Sport as opium of the masses

YouTube video – Ash comes back from 5-1 down

On Sunday night, as Rafael Nadal and Daniil Medvedev drew level at two games each in the first set, we decided that tennis as a spectator sport was intrinsically boring to watch.

We adjourned to the dining room table to resume the great summer scrabble tournament. Earlier that day while vacuuming, I had found an F lurking beside a leg of the dining room chair. Now it was back inside the green cloth bag, I felt my luck was about to turn.

As the game progressed, faced with a dismal collection of letters and a cramped board, I tentatively offered RAFA. She Who Usually Wins at Scrabble snorted: “Good try, Bob”. I ended up winning that game (which took 1 hour and 11 minutes with no tie-break). ZOO and OM on a triple word score did the trick. In between moves one of us would slip into the lounge to see how the men’s final match was progressing – whack (grunt), whack, whack, whack (grunt) whack.

Scrabble over, we went back into the lounge and switched to Muster Dog, an ABC reality series fast overtaking all but the tennis in the ratings. Yes, we could have watched it later and persisted with the tennis. But really, how many hours can you spend watching two blokes, neither of them Australian, whack a ball back and forth across a net?

I realise this is cognitive dissonance and counter to the prevailing Australian obsession with sports of all persuasion. But as February looms – the brief hiatus between summer and winter sports begins.

The end of the Australian Open is a sign we are all about to be dragged back to an albeit-postponed new school year and all that entails. The ever-spiralling Omicron case numbers might finally penetrate our sports-soaked brains. The total number of cases in Australia since February 2020 is 2.29 million. As of February 2 there were 345,027 active cases. In those two years 3,987 people died, most recently musician and promoter Glenn Wheatley.

But gee, Rafa’s got a great forehand slice, eh!

Across the decades, various academics and writers have  twisted the famous Marxism that sport is the ‘opium of the people’. Marx actually said that of religion, back in 1843. Marx, being opposed to all things important to the ‘system’, said religion was like a drug, causing people to experience an illusory form of happiness.

Politicaldictionary.com says the original intent of Marx’s thinking has been paraphrased and twisted over the years. The term ‘opiate of the masses’ has been hijacked by people trying to make a case about professional sport (in cahoots with television), replacing religion in an increasingly secular society.

What Marx actually said 179 years ago was this:

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Marx’s opinion was that religion dulled people’s minds and preventing them from improving their lives. Many pundits have since argued that spectator sports, politics or even television itself also distract us from confronting the real issues in life.

For example, Western Kentucky University political scientist Eric Bain-Selbo argued that sport (in this instance college football), was the opium of the people.

“Sport functions to preserve the status quo, to maintain the position of the “haves” vis-à-vis the “have nots”. To do this, sport must act as a kind of “opiate” for the “have nots”, so that they will accept the inequities and injustices of the social system.” 

I did the basic research for this while half watching Nadal sweat his way through the fourth and fifth game of the third set. As the game seemed about to go to five sets, I cleaned up the kitchen, turned on the dish washer and went to bed to read three more chapters in a devilishly well-written book by William Boyd. Armadillo is about an idiosyncratic chap who has found his niche in life practising the dark arts of a loss adjuster. Then I checked my emails, scrolled through Facebook to find that few of my friends were watching the final (as opposed to Saturday night when 4.25 million people saw Ash Barty win the Australian Women’s championship). Ah, but that was different, eh? She’s one of ours.

The above demonstrates how much one can get done in five hours and 24 minutes, which is how long it took Rafa to wear down the Russian and win his 21st grand slam.

You have to give it to the old pro, who, like Ash Barty, came from well behind to take an impressive victory. The match was watched by 1.58 million television viewers, although there are no statistics available on how many of them gave up and went to bed.

On Saturday night, a record 4.25 million people tuned in to Channel Nine to watch Ash Barty defeat Danielle Collins in two sets.

Later, after the official presentation and a victory lap, Barty made her way to the Channel Nine studios where an excited James Bracey waited. In the interim, Bracey waxed enthusiastic about the win, sharing the euphoria with co-commentators and former tennis stars, Casey Dellacqua and Alicia Molik.

“You dream of this as a broadcaster. Our whole Wide World of Sports team has been willing this on,” Bracey said, having earlier acknowledged how badly the country needed a (psychological) lift.

