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
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 Media Shoddy Journalism

Lies, Damned Lies, and Exchange Rates

According to today’s The Age:

RISING living costs and a surging Australian dollar mean it is now more expensive to live in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth than in London, Vienna, Rome or New York.

A startling claim, I’m sure you’ll agree, but something doesn’t quite ring true for me about this. Why should a “surging Australian dollar” make it more expensive to live in an Australian city? A surging Australian dollar might make it expensive to visit an Australian city, but for anyone living there–earning a salary in the local currency–it should surely make the cost of living cheaper. Apart from anything else due to lower prices for imported goods.

So I downloaded the free report (from here) and of course the introduction makes clear that any conclusions you might draw from the report about the cost of living anywhere outside the US are somewhat flawed:

There are two major reasons why a city’s cost-of-living index will change over time: exchange rate movement and price movement. Since a common currency is required in making a comparative calculation, all local prices are converted into US dollars, which emphasises the role of currency
movement.

So, essentially, it’s not a cost of living survey at all. It’s a cost of visiting from the US and paying for things with US dollars survey.

Elsewhere in the introduction, we have this:

Of particular note is the rapid growth in the relative cost of living of Australian cities. Sydney and Melbourne are ranked sixth and seventh respectively and are closely followed by Perth and Brisbane in 13th and 14th place in the ranking. This is the culmination of a remarkable rise in the cost of living in Australian cities over the last decade, a period in which the value of the Australian dollar has moved from around 50 US cents to passing parity with the US dollar earlier this year.

Well yes of course, if you’re going to convert everything back into USD then it’s hardly surprising that if the Aussie goes from being worth 50 US cents to 1.07 USD that would make those Australian cities seem hugely more expensive, relative to the US. It doesn’t mean that those cities are actually that much more expensive for people who live and work there.

The article in The Age concludes with the following:

Melbourne was among the most expensive for a daily business trip at $US760 ($A711) a day – made up of one night’s hotel accommodation, two meals, two taxi trips, a daily newspaper and a drink at a bar. Sydney came in at $US627.

This I find truly baffling. Without subscribing to the detailed city information, I can’t get any more information about how these prices are broken down for Melbourne. All it tells me in the free report is that:

Daily business trip rate consists of one night’s accommodation in a hotel, one two-course meal, one simple meal, two 5km journeys by taxi, one drink in the hotel bar and one international foreign daily newspaper.

Ok, so let’s be generous and assume that the hotel costs you $300 (that’d get you into almost any of the 4/5* major CBD hotels), and let’s allocate $200 to the meals (this is for one person, remember…) The 5km taxi rides shouldn’t cost more than $15 each and even the most expensive hotel bar will probably serve you a drink for under twenty bucks.

Even staying at a top hotel and eating very well, I can’t get much above $550. Where’s the rest of that cost coming from? Unless it costs $150 to buy a “foreign daily newspaper”, it just doesn’t add up.

*

Of course despite the name this isn’t really a cost of living survey at all, as the report itself makes clear:

The Worldwide Cost of Living survey enables human resources line managers and expatriate executives to compare the cost of living in 140 cities in 93 countries and calculate fair compensation policies for relocating employees.

Which is fine and all, but maybe our newspapers shouldn’t just be blindly reporting on it as an example of how expensive our city is without making that clear…

Categories
Australia Media Politics Shoddy Journalism

Dear World’s Media

I know I shouldn’t expect people to, like, know stuff any more and I know it doesn’t really matter, but I post this here because:

1. I can’t believe that I seem to be the only person in the world who has noticed; and
2. It’s not often that that English degree I spent three years studying for comes in handy.

According to the story on the front page of today’s The Age, and apparently every other media outlet in the world, President Obama, speaking at a white tie function at Buck House last night, “concluded his toast with a quote from Shakespeare’s Richard III“:

Obama concluded his toast with a quote from Shakespeare’s Richard III.

‘To her Majesty the Queen, to the vitality of the special relationship between our peoples and in the words of Shakespeare, ‘to this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.”

Except he didn’t, did he, because that quote isn’t from Richard the third, it’s the John of Gaunt, “This Other Eden” speech from Richard the second:

This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England

(Funny how he left out the bit about “against the envy of less happier lands”, can’t think why…)

It’s the sort of thing you might expect a good sub editor to pick up.

Oh. Oops. This is the sort of thing that happens why you sack them all, isn’t it

Meh. Richard II, Richard III. It’s all the same thing really isn’t it?