Categories
Australia Football Media Shoddy Journalism

Is Understood To Be More Than Double

I’ve already posted this to Twitter (twice, actually) but I’m going to keep posting it until someone else finds it as funny as I do.

Yesterday The Age reported on the announcement from Optus of their plans to televise the Premier League here in Oz from next season.

My favourite bit, though, was this:

In November, Optus surprised the market by swooping on the rights to the EPL and agreeing to pay $63 million annually, which is understood to be more than double the $20 million a year that Fox Sports is paying now.

Sources close to the business recently confirmed to Fairfax media that 2 and 2 are understood to equal 4.

As of press time, just one other person in the world thinks this is funny.

In other news, whatever happened to that bus with the world’s 62 richest people on it? I bet they’re having a ball.

You could fit the richest 62 people in the world on a single coach

Categories
Australia Media Shoddy Journalism

Letter To The Editor

Dick Smith Motley Fool

For some reason The Age chose not to publish my letter. Can’t think why…

*

Sir,

I almost choked on my cornflakes reading Scott Phillips of The Motley Fool in today’s Money section explaining “How to avoid investing in the next Dick Smith“. One answer to this might be “don’t listen to what the so-called experts say”. As recently as October last year one stock picking service was extremely bullish on DSH, writing that it was trading at “bargain prices”, with “more upside than downside”.

DSH_MF_1

“Looking past the short-term factors could result in a very Foolish reward for those willing to take the plunge”, they said. “Dick Smith is a stable stock with great dividend and growth prospects.”

And the service providing this advice? I believe they’re called “The Motley Fool”. I think there’s a chance Scott might be familiar with their work…

DSH_MF2

Categories
Media Shoddy Journalism

Oh FFS, Not Again: The Economist Worldwide Cost of Living Index is Not a Cost of Living Index

So every six months it seems The Age re-runs what is essentially the same story as the latest incarnation of The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Worldwide Cost of Living Index is released.

In the most recent of these, they lead with a typically startling claim:

It’s cheaper to live in Copenhagen, Hong Kong or New York City than it is to reside in Sydney or Melbourne, according to the Worldwide Cost of Living Index compiled by the The Economist’s intelligence unit.

Really? But hang on a minute, what’s this:

Sydney ranked fifth and Melbourne equal sixth on the list, released on Tuesday, US-time. That was actually a drop of two ranks for each city since the last survey was released last year.

Jon Copestake, the editor of the index, said a recent decline in the Australian dollar meant that Australian cities in 2014 offered slightly better value for money, resulting in their slight drop in rankings.

“The long-term rise of the Australian dollar, which has doubled in value in the last decade, has fallen back lately, with a corresponding decline in relative prices,” he said.

Well that’s interesting: why would the recent drop in the Aussie dollar make Melbourne and Sydney slightly better value places to live? If I live in Melbourne and earn money in local currency, then why would a fall in the value of the Aussie dollar make it cheaper to live here? Wouldn’t a weaker dollar make it more expensive in some respects, pushing up the price of imported goods, for example?

Maybe it’s because (as I wrote back in 2011) The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Worldwide Cost of Living Index is not really a cost of living index at all. As the report itself says:

The Worldwide Cost of Living survey enables human resources line managers and expatriate executives to compare the cost of living in over 130 cities in nearly 90 countries and calculate fair compensation policies for relocating employees.

Everything is converted back into US Dollars. Any movement in the position of Australian cities is almost entirely a result of exchange rate fluctuations. As the Aussie dollar got stronger, those cities rocketed up the list. And now that the Aussie has weakened they are slowly falling back.

It’s really a cost of relocating from the US and paying for things with US dollars survey. Which is perfectly fine if you use it for the purpose it is intended to be used for, but you can’t take the information in the report and try to draw conclusions for people who already live in those cities and earn money in local currency.

I don’t doubt that Sydney and Melbourne belong somewhere high up on a list of expensive cities in the world, but I strongly suspect that their average wages would also put them pretty high up on a list of the richest cities in the world.

