Swimming against the tide of opinion

Do you like bad grammar? How about rhetorical questions? Then the new, subediting-free Opinion page is for you. Honestly, today's "Let world-class swimmers move with the high-tech times" is bad enough that, like a swimmer in a cutting-edge bodysuit, it may just break the record set by Auckland-residing smacker Phil Jackson just last week. The record, that is, for worst opinion article published in the New Zealand Herald. I know that these aren't written by Herald staff, but they are published by the Herald - not the College Herald - and as a paying customer I like to think that I can expect a reasonable standard of written English for my $1.80. Good on personal trainer Tom Blackhall for writing and sending in his opinion - I think it's usually a valuable contribution, even if I think he's wrong in this case. What follows, however, is a valuable lesson in why you don't fire all your subeditors.

FINA claims the new all-polyurethane suits has put swimming's credibility at risk due to the rapid rate that world records are falling. And therefore it is necessary to revert to costumes made purely from textiles.

Yeah, you could just make that one sentence.

On top of this we have now had champion swimmer Michael Phelps' coach threatening a boycott. But is this not just a case of sour grapes - surely the shape of Phelps' current costume puts him at an advantage over someone wearing the good old fashioned "budgie smugglers".

Except no one wears "budgie smugglers" anymore. As far as I know, Phelps is contractually obliged to wear an inferior suit to other competitors: the 'greatest Olympian of all time' is now getting beaten by no-name scrubs in cheat-suits, so you can't really blame him for being slightly piqued.

To get complete fairness in competition it would have to be compulsory that everyone wears the exactly the same style of costume made of exactly the same type of textile.

What a crazy pipe dream. (Or is it a pipe nightmare, with nanny-state telling you what to wear?) Anyway, eight pairs of speedoes per race should solve this little problem.

Would it not be better to embrace this new technology and let the swimmers have what they want to wear? All it does is make great swimmers greater - what is wrong with that?

All steroids do is make great athletes greater. I can see it now - Phelps turns up at the next Olympics, confident that the giant latex flippers attached to his suit will give him the advantage he needs. So it's naturally a shock when he notices all the other swimmers have outboard motors attached to their arse.

Let's look at some other very popular sports. Athletics: Cathy Freeman ran in a full body running suit in the 400m s final at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney and won the gold medal.

She had won the silver medal at the previous games in Atlanta wearing a standard leotard type running suit when she finished behind Marie-Jose Perec from France. Freeman's winning time in 2000 was 0.5 of a second slower than in 1996 so the suit most likely gave her no physical advantage.

But did it possibly give her a physiological advantage over her components? Who knows and who really cares. Wasn't it fantastic to see her crossing the line first wearing her green and gold suit and her aboriginal flag coloured shoes?

First of all, swimming is not a popular sport - at least, not in the sense that rugby or football are. As this Slate article pointed out, this is part of the problem - people only care about swimming when the Olympics are on or when Michael Phelps gets stoned. Go on, name a current male swimmer other than Phelps. Thought not.

Secondly, "the 400m s final" is not English.

Thirdly, if Cathy Freeman's suit gave her no physical advantage, then it's not relevant here because the swimming suits clearly do.

Fourthly, how is a "physical" advantage different to a "physiological" advantage in this sense? I don't understand. Do you mean "psychological"?

Fifthly, I'll tell you who cares: the other runners/swimmers.

Sixthly, it was indeed heartwarming to see Cathy Freeman in pretty colours. Again, I'm not certain of the relevance of this to the swimming argument. Am I missing something?

Seventhly(?), the phrase 'aboriginal flag coloured shoes' could use some judicious use of the hyphen. The shoes were not, I believe, of traditional aboriginal design.

Michael Johnson, possibly the best 400m runner of all time, dashed to a 400m world record (43.18 seconds) at the 1999 World Championships in Seville, Spain wearing specially engineered Nike shoes. Tailored to fit not just the runner but also his running style, these shoes featured a new glass-filled sole plate that, at 30g, weighed half as much as previous designs while maintaining a delicate balance between stiffness and flexibility.

