Note To The Age: It’s 2008, Not 1850
Posted by Clem Bastow on July 29, 2008
The coverage of Sienna Miller’s relationship with Balthazar Getty continues this week (evidently he said he was separated from his wife; it was news to her), and regardless of what you think of all parties involved, I stifled a groan when I saw this front page The Age Online piece:
Yes, it says “Scarlet woman”. Yes, it says “Sienna Miller’s affairs” (no doubt meant to be a hilarious play upon words).
Seriously, The Age, “scarlet woman”? A casual Wiki browse might have been in order for the subs:
Then again, it’s not as though they have a great reputation of being right-on to uphold. Why is it that in cases like this, everybody seems to forget that there is also a man involved, a man who – if we are to believe any of this muck – deceived both Miller and his wife and four children, and yet it’s Miller who is at the receiving end of most (nay, all) of the criticism bandied about?
I am not saying that Sienna Miller is without fault here, but it is not her fault, as the papers and gossips would have you believe. It takes two, as they say, to tango.