And if you don’t look at the cost of living as a proportion of average wages then your results are utterly meaningless.

Categories
Media Shoddy Journalism Technology teh internets

Modern Life Is Not Rubbish

I’ve come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

So wrote the late great Douglas Adams, in (according to teh internets) The Salmon of Doubt.

It’s one of those great quotes to remember if you ever hear or read someone lazily complaining about technology ruining everything that was great about life (or, heaven forbid, catch yourself starting to think that way…)

Today’s Age has one such example: “Stop filming with your smart phone and start living

The writer offers a varied list of complaints about how people today are doing it wrong, with all this technology they are carrying around allowing them to do stuff like film gigs, or have fictional relationships with Scarlett Johansson. Even, gosh, not talk to strangers in cafes:

Today, I watch as people sit in cafes alone, with headphones plugged in, eyes fixed on a scrolling personal tablet or phone screen, cocooned from their surrounds and people next to them. They’re chatting online to people they’ve never met in person.

Yeah. Because before smartphones I couldn’t stop talking to strangers whenever I was in a cafe on my own.

At least I’m not staring at strangers eating their lunch. Maybe you’re the weirdo in this scenario…

I was going to write more about this, but as with most things in life, there’s an XKCD comic for that. It makes the point far, far better than I ever could:

The Pace of Modern Life

Categories
Media Shoddy Journalism

China Eastern Airlines Passenger Eats For Free For A Year? I Call Bullsh…

So there’s this story doing the rounds. It tells of an enterprising guy in China who supposedly managed to eat for free for the best part of a year, purely by purchasing a first class ticket, which he then used to access the airline lounge. Once he’d finished eating for free in the lounge, he simply cancelled and rebooked his fully refundable ticket for the following day, and then repeated the exercise 299 times. When the airline found out, he cancelled the ticket and got a full refund.

Now we all like a story of the little guy finding a loophole to get one over the big corporation, but there’s something about this story that just doesn’t ring true for me.

It’s certainly been reported uncritically by churnalists worldwide with column inches to fill and pageviews to generate.

But let’s think about it for a moment. This guy can’t afford to pay for food, but he does supposedly have enough disposable income for a first class plane ticket (even if he gets the money back at the end, he still had to have enough spare cash to have the cost of the ticket tied up for the best part of a year).

And what about getting to the airport? Wouldn’t the cost of transport or parking outweigh the benefits of the free food?

Even assuming our hero works at the airport, or lives nearby, then he’d still have to check in every day and then proceed through security (as far as I can tell from this website, all of the lounges at Xi’an Airport are airside).

I’m not a fan of clearing airport security at the best of times. Is it really worth going through all that hassle every day just for a free feed?

And we’re supposed to believe that he got away with this 300 times? Don’t you think the staff at the check-in desk and at the lounge might have started to recognise him long before his three hundredth attempt?

As far as I can tell the story was first reported in the media in Kwong Wah Yit Poh, a Malaysian Chinese newspaper, from there it was picked up by News Limited, and from there, it spread like wildfire, each report gleefully repeating the same information without a moment’s thought to the fact that none of it stands up to even the most basic scrutiny.

I call urban legend. Total and utter made up rubbish.

It. Did. Not. Happen.

(I did eventually manage to find one other website out there calling this one out: this post on Shanghaiist suggesting that someone in China simply made it up…)

Categories
Shoddy Journalism

Lies, Damned Lies, and Sloppy Data Journalism

Flicking through The Age as I chewed on my lunchtime sandwich yesterday, this article, about car thefts in Victoria, caught my eye:

20140203-215654.jpg

It’s more interesting for what it doesn’t say than for what it does. It quickly skips right over what to me would be the most interesting part of the story:

While total thefts hit a 10-year low of 9624 in the 2012-13 financial year, the number of cars fewer than five years old being stolen hit an eight-year high

If ever you wanted an illustration that good news does not sell papers, then here it is.

