Worst news report ever?

I probably haven't been around long enough to speak in finite terms, but I think I may have just read one of the worst news reports in living and non-living history.

Not only does it disregard grammar and syntax, but it makes no logical sense. Please read this story and tell me whether you understand what happened.

Now let me break it down for you:
It starts off well with the ultra funky headline "Kevin Rudd halts QT to ambush Tony Abbott on health".

The ambiguity over "QT" allows for so many fun possibilities:

"Kevin Rudd halts quality time to ambush Tony Abbott"

"Kevin Rudd halts quince tart to ambush Tony Abbott"

etc.

To my great disappointment though, in this case "QT" did not mean either of those but stood for "question time". You might think this is a bit obvious, but I'd still argue that journalists shouldn't use ambiguous abbreviations. Save it for texting. It just looks lazy.

Moving on. What is more unclear from the news report is what this "ambush" actually involved.

"Putting the Oppsoition (sic) Leader on the spot after he responded to Mr Rudd's taunts that he explain his position, Mr Abbott quickly recovered to accuse the Rudd government of lying to voters."

Errr...what? Let me slide in a common proper noun to make sense of the above:

"Putting Abbott on the spot after Abbott responded to Mr Rudd's taunts that Abbott explain Abbott's position, Abbott quickly recovered to accuse the Rudd government of lying to voters."

No, that didn't make anything clearer (except that the journalist responsible is in dire need of English lessons).

This is what I think the general message was: When Rudd unexpectedly asked Abbott to explain his position on health, the opposition leader responded by calling Rudd a liar. Mature.

But the story goes on:

"The ambush tactics included Labor MPs extending his time to speak to put the unprepared Liberal leader to the test."

Again, let me translate this into English: Labor MPs extended Abbott's speaking time, in order to put the Liberal leader to the test.

So how did Abbott explain his health proposal?

""What a complete fake!" Mr Abbott yelled across the chamber at the Prime Minister. Forced to withdraw his lying charge as unparliamentary, he accused Mr Rudd of telling "grotesque untruths"."

Firstly, I have to commend the opposition leader for behaving in such a dignified way. Secondly I should make it clear that contrary to what the journalist wrote, the charge wasn't lying. Abbott simply had to withdraw his accusations that the PM was a liar. Thirdly I'd like to share my fondness for the "parliamentary" and "unparliamentary" classifications. I wonder whether there's a list:

Liar - unparliamentary ** Teller of grotesque untruths - parliamentary

Dickhead - unparliamentary ** Man with phallic-shaped noggin - parliamentary

Thief - unparliamentary ** One who borrows without intention of returning- parliamentary

.

Back to the story. To end the defence of his health proposal, Abbott questioned Rudd's ability to deliver on health by using the bungled insulation program as a basis for attack...again.

.

I wonder just how long he's going to hold onto that before people catch on to the fact that insulation and health actually have very little in common.

.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that other than a poor account of a parliamentary tiff , nothing about the content of the meeting was mentioned. At the end of the story we know that the men don't like each other very much, but we still have no idea what was said regarding health. Good Work!