Near the end of the interview (YouTube video above), a crew member pushed a mixed basket of boutique beers on to the presenters’ table. This shameless product placement left Ash with nowhere to go but choose one (by name). It is commercial TV after all.

I note there is now an edited version of this video reducing it to a beer ad, which has produced a stream of comments castigating Nine for taking advantage.

If you saw the original interview, you could not fail to be impressed with Ash’s genuine, modest nature. When Bracey asked her about her trove of tennis trophies, she revealed she does not keep them at home but instead shares them around to family members. Nice.

I happened to text my sister in New Zealand at some point in the Barty/Collins match to ask if she was watching. I’d forgotten about the three-hour time difference. Next morning it transpired she’d been otherwise occupied, celebrating the first birthday of her tamahine mootua (great-grand daughter). My sister and her family are mad about cricket though, so I sent her an abridged version of Ash Barty’s achievements in cricket, golf and tennis.  Meanwhile, we now have to sweat our way through February, 28 days of humidity, storms, possible cyclones, probable heat waves (Feb 1 was a stinker), floods (see SA), and continuing supply chain issues. As for sport, there’s always the six nations rugby tournament or the Winter Olympics in Beijing. Shame about the Matildas (women’s soccer team). Then there’s the first rugby league game of the year, to be played (Covid-willing), on Saturday February 12.  The Indigenous All Stars meet the New Zealand Maoris in a televised event which promises to be a spectacle, if only for the pre-match entertainment. The Maori team will demonstrate a haka, while the Indigenous team will hopefully reprise the ‘war cry’ that Bangarra Dance Company founder Stephen Page and indigenous leaders produced for last year’s contest.

No scrabble game that night.

FOMM back pages

Much ado about Djokovic

Djokovic-tennis-Covid-19
Image: Rod Laver Arena, Melbourne Leau Smith/pixabay.com

Some journalism traditions die hard and fortunately, the one that persists in quality publications is to separate news from opinion. The labels “Opinion” or “Comment” ought to accompany any writing which draws on facts but allows the writer to comment and interpret. (Ed: Like FOMM).

Outspoken Australian journalist and commentator Van Badham was introduced this way in the New York Times on Sunday.

“Opinion – guest essay by Van Badham.”

The headline (which tradition decrees is always written by someone else), said: Novak Djokovic got the boot. Australians are thrilled.

The headline set the tone, in part by using Aussie parlance and then with the partially substantiated claim “Australians are thrilled”.

This was drawn from a poll cited by Badham that 83% of 60,000 respondents were in favour of Djokovic being booted. (FOMM opinion – But wait, that means 10,200 were not in favour…Oh right, it’s an opinion piece).

The labelling of opinion pieces is an industry practice that cuts both ways. It gives readers a first-up warning that what they are about to read is just that – somebody’s opinion. At the same time, the disclaimer allows Badham freedom to use the acrimony around Novak Djokovic’s visa cancellation to highlight the government’s (mis)handling of Covid-19.

“There’s a familiar pattern of government miscommunication and ineptitude unfolding around Djokovic that sadly reminds us of our brief and squandered advantage over the virus,” Badham wrote.

Not to be outdone, The Age also latched on to the term ‘the boot’ which is Aussie for being fired, kicked out of a pub or sent to sleep it off in the spare room. Writer Peter Schmigel ‘put in the boot’, which is Aussie for kicking a man when he’s down.

In a rare departure from form, Sky News said the Novak Djokovic saga had “damaged the government’s reputation”.  Sky News host Rita Panahi said Djokovic had essentially been deported for “thought crimes”. In her Behind the News programme (a review of headlines on the topic), Panahi said the government cynically made this decision with an eye on the polls”. What was that about my enemy’s enemy?

These obvious comment pieces reminded me that a reader suggested I write about ‘proper’ journalism. How do you separate well-researched, balanced news reporting from the bias of commentators of the right and the left, he asked? OK, done that.

The Djokovic story was hard to ignore. The media swarmed on it like wild bees drawn to a hole in a weatherboard house. January is usually a fallow field for the skeleton crews left in newsrooms, Many people are on holidays, including those who feed stories to the media on a daily basis. Suddenly, though, there was drama on the central court – a rare Sunday sitting of the full bench of the Federal Court involving the world’s Number 1 tennis player. Ask people who have been waiting two years for a court hearing what they think about that.