Who cares about the good news that car thefts are at an all time low, when there’s a scare story about thieves breaking into houses to steal car keys to write instead?

To be fair, the online version of the article does include this graph (not shown by default, but it’s there if you bother to click through to it) showing the downward trend in car thefts over the last ten years:

20140203-220453.jpg

It’s even more significant in real terms if you consider that the total number of vehicles on the road has increased over that time (the ABS recorded an 11% increase in vehicles registered in Victoria since 2008 alone). So at a time when we have more vehicles on the road than ever before, we also have a massive decrease in the numbers of thefts.

This raises some interesting questions: Why has this happened? Has there been a change in police policy? Is it a societal change? Are thieves just stealing other things instead? Are modern cars getting harder to steal (unless you’ve managed to nick the keys)?

But instead of asking any of those questions, the Age chooses to build an article around the fact that in the last twelve months the number of cars under five years old that were stolen rose by… wait for it… 53:

20140203-222050.jpg

While it certainly looks like thefts of newer cars — after falling for a number of years — seem to be trending up again (from 6.6% of all thefts in 2003-04 to 11%) that’s still only a slighter bigger proportion of a much smaller total.

(I did wonder if this could be explained due to a change in the proportion of newer cars out there. The article doesn’t mention it, but these stats are clearly pretty meaningless without that information, but I checked, and according to figures in table nine in this annual report from the ABS, and the corresponding tables from previous years, the number of registered vehicles under five years old looks to have remained pretty constant over the last few years, at about 30% of all registered vehicles.)

On the other hand, elsewhere in the article, we have gems like this:

Thefts of Subarus (390), Hyundais (365), Volkswagens (92), BMWs (166) and Suzukis (82) hit a 10-year high in the 2012-13 financial year, with police data showing late-model Hyundais and Volkswagens were targeted more frequently than earlier models.

Holdens were the most targeted make, with 2295 reported stolen.

The most targeted make? Isn’t it also possible that, as Holden was Australia’s best selling brand of car for many years, there’s simply more of them to steal?

And are late model Hyundais and VWs “targeted more frequently” because more of them have been sold in the last few years?

Well, here’s some more ABS statistics to shed some light on it:

20140203-224600.jpg

I couldn’t find figures for Victoria alone, so we’ll have to make do with these Australia-wide ones, but with a 98% increase in the number of VWs and a 32% increase in Hyundais on the roads over the last five years, it’s hardly surprising that thefts of “late models” are at all time highs. They didn’t sell anywhere near as many of those cars 5 years ago as they do today. There’s many, many more “late models” of those on the roads than older ones.

Look! Here’s a chart that shows how Jaguars are massively more secure cars than Holdens…

20140203-231256.jpg

Just kidding. Of course it doesn’t show that at all, but unless you give me these figures as a proportion of the number of each make that are out in the wild, then the entire chart is just as meaningless.

Only then can we see which ones are “targeted” (if any). For example, I wonder why — based on those Australia wide stats — Toyotas only come in third on the thefts list when there appear to be more of them than any other car?

As it stands, The Age, all you’ve really demonstrated is that broadly speaking if there are more of a particular type of car on the roads, then more of them get stolen.

Next week in The Age’s Data Journalism column, a series of graphs exploring the defecatory habits of large furry mammals, and a companion piece on papal religious persuasion through the ages.

UPDATE (5/02): I was joking about the whole bears/pope thing, but imagine my amusement over lunch today when I found the next article from The Age’s Data Journalism unit. A massive free ad for trendsmap Ground-breaking research across a two page spread revealed that people in Melbourne quite like sport and shopping but hate commuting. Wow. Just wow.

