Powered by WordPress | Theme by mg12 | Valid XHTML 1.1 and CSS 3
  • The real meaning of 42

    Julia Goldsworthy seems to be omnipresent at the moment. A particularly poor interview in the Independent today which contains 0% insight and fully a third of the article is filled with interviewer Andy McSmith asking questions about inane trivia:

    “At what level of income does a person start paying 40 per cent tax ?” she was asked. “In the mid thirties,” she replied. “That’s right isn’t it? I will have to refresh that kind of thing in time for the Budget.” Well, the exact answer is £32,400 per year - so she was close. Next came a question that stumped Stephen Byers when he was minister for Schools. “What are eight sevens?”

    “Forty-two,” she answered with confidence. Er, sorry, Julia. Forty-two is the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, according to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. You could call it the ultimate Liberal Democrat manifesto. But whatever planet you’re on, eight sevens are fifty-six. The colour rose up her neck. “Fifty-six!” she cried. “You’re right. Gosh that’s terrible!” Here she broke into a defensive laugh as she reflected on what the party’s “shadow” Chancellor, Vincent Cable, would have to say. “Maybe Vince will be taking me in for an arithmetic test. The press office is no good at arithmetic either. They got my age wrong!”

    There’s no getting away from the fact that saying 7×8 = 42 is a schoolboy error (although she does appear to correct herself without prompting), but then, it is a schoolboy question. Worse, the level of income that the 40p rate kicks in is £37,295, meaning that Julia was actually more accurate on the hoof than the journalist was with the luxury of being able to look it up.

    The sad thing about this article is that this is about as good as it gets. However embarrassing Julia’s gaffe is, I’m afraid this article says a lot more about the quality of British journalism these days.

    Rate this:
    1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
    Loading ... Loading ...
  • Monday, March 13th, 2006 at 16:25 | #1

    And, as any fule kno, 42 is not “the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything” - it’s the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Entirely different.

  • Monday, March 13th, 2006 at 17:03 | #2

    Too true, James. You’d have thought now the Indy is smaller they’d try and make every last column inch count.

  • Monday, March 13th, 2006 at 17:05 | #3

    Unfortunately, the Indy is smaller now in every sense.

  • Monday, March 13th, 2006 at 17:39 | #4

    It’s an odd paper who’s leader columns are less opinionated than their front pages.

  • Neil
    Monday, March 13th, 2006 at 17:39 | #5

    And of the course the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything was: “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?”

    Which explains why I always thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe;-)

  • Monday, March 13th, 2006 at 18:01 | #6

    McSmith is a die-hard Labourite isn’t he? What a surprise he should resort to this…

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TOP