The shoes were specially designed just to last slightly longer than the race and could only be worn once. Were these shoes banned? No, they helped a great runner become even greater, and it was a sight to behold.

Putting aside the fact that this looks like it was copied straight from a Nike press release, I would like to point out that the shoes did not make him a greater runner, anymore than I would be a greater runner if I wore rocket boots on my feet.

How would tennis players fare if they still had to use the old wooden racquets instead of letting technology run its course. Over the years tennis players have played with racquets made of steel, aluminum, graphite, fibreglass, titanium and the high-tech, ultra light carbon composite racquets of today?

Have you noticed that this article has a lot of rhetorical questions. There's so many that they seem to have forgotten where to put the question marks?

The Tour de France cycle race has just finished but you can bet your life that the riders would still be cycling now if they still had to ride the same type of bicycles as in the first tour in 1903.

[...] Can you imagine Tiger Woods being as good as he is today if he had to play with the wooden shafted golf clubs of old?That's wooden-shafted golf clubs, by the way.

There are probably interesting issues, for people who care about that sort of thing, about the use of technology in golf clubs, racing bikes and tennis racquets. But at least in those sports using the club, bike or racquet is the point of the sport. The only purpose one's 'swimsuit' serves is keeping in one's bits - a task that the humble speedo admirably fulfils. As such, a better analogy would be Tiger Woods wearing a laser-guided hat.

Granted, all bicycles must meet the standards of the International Cycling Union. They may be specially engineered for speed for the time trials, but those used for the road stages of the race must be "standard design", but technology has not been halted and that is surely a good thing.

Subediting please.

Golf clubs have evolved into high-tech instruments that have great durability, weight distribution and graduation utility and many more features that an ordinary layman like me cannot understand. There are no industry-wide standards for any golf club specification in the golf equipment industry.

Each club making company is free to make clubs to whatever "standard specifications" they deem appropriate.

However, most of the club companies today do pretty much subscribe to length specifications for their clubs which are relatively close to each other, but these have also changed over the years.

On top of this the evolution of clubs went hand in hand with the evolution of golf balls that were able to withstand harder whacks and fly greater distances, but that is too complex for me to understand.

I'm sorry, you've lost me - possibly it's "too complex for me to understand". The article just rambles about the various specifications of golfing paraphernalia for a bit before suddenly realising that it has hit the word limit.

We can all think of other sports that have embraced technology and made them more exciting to watch and partake in. FINA will be doing its sport a disadvantage if it does not allow it to go with the times.

If you think that the use of high-tech swimsuits has made swimming more exciting to watch, beyond the crack-like and surely unsustainable thrill of seeing a world record fall in every race, then I humbly beg to differ. If you think it makes swimming more fun to partake in, then Michael Phelps, among others, begs to differ.

(Oh, and I'm pretty sure you can't 'do' someone or something 'a disadvantage'.)

I'm sorry if, like a commenter the other day, you feel that this is 'sneering' and petty. Of course the guy isn't a professional writer - but that is why there should be proper editing done before this sort of thing is published. I don't mind seeing opinions I disagree with in the paper, so long as they are coherent both in terms of argument and style. This one is neither, in my opinion, and I feel that demanding better is the customer's prerogative.

Cringe

A stunning pair of headlines from education reporter Jacqueline Smith today (although presumably written by a subeditor). First up we have:

"Rap classes make school cool"

Anyone else under 30 cringing right now? Up next:

"Students must do hard stuff: academic"

Presumably such as working on their vocabulary.

-----------------------------

Speaking of (cultural) cringe, if you want to feel a little bit more depressed about yourself and the country then you could do worse than head over to Your Views:

"Has New Zealand become a country that tolerates failure?"

Oh dear. Apparently some rugby team lost.

When the All Blacks, the country's global ambassador embodying all the values New Zealanders hold dear [???], continually implode when the eyes of the world [???] are watching, it hints at there being some kind of fragility in the national psyche.

Has New Zealand become a nation of nice people [???] who not only tolerate failure, but have also learned how to revel in mediocrity?

