In today’s Sydney Morning Herald is an article from the Telegraph in London, by Bruno Waterfield: Girl’s face grows back after three years:
A SWEDISH teenager has grown her face back after an allergic reaction to a single paracetamol pill caused the skin to turn black and peel off.
Eva Uhlin, 19, has recovered her looks after suffering an allergic reaction to the common painkiller, bought over the counter.
What purpose does the second sentence serve, other than to say she “got her looks back”? Her name and age could have been given in any number of the following sentences.
I’m probably a sucker, but I give journos the benefit of the doubt when it comes to language, because so much of journalese is tired and tied to cliches: The Greens have slammed the Government; Victim has spoken out about her ordeal; Tiger’s mistress has broken her silence; Thailand’s restive south…
It’s unlikely that Bruno Waterfield was saying “Phew, she’s pretty again” or that without her looks a young woman is worthless, but that’s what his words mean.