Well folks, St. Crispin’s Day (Oct 25) is almost upon us — so this is the last call for nominations for the Agincourt Award for the Longest Bow in Journalism.
Previous nominations are here, here and here.
You get the idea – find the columnist, article or report which makes the most tenuous, tendentious or just plain spurious argument to prove its “point”.
And please, nominate them in the comments below. A link is all it takes!
PS: New unit of measurement — one Agincourt is the most tangential distance between any two points.
I nominate the tortuous reasoning of the Storm asterisk article by Australia’s Worst Sportswriter, Patrick Smith. Who regards West Coast’s 2006 Grand FInal win as an “inferior triumph”?
JohnP – that’s a big 404, little buddy.
Just get rid of all the guff after ‘html’, FDB.
BBB
Well, thanks for the help BBB, but I’m forced to conclude that “%3Cbr%20/%3E” was by far the most readable bit of JohnP’s link.
The question isn’t who to nominate. The question is who isn’t eligible. Is there anyone who doesn’t write shite passing for analysis these days./ Anyone? Anyone at all.