Do New Zealanders see success on the world stage as beyond them, something best left to the Australians with their over-confidence and go-get-them attitude?

Or does New Zealand, in fact, have much to celebrate, but doesn't know where to look?

What do you think?

I think an overseas holiday sounds like a good idea.

Stop the press!

As you'll no doubt be aware, the Herald runs a 'corrections' column where they clear up any inaccuracies that have been in the paper in the last day or so. Like that time when a Korean exchange student stabbed a teacher at Avondale College and they put a photo of a different Korean student on the front page. Oh well - they all look the same to us, right??

But I digress. Today's column features the following:

"Sir Roger Douglas no longer receives his Government pension, as stated in Garth George's column yesterday. He forfeited it in he re-entered Parliament. Sir Roger's air travel expenses of $44,000 [!] included work-related flights as well as personal overseas travel."

Oh, I get it. Garth George can write whatever baseless trash week after week and get published without correction: women would have to eat 11 slices of bread a day to get their necessary folate under the proposed mandatory regime; section 59 of the Crimes Act had "never caused the least concern"; fast food contains nothing but "legitimate, nutritious ingredients".

But the moment some concerned private citizen - let's call him 'RD' - calls in to clear up a claim which, although false, is hardly greatly misleading in the context, the Herald rushes to publish a correction. I wonder if it's anything to do with the fact that, as Monday's editorial pointed out, Sir Rog "has probably done most to earn the country's lasting appreciation... He was in Parliament [in the 1980s] for a purpose larger than a personal career, as he is again."

But I digress. I hereby encourage you all to be much more proactive in complaining to the Herald about factual errors in Garth's column in particular. Let's see if we can't get a weekly column of our own - about 1000 words or so just going dispassionately through the errors of the previous day.

------------------------------

On a related note, I got a fascinating email from an EtH reader today. He was infuriated in general by the Herald's reporting, but the straw that broke the camel's back was a particular reference to EtH favourite and media rent-a-quote Bob McCoskrie, of the 'Family First Trust' . He somehow got together the gumption to bang his head against a brick wall and emailed the Herald with his complaint:

Dear Herald Journalists,

You keep referring to "Family First director Bob McCoskrie."

Family First IS Bob McCoskrie. You can’t join Family First. From his website:

"How do I join?

We don’t have an official membership. However, by registering to receive our updates, and offering support (financial, goods/services, prayer), this all helps us provide a strong voice for families."

If everytime there was a social issue you went to "bloke down the road" for an opinion, your readers might not take him quite so seriously. Please stop giving this man the credence he doesn't deserve just because he uses an authoritative-sounding name rather than just his own.

Yours,
Society for Informed Debate director [insert name of secretive, possibly celebrity, correspondent here]

It's true enough - here's the website. Intriguingly, one of Mr McCoskrie's 'qualifications' is "engaging with the issues of the day on talkback radio" - the issues of pretty much every day on talkback radio being, as far as I know, "Maoris", dole bludgers, immigrants and why the All Blacks can't win (it's because they eat too much pasta and not enough meat). But I digress. To be fair, Family First is not just Mr McCoskrie; there is a 'Board of Reference' as well. The page isn't clear on what exactly the function of this board is, but it does contain a number of luminaries: Jim Hickey, the man who got stood down (as far as my hazy memory goes) from the TV weather for saying "cumburger" live on air; former rugby player Michael Jones; former What Now! 'star' Anthony Samuels; and the Rev Tavake Tupou, a Tongan community and church leader. According to their blurb, Rev Tupou and his wife "have 4 children and have lost count of the number of grandchildren!" This clear negligence towards their grandchildren certainly does not shout 'family first' to me.