Categories
Australia Media

Schrödinger’s Medicines

So there I was flipping through the paper yesterday when I noticed something a little, um, odd about the massive full page ad on page 6 of The Sunday Age:

Full Page Ad in The Sunday Age

You can’t quite see it from that distance, so lets look a little closer…

Blurry Labels

Yeah. That’s odd. All the labels on those little bottles of Swisse Snake Oil are all blurry. A printing error maybe? Surely not…

I assumed that this would be something to do with the laws in Australia about advertising medicines, but I was curious, so I asked Dr Google. He told me to have a look at the website of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which confirms that there are of course all sorts of rules and regulations around the advertising of these products in Australia. And the page on Making a complaint about the advertising of a therapeutic product tells me this:

Advertisements for medicines appearing on television or radio, newspapers, consumer magazines, billboards and cinema films are required to be approved before publication.

Advertisements appearing in newspapers and consumer magazines must include the approval number. The approval number is usually in small print and begins with the letters ‘ASMI’ or ‘CHC’ followed by a 5-6 digit number and date code.

Approvals are valid for a 2-year period.

So does our ad have an approval number in small print beginning with the letters ASMI or CHC? Er. No.

Well that’s interesting.

It’s at this point that Dr Google suggests I take a look at the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2007 in ComLaw.

Under section 3, Compliance with, and application of, the Code, we find this:

(3) Advertisements for therapeutic goods appearing in specified and broadcast media must be approved by the appropriate Advertising Services Manager for compliance with the Code (Appendix 3 refers) prior to publication or broadcast, other than:

(b) advertisements for those therapeutic goods that may be advertised and which display only name, picture and/or price and /or point of sale, without therapeutic claims; and …

So it appears there is a loophole. You can advertise therapeutic goods without having to get your ad approved, regardless of what dubious therapeutic claims the goods themselves might make, just so long as you don’t repeat those therapeutic claims in your ad.

Presumably these little bottles of wonder pills are some kind of Schrödinger’s Medicine: they simultaneously are therapeutic goods and also aren’t at the same time, depending on what’s on the label. I suppose that’s kind of appropriate, really. Isn’t that how the placebo effect homoeopathy works…

Then again, they haven’t blurred out some of those labels very well. Even I can see that this one says “Clinically Trialled” on the top line and “Omega-3 Antioxidant” on the bottom line, whatever the hell that means:

Clinically Trialled

Although maybe they should go that little bit further with the blurring–you never know what some of these products might be called by the time the consumer gets to the store. As The ABC’s The Checkout pointed out a few months ago, when the Therapeutic Goods Administration cancelled the registration for Swisse’s Ultiboost Appetite Suppressant, they cunningly evaded the ban by simply changing the name on the label

Categories
Blogging Media Shoddy Journalism teh internets Twitter

Old Media

I’m a little behind on this one, but I found this recent message from the old media rather amusing:

Rupert Murdoch Tweets

Bloggers terrorizing politicians? Well that will never do. That’s your job, isn’t it Rupert?

Also, while I’m at it Rupe, do try to remember that if you’re going to make claims about what results a particular Google search returns, you might not want to do that on the internet, where such claims are laughably easily verified.

Rupert Murdoch Tweets 2

Categories
Media Shoddy Journalism teh internets UK

Mr Pot, Meet Mr Kettle’s Web Presence

Just catching up on a couple of recent Private Eyes, I couldn’t help notice that they chose to conclude a story about recent problems at the Times Literary Supplement with this somewhat surprising paragraph:

The resulting outcry is awkwardly timed for [Sir Peter Stothard, the editor of the TLS], since to access his organ online is to find utter chaos. Already a laughing stock because it is reached via the Times’s “entertainment” division, the TLS’s website has been “under construction” for so long, even Stothers himself felt compelled to admit the process “has tested the patience of readers and writers alike”.

Ahem. Well now. I’d link to the story in the extensive archives on Private Eye’s comprehensive, modern and easy to use website, except that Private Eye don’t seem to have got round to making it yet…

Come on guys. Of all the things you can criticise other publications for, I really don’t think you should have a go at their website until you’ve sorted out your own.

