In what has to be the most egregious example of either lazy reporting or intentional misleading of the public, ESPN’s flagship football page, the aptly named “soccernet,” is running with the headline Taylor backed to recover from Eduardo tackle.
I thought that reporting of the tackle was bad enough when they were simply being lazy about sentence construction and saying things like “Eduardo broke his leg.” That little snippet shifts the active verb from the aggressor, Taylor, who, and I have video evidence if you need to see it, actually did the breaking to the passive receiver. Thus, it’s a way of absolving Taylor of his part in this. It’s a very human thing to do too. We don’t like saying “Taylor broke Eduardo’s leg” or “Martin raped the nun.” Some of us feel much more comfortable saying “Eduardo’s leg was broken” or “The nun was raped.”
But here let me show you.
On the left in this picture (wearing the BLUE uniform) is Martin Taylor. On the right (wearing the RED uniform) is Eduardo. Now, see how Martin Taylor is off the ground, studs up, slightly below the knee, and lunging at Eduardo (remember Eduardo is on the right and wearing RED)? Good. Please also note that the man in BLUE is in an unnatural position and the man in RED is simply running along. OK!
Now, remember that the guy in BLUE was the guy who LUNGED at the guy in RED. See how the guy wearing the BLUE socks is BREAKING the guy in RED’s leg? Can you see that? Can you see that “Taylor is breaking Eduardo’s leg?”
And finally:
See how the guy in BLUE is perfectly fine, both legs are intact and he’s sliding through the tackle? Now see how the guy in RED has that little dangly bit (it’s called a foot) hanging down? That guy in BLUE is Martin Taylor. That guy in RED is Eduardo. The guy in RED has now had his leg broken.. by the guy in BLUE. Therefore, in English we say (using active voice) “Martin Taylor broke Eduardo’s leg.” Say it again, you shit-for-brains-reporter, “Martin Taylor broke Eduardo’s leg!” YES! Just like that. It’s called “active voice” and look into using it you might want to do.
So, when we say things like “Taylor backed to recover from Eduardo tackle” or “Eduardo broke his leg” can you can see how those two statements might look as if Eduardo was the man in BLUE and Taylor was the man in RED? Yes? Good, now fuck off back to ESPN “soccernet” or the Daily Mail, you fucking cunts.
0 comments