This story really gets interesting when you see the reply that came in response to this email:

Dear Mr [???],
Thanks very much for your email. You're right, of course, he's a one-man lobby group, but it's one of the treasures of our small democracy that ordinary citizens can speak out and have an effect. Please feel free to send me press releases from the Society for Informed Debate!
With best wishes,
[Reporter X]

[Reporter X], Social Issues Reporter, New Zealand Herald

My correspondent didn't really know what to think about this reply, and nor do I. The original criticism was two-fold: that a large, well-resourced newspaper relied for comment on an 'organisation' that was just... a dude, and that the description of him as 'Family First director Bob McCoskrie' (cf. Bishop Brian Tamaki) rather than 'Bob McCoskrie, guy who likes families' gave him rather more mana and authority than he perhaps deserves. Perhaps you'll agree with me that, not only does this reply not clear up either of these issues, it also adds a couple of new ones:

• If "ordinary citizens can speak out and have an effect", why bother with the 'Family First Trust' nonsense?
• And why just stick with one "ordinary citizen" for every article about families? That doesn't seem very democratic.
• Was he really encouraging press releases from the newly founded 'Society for Informed Debate'?

I found the sequence of events rather bizarre - but I don't have the time to sit around worrying about this. I'm no longer James Coe, guy who writes a blog; I'm James Coe, Executive Director (Blogging Services), Editing the Herald Foundation for Transparency in Media. I'm off to get some business cards made up...

From the headlines

Out-of-context headline of the day:

From the front page:

"Dog and fish deaths may have different causes, say scientists"

-------------------------------

Recession-friendly headline of the day:

"Imaginary friends boost language skills - study"

If imaginary friends can do that, just think of what imaginary doctors could do for waiting lists.

-------------------------------

Frowny-face of the day:

"Class cuts leave migrants out in cold"

"Reza Sarkheil says he is worried about the future of migrants if training organisations are forced to close."

Wait, how about these migrants?:

Because I can't bloody help myself

More "Ur Vus" on referendums people would like to see:

Marj (Auckland): I'm not even gonna bother to vote, god I was brought up getting smack, I'm not sure what they going on about, what's wrong with it I'm not even gonna go against my parents teaching, I think they brought us up in a good way. We listened.

If you needed any further discouragement from smacking your children...

Greg Connor (One Tree Hill): I would like to see a referendum on the issue of Maori taking bodies from their families to different parts of the country. While it is a cultural issue I think it should be the subject of a referendum because it is something that effects many families in NZ.

Does it now.

Bill Daly (Glen Eden): Referendums should be binding on government, whether local or national. MPs are often no better and sometimes less informed about issues than the general population. I'd like to see a referendum on a new law that says MPs must vote a particular way if the majority of their electorate want that, irrespective of what party bosses might want. Political parties are not necessary to democracy and are often a hindrance to good representative government.

Indeed, Bill, it seems you think that representatives are often a hindrance to good representative government.

Malx (Pyes Pa): Very vaguely.
Something to do with banks gouging us
Something to do with electricity companies gouging us
Something to do with financial companies being made to pay back people.
something to do with politicians ludicrous superannuations and allowances.

Well it's no more poorly worded than the current one.

a a (Devonport): What would I like to see a referendum on? Prostitution, and yes it should be binding.

"Should prostitution be binding? Yes or no?"

Spankwatch: Opinion Edition

The 'fair and balanced' ™ treatment of the smacking issue spills over onto the opinion pages today. On the... wait, which is it?... 'Yes' side, is one Russell Wills:

Dr Russell Wills is a paediatrician in Hawkes Bay with a large child protection practice and is the clinical director of Maternal, Child and Youth Services at Hawkes Bay District Health Board. He is also spokesman for the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Paediatric Society of New Zealand on the referendum issue.

Goodness. And who have the 'No' crowd drummed up to oppose him? One Phil Jackson (no relation... I assume). His credentials, you ask?:

Phil Jackson lives in Auckland.

Finding myself a match for Phil in this department, I thought I would comment on his opinion piece, "Parents, not governments, are responsible for children". I've written enough about the smacking thing of late to bore everyone to tears, so you can go and read it yourselves. I'll just make fun of a few highlights instead.

Members of Parliament know that they can get away with many things because they have denied the public the means to direct them on issues important to them. The Privy Council as the last means of appeal was abolished by a government that wanted its legislation to be interpreted in a particular way and despite the overwhelming number of submissions against this, decided that is what it wanted anyway.

