must change. And that taxpayers – citizens – our society – would benefit greatly by that change.

Was there anything there that would question a sub-editor’s desire to be professionally independent, always?

Sadly, what was used suggests Peter Costello was watching over that sub’s shoulder, either in person or in spirit.