The poet Robert Burns imagined a man toasting his lover with a “pint o’ wine”, and Winston Churchill was perhaps the most famous proponent of the pint bottle for champagne. Now, Rishi Sunak’s government has spied a “Brexit opportunity” to legalise the sale of wine by the pint once more – if it can persuade anyone to make the bottles.
Still and sparkling wine will be sold in 200ml, 500ml and 568ml (pint) sizes in 2024, alongside existing measures, under new rules, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) announced on Wednesday. It said the change was made possible by Brexit.
However, the pint-sized move appeared to be the extent of a push towards imperial measures, after a government consultation into allowing more businesses to buy and sell using them resulted in no new action.
What a fantastic example of a guardian article:
Brexit outrage, a poem by a dead Scottish guy, a callback to Churchill, a football reference?
Buried in the middle as a throw away comment.
I was watching the news on the telly this morning at the same time as reading this article and they spent all of a minute on this story but the guardian has milked it (in pints or millilitres?) for all it can. 😂🥂🍻
But of course it’s optional? I don’t understand why it’s scandalous that they’ve put that in the middle? Did you want it in the headline?
The headline implies that these silly measurements are being brought back on a wider scale than what they are and it doesn’t mention they’re optional until a few paragraphs in. So yes I did want the headline to be more realistic of the situation and less misleading.
So consider why they couldn’t have written the headline as:
That’s pretty close to what the headline was on Sky news on their rolling ticker at the bottom of the screen. But that wouldn’t generate the clickbait I suppose.
Like I said, I saw this article and was watching the morning news at the same time and they seemed to imply two completely different stories. But instead the guardian had added it’s own spin to the story and headline.
Folks go on about folks not reading the article. But honestly threads like this give a much more balanced view.
At least in the comments we get to see multiple opinions about the event. And can then read the article if it sounds unbiased.
But lets be honest. Their is no such thing as unbiased news. It is and has always been a mater of atraxkting both readera and advertisers. Click bait os just the newest method.
Or worst millianairs buying papers to push thier views is a very old technique. Even in the 1700s
Heck the most unrealistic thing about the spiderman universe. Is that the newspaper owner never had some corrupt reason to hate spiderman. But was genuinly opposed to vigilanty justice. While useing his paper to push exactly that apon peter parker.
Well most unrealistic if yoi ignore the whole spider bite radiation effect.
Honestly I see it as more as point-and-laugh than outrage