The sooner we get some direct democracy with binding referendums, the better. Then we can be more like beautiful Switzerland, where women managed to get the vote in federal elections in 1971. But even there the systems aren't perfect; in 1990, nanny state judges forced the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden to give women the vote in canton elections despite public opposition.

The law now states that parents cannot use physical discipline for correction. If this is a good principle, then it should also apply to adults and that time out should also not be used for correction for children.

What? Firstly, I don't believe you can use physical discipline for the purposes of correction against adults. Secondly, that's not a sentence.

Those that argue that smacking is violence show a simplistic grasp of the subject. Society has rules that apply to different contexts that permit "violence". For example martial arts, contact sports and self-defence.

I don't believe one can legally use martial arts for the purposes of correction either - even good parental correction.

When John Key says the legislation is working - I worry. If I were to say my car is working when someone expresses an interest in buying it, no one would for a second think that I meant "working well".

What? What would it mean? 'Working like a dog'? 'Working the streets'? 'Workin' it'?

A woman I know spent nine months carrying her baby, with morning sickness in the first trimester, and toxaemia in the final few weeks. The baby's head was too big for her birth canal and a caesarean with epidural was needed.

That baby woke three or four times nightly for over six months causing countless lost hours of sleep. When that baby grew into a 10-year-old and one day went too far, with the woman already stressed out, she slapped her child on the face. Under this legislation, she could have become a criminal.

"When that baby grew into a 10-year-old"? That was quick. So what really happened in this little anecdote was a mother slapped her 10-year-old and didn't become a criminal. Good story.

Seriously, I read the Herald every day - so you don't have to - and I think this is the worst-written, worst-edited and worst-argued published piece of writing I have ever read. Anything that makes me want to go and give John Key and Phil Goff a big hug has to be doing something wrong.

Our lasting appreciation

Remember when I generously gave the Herald the hint to get all righteous about MPs' expense claims? They're still on about it, and the latest victim, in today's editorial, is none other than Roger Douglas - you may recall him from such policies as 'Rogernomics':

When MPs' individual expense claims were made public for the first time last week attention rightly centred on an item that was not unusual.

Sir Roger Douglas had given the taxpayer one of the highest travel bills - which included return flights to London for him and his wife to visit their grandson. Sir Roger said this was his entitlement not for being an MP but for being an ex-MP. He, like others with long service, had qualified for overseas travel on the taxpayer since his retirement in 1990.

Yeah, let him have it! Another privileged and wealthy (I assume) grandee abusing the system!

It is a pity his should be the case that surely discredits this rort once and for all. Of all politicians of his generation Sir Roger Douglas has probably done most to earn the country's lasting appreciation. But for his clear-eyed, single-minded determination the economy would not have been jolted out of its torpid decline in 1984.

Erm, yeah, show him, um, who's boss... wooo...

Market exposure might have happened without him but it would have been partial and hesitant and would not have given the country the sense of direction that he installed.

He was able to move rapidly and radically precisely because he was not interested in accumulating long-service benefits. He did what he believed needed to be done regardless of political risk. He was in Parliament for a purpose larger than a personal career, as he is again. He returned at the last election determined to put steel in the Key Government if he could.

Ok, what? Who wrote this - Richard Prebble? I'm far from being one of these people who blames all of society's ills on the reforms of the fourth Labour government, and I hardly look back with nostalgia on those days (which I can't remember anyway) when you needed a medical certificate to buy margarine. But really, "clear-eyed, single-minded determination"? "The country's lasting appreciation"? "He did what he believed needed to be done regardless of political risk"? Are we talking about Roger Douglas or Winston Churchill? Or Action Man? Regardless of what you think the 'objective' consequences of the 1980s reforms were, I would say that, other than Muldoon, no senior government minister (sorry Sue Bradford) has been disliked so much by so many New Zealanders.

The fact that such hagiography emerges, however briefly, from the country's main daily newspaper - a newspaper that also referred in a recent editorial to some alleged group called "the Left", whatever that means - I find ever so slightly worrying.



Wait, do I mean worrying or completely expected?