Journalists rostered to work on Sundays rarely have such a prize on their shift. As usual, radio and television news had the best of it.

There is rarely anything left for the Monday papers, except for targeted news released by organisations fond of exploiting the vacant space.

For example, the Queensland Government’s spin doctors tabled new research that demonstrated the disproportionate risk of remaining unvaccinated.

Independent news portal ‘InQueensland’ summed it up in one, 33-word lead paragraph.

An unvaccinated person who contracts Covid-19 is 24 times more likely to end up fighting for their life in intensive care than someone who has had all three jabs, Queensland Health data shows.

This introductory paragraph tells the reader in one sentence what the story is about. No need to read any more. Just retire to the water cooler and tell others. You can see the deft hand of old-school journos behind this opening para, wordy though it may be.

Health Minister Yvette D’Ath used this data to urge older Queenslanders to get their booster shot.

(Ed: we had ours on Wednesday).

The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) and other such organisations often release statements to the media on a Sunday for publication on Monday. It’s the slowest news day, so journalists hungry for a fresh angle can never resist. As the story usually relies on an official statement, it is difficult (on a Sunday evening) to track down someone to represent the other side.

John McCarthy, writing in On-line news publication ‘InQueensland’, reported on Monday that the ACCC had received 1800 complaints of retailers over-charging for rapid antigen tests. McCarthy cited a Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey, which showed that the lack of test kits  as well as staff shortages were critical factors in the crippling of the supply chain..

This type of story will be ‘broken’ in the Monday newspapers and pounced upon by news-hungry radio and TV producers. Those breaking the story will have little opportunity to follow up, which becomes the role of radio news. While the ‘claims’ referred to are yet to be proven, they highlight the issue of price gouging over RAT’s (rapid antigen tests that can be done at home- for those unfamiliar with this Aussie acronym) and put a number on instances of (alleged) profiteering. I heard ACCC chairman Rod Sims expanding on this story later in the day on ABC news radio.

Sims said the level of pricing was “clearly outrageous”, citing media reports of as much as $500 for two tests (we paid $56 including postage for our pack of five kits, which is top of the wholesale price range).

The ACCC said there was an increase in the amount of RAT selling through service stations and convenience stores. They had become the source of many of the complaints it was receiving.

By publishing these claims, ‘InQueensland’ did radio and TV journalists a favour by pointing them to a couple of outlets (named in the report).

We sometimes describe this kind of story as “bees in a bottle” – give the jar a good shake and see what sort of noise they make.

It’s no wonder the more experienced journalists turn to commentary or analysis. The basic practice of news reporting can be quite tedious. It involves spending hours on the phone ‘doing the rounds’ and waiting, waiting for people to ring you back. In my day, the editor would probably not run your story if you did not have the other side. All too often now, the 24/7 news cycle forces media outlets to publish now and update later.

When reading news, it’s not a bad idea to separate hard news (two men died in a head on collision), from news like the ACCC report, that could become harder news once it progresses to prosecutions and hefty fines.

As for the label ‘Opinion’ or ‘Comment’, if it’s not there, write to the publisher and say that it ought to be.

In the case of writer Peter Schmigel’s ‘open letter’ rant about Novak Djokovic, the  ‘Opinion’ label also allows news editors to deal with blow-back. “Don’t shoot the messenger, they will tell irate tennis fans. They have reason to be irate – Schmigel (writing in Melbourne’s No 1 newspaper), agrees with the blokes down the pub – Novak’s a ‘boofhead’.

“The forms, mate, the forms. It would have been nice if you could have just filled in the forms right. You didn’t. Double fault. Maybe you should fire somebody – whether it’s the lawyers, the coaches, the agents, the masseurs, or your Dad, who tried to start World War Three on behalf of your backhand.

Or, maybe, just maybe, take some responsibility.

(I particularly liked it when someone described Djokovic’s statement (that his staff member had filled in the paperwork incorrectly) as ‘the dog ate my homework’ excuse. Ed)

FROMM back pages

Last drinks at the Paradise Motel

alcohol-last-drinks
Image: Michael Jarmoluk, Pixabay.com

As I gave up drinking alcohol some 36 years ago, it was probably not surprising I forgot the essential ingredient for a house-warming party.

