I saw in today's Age the headline: "Winslet panned for trivialising the Holocaust" and I thought, "Oh no, my equal with Natalie Portman number one hot actress chick has said something stupid... Noooooo!"
But when I went to the actual article to find out what my darling Kate said, I discovered that the headline had little to do with the news report.
What's actually happened is Kate Winslet appears in a film, along with probably hundreds of other actors, not to mention a support crew of hundreds, that one film critic suggests 'trivialises the holocaust'.
If you are to single out who is responsible for (allegedly) trivialising the holocaust, surely it would be the script-writer, or the producers who commissioned the script-writer, or maybe the director if s/he trivialises what would otherwise be a measured and earnest script. To create a headline inferring Kate Winslet is the perpetrator is clearly wrong.
And in any case, this is just one man's opinion. A film critic. Who of course is entitled to his opinion and may indeed be correct in asserting the film trivialises the holocaust.
Point is: Why didn't the headline reflect the story? It should have read, "Film Critic Suggests Movie Starring Kate Winslet Trivialises The Holocaust". I mean, I'd still read the article if that was the headline.
Lift your game, Fairfax.
In related news from the article, the film features Kate Winslet nude. Winslet. Nude. Oh I'll be seeing the movie and making my own boobs up on the assertion that the film boobs trivialises the boobs.