Having said that, when I visited the Private Eye site just now I did see that they have started to embrace the modern age. My subscription apparently entitles me to exclusive “digital downloads”:

Please note, as one of our valued subscribers, you have full free access to all digital downloads and content as well as your print copy of Private Eye every fortnight.

Except. Oh…

Categories
Australia Festivals Media Melbourne New York TV US

MWF 2011

As someone was pointing out in The Age the other day, this city sure loves a festival. Pick any time of the year at random and you can be sure that a festival of some kind will be taking place at that very moment. Just as some world cities are on a permanently heightened terrorism threat status, Melbourne seems to be on perpetual risk of festival. Careful where you stand now–some culture might break out at any time.

Clearly we have neither the time nor finances to attend them all–you’d literally never stop–but every now and again we somehow find ourselves at a disproportionate number of events attached to a particular one. A few years ago it was the comedy festival; another year we binged on short film at the St Kilda Film Festival, and this year we ended up “doing” the Melbourne Writers Festival.

Somewhat surprisingly, every time I would mention to someone that we were seeing the festival’s big international name, Jonathan Franzen, in conversation at the beautiful BMW Edge theatre in Fed Square, I was mostly met with only blank stares (seriously? He wrote The Corrections! He said no to Oprah! He’s, like, really famous…) Well, I’m a big fan whether you’ve heard of him or not, and although I still haven’t found the time to read Freedom (the curse of walking to work means that I’ve lost my novel reading time), I’ve read everything else. He was an entertaining and articulate speaker and the hour flew by. Even the audience Q&A segment (which can sometimes be excrutiating) was very entertaining. I particularly enjoyed Jonathan’s rather endearing habit of pausing to think before answering a question. Clearly this is a man who does not fear an uncomfortable silence. Maybe I’ll start adopting this strategy in job interviews. Or maybe not.

The following night we were back in Fed Square to see the live recording of the ABC’s Q&A (the Aussie version of question time), hosted by the always entertaining Tony Jones–a sort of cross between Dimbleby and a slightly friendlier Paxman. As the producer assured us before it kicked off, it really is live–not for them the luxury of a 10 second delay. Perhaps one might have come in handy, though, judging by the fact that they accidentally put this to air:

That was supposed to be a short pre-show promo in which Tony Jones introduces the panel, but unfortunately someone put the audio feed live just early enough for the unfortunate punchline to the warm up guy’s joke (“…85 year old Sudanese woman”) to be broadcast to Australia’s living rooms. I can’t imagine what people at home must have thought (the setup that they didn’t hear was something along the lines that the makeup artists who were at that moment dabbing foundation on the panel are so good that underneath it all Tony Jones is actually that aforementioned 85 year old Sudanese woman…)

Oops.

Still, all of that did mean that I made my second appearance on Aussie telly: many years ago I randomly switched on Channel Ten to see my stupid laughing head in the audience of that year’s Melbourne Comedy Festival Gala. This time with the aid of the pause button, a bit of Where’s Wally type fun backed up with the knowledge of exactly where I was sitting and what I was wearing I was able to locate myself in the crowd pulling a stupid face. Between the two of us we’ve now appeared on three of the five terrestrial channels–Sal was with a group of girls interviewed by Channel 7 at Flemington many years ago–so that just leaves Nine and SBS. I wonder if we can make it onto the other two? Channel Nine is probably achievable if I hang around on Dorcas Street in South Melbourne for long enough in October while they’re filming the next series of The Block, but SBS could be tricky: I guess I’d either have to go on Countdown or get my kit off…

Our third writers festival event in as many days was an evening of foodie indulgence at the new Vue de Monde up the top of the Rialto tower in the company of chef and owner Shannon Bennett talking about his new guide to New York. It was enough to make me really want to go back to New York–just a shame it’s not quite as accessible from here as it was from London. Still, a lovely evening with some great food and wine. We even got to shake the man’s hand as he signed our book for us.