“Um,” said She Who Trusted Me with the Catering, “What about the ice – for those who are bringing something to drink?”

Off I went on a mercy dash to buy a bag of ice. The first guest had arrived before I returned and showed me the best way to prepare ice for an esky (drop it on the concrete driveway).

There was quite a bit of wine left over at the end, which suggested our guests were moderate drinkers (or intended that wine be left for mine hosts). In all, it was an enjoyable christening of the Paradise Motel (named after one of my more fanciful songs).

My mind turned to this subject with a timely new report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare about the effect of drugs and alcohol on the health of the general public.

This intersected nicely with an observation made by an emergency medicine veteran. His view was that if everyone gave up drinking alcohol and taking illicit drugs, Emergency Department staff would then have ample time to care for people who are genuinely sick.

The National Hospital Morbidity Database showed that in 2017-2018, there were 136,000 same day or overnight hospital admissions for a drug-related principal diagnosis. On its own, alcohol accounted for 53% of these admissions. No prizes for speculating about the other 47%.

Ah, you are thinking, the wowser’s view: “all health problems caused by drugs and alcohol are self-inflicted.”

Perhaps the ER veteran’s views would also include people whose health has deteriorated over time as a result of smoking tobacco.

The AIHW report confirms a noticeable decline in the use of tobacco in the 14 and over age group (from 24.3% in 1991 to 12.2% in 2016). Despite this impressive statistic, smoking is still the leading cause of cancer in Australia (22% of the cancer burden).

Alcohol abuse, however, is a far more worrying problem. The World Health Organisation found that 3 million deaths result every year from harmful use of alcohol (5.3 % of all deaths). The harmful use of alcohol is a factor in more than 200 disease and injury conditions.

It is generally accepted that (excessive) alcohol consumption and its aftermath contributes to more than 6000 deaths in Australia every year.

You’d never know it, but sometimes in the privacy of our own lounge room, we watch the reality TV show, RBT (the ex-probation officer and the (sober) ex-journalist relishing the opportunity to make snide comments). We did sympathise to a degree with the young chap who freely admitted to using cannabis every day (‘but I don’t drink alcohol at all’). Nevertheless the law finds that he is still driving under the influence and he thereby paid a price.

A month or so ago I had to drive to Toowoomba for the day and was stopped by a roadside breath test crew. Did I say this was at 9.10am on a weekday? She Who Still Enjoys a Drink or Two observed that such roadside blitzes often catch people who are still over the blood alcohol level limit after a night of partying.

The AIHW report found that while the majority of Australians drink alcohol, the overall daily intake is on a downward trend. The proportion of people drinking in excess of lifetime risk guidelines continues to decline.

The apparent consumption of alcohol in 2017-2018 was equivalent to an average of 2.72 standard drinks per day per consumer of alcohol aged 15 and over.

That is a fair way below the binge drinking and ‘pre-loading’ that goes on among the must-get-drunk-to-socialise cohort.

Almost 40% of Australians aged 18 and over exceeded the single occasion risk guidelines by consuming more than four standard drinks in one sitting. About 1 in 6 (17.4%) Australians aged 14 and over put themselves or others at risk of harm while under the influence of alcohol in the last 12 months.

I guess these are the people the RBT teams are out to catch.

Alcohol consumption inevitably increases on festive occasions like Christmas, New Year and public holidays like Australia Day. Special birthday and anniversaries are also vulnerable times for those who find it difficult to stop after two or three.

So how much is too much? The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines binge drinking as more than 7 drinks a night for men, and more than 5 for women. The NHMRC Australian Alcohol Guidelines defines excessive drinking as more than 4 standard drinks per night.

So how did we all go after those festive season parties? Many start at home and stay there. Others start with a few at-home drinks (sometimes known as pre-loading), before partygoers wisely catch taxis to the next venue, where the drinking continues.

Drink-driving laws have done much to help drinkers self-regulate. Many of the people stopped by officers on RBT were consciously monitoring their drinking.

But not everyone is as keen to avoid losing their drivers’ licence. In my court reporting days for a daily newspaper, I recall cases where the defendant was found to have a blood alcohol level of (extreme example) 0.34 – quite a long way beyond the Australian limit of 0.05). Quite often people with this level of blood