Orwell's best of language vs the worst of language in this article

Submitted by myth (Germany), Sep 25, 2018 at 08:10

Holding the different articles side by side I find that "Die Welt" departed from serious journalism. Regardless of content they come up with the worst of language. Let me translate the first paragraph in which the author sums up the article:

DE:
Internationale Rechtsextreme bieten eine Schifffahrt von Regensburg nach Budapest mit Galionsfiguren der Szene an, inklusive Stopp im österreichischen Linz. Dort ist der Widerstand groß, man wolle nicht zur Pilgerstätte der Rechten werden.

EN:
International rigthwing-extremists offer a cruise from Regenburg to Budapest with the scene's figureheads, including a stop in the Austrian city of Linz. There (in Linz) opposition is big. One would not want to become a site of pilgrimage for the Right.

So far for the worst language. George Orwell provides a guide for the best language in his essay "politics and the English language". One observation of his fits the article:

"incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying"

"Die Welt" illustrates this error three times in the first paragraph alone. First how can there be multiple figureheadS in the plural on the bow of one ship? Second: Mixing this nautical metaphor with an actual boat-cruise confuses. "site of pilgrimage" implies a metaphorical religious motivation on the part of the "Rightwing-extremists". Further down in the text the same people are denounced as "hostile to Islam" an actual religion. Again, confusing metaphors.

As for the content George Orwell wastes but a single line, writing in 1946 with no knowledge of this article, to say everything about it:

" The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.' "

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".