Crikey etches Victorian election promises in stone
In the lead-up to the Victorian state election tomorrow, Crikey.com.au has enshrined election promises made by both major parties in stone.
The campaign, created by Leo Burnett Melbourne, sees eight key election promises from both Labor and the Liberal Party etched into 19kg chunks of stone which have been presented to the public by Crikey founder Stephen Mayne.
The promises will be displayed outside the Victorian State Library until the election tomorrow.
It also utilises the twitter hashtag #setinstone to allow Victorians to have their say on which promises politicians should be held accountable for, although as Crikey reported yesterday none of the candidates turned up to be presented with their stone pledge.
Credits:
- Agency: Leo Burnett Melbourne
- ECD: Jason Williams
- Creatives: Joe Hill / Garret Fitzgerald
- Group Account Director: Ari Sztal
- Creative Coordinator: Joanne Warrener
- Social Media Manager: Chris Steele
- Photography: Harvard Wang / Brandon Rice
- Editor: Matt Peters
- Client: Crikey
- Campaign Manager: Michael Nugent
Linkedin
I hope they used Talc as the stone.
User ID not verified.
More like Teflon.
User ID not verified.
I apologise if the moderators think this is a bit too far from the topic, but . . .
During reporting on the state general election that’s been held in Victoria today the television channel ABC News 24 has been entertaining its audience with umpteen mentions of “booths” when it’s trying to refer to the buildings that contain the booths.
That’s SOP for a soppy “national broadcaster” that bends over backwards _not_ to reserve the useful noun “booth” for mention of any of the demountable cardboard carrels in which the electors cogitate about which bunch of cr—um—politicians to vote for or whether they should even cast a valid vote.
The Australian Electoral Commission, tick VG, gets it right. It uses the phrase “polling place” for the _building_ (school, gymnasium, town hall or wherever), and the word “booth” for the _carrel_.
Around the world the standard phrase for the building is either “polling place” or “polling station”.
User ID not verified.
You had me at “Harvard Wang”.
User ID not verified.
No Leigh. It’s not off topic. But it wins Gold, Gold, Gold in the Pedantry Stakes!
However language is a fluid beast, and common parlance is to “look at it booth to booth”.
It would be like saying “I telephoned for a taxicab but none were available so I had to drive my automobile to my workplace but had to catch the autobus home as I had consumed a surfeit of alcoholic beverages”. That is technically correct for saying I phoned for a cab, there were none so I drove the car to work and caught as bus home as I was a bit tiddly”.
User ID not verified.
Unwarily playing the ho-hum “pedantry” card in post Nº5 of Sunday in reaction to my Nº3 of Saturday JG says in a paragraph that the world assumes is presented as being pedantically correct for the sake of argument:
“[. . .] It would be like saying “I telephoned for a taxicab [. . .]”
But no ambiguity lurks in “phoned” or “cab”, whereas in the context of elections ambiguity or the likelihood of misleading does lurk in “booth”—especially in Australia. JG is confusing “pedantry” with prolixity.
“[. . .] but none were [. . .]”
In a paragraph that JG earnestly pretends to be pedantically correct then a majority of cosmopolitan (that’s lowercase “c”) readers would prefer “none was”, because “none” means “not one”.
“[. . .] available so I had to drive my automobile [. . .]”
But no ambiguity lurks in “car”. JG is still confusing “pedantry” with prolixity.
In the context of voting, many readers must be wondering which word JG has in mind for the thing that the people in the AEC (no, not the Atomic Energy Commission) and most of the rest of the world call a “booth”.
That implied question is a serious one, and it obviously invites an answer from someone who’s up to the task.
“[. . .].”
JG’s post offers plenty of bait for my red pen to go on in the same vein, but I’m too lazy to do so.
If the universally standard meanings of words that seek to differentiate between parts and wholes (“door” and “house”, for instance) count for nothing then I look forward to an edition of the UK Channel 5’s excellent series _Cowboy Builders_ in which Melinda and Dominic jump up and down about someone who claims that his quote for doing the “house” means doing just the front door because “front door” is what his private Ozarks-standard lexicon interprets people to mean when they talk about their whole house.
Over and out.
User ID not verified.
Leigh, point taken with “none were”. I’m fucking slack when it comes to grammar.
But I’m still taking the “if it’s good enough for Antony it’s good enough for me” defence.
It also appears as though my prolixity is trumped by your rodomontade response. Well done! I dips me lid to you. I declare Leigh the winner.
User ID not verified.
But JG, your brevity and common sense have won our hearts. You’re the People’s Champion, because, as my dear mother always says, nobody likes a smartarse,
User ID not verified.
(Apologies for the rogue comma at the end there. Sometimes normal people do things like that, but you still knew what I meant, right?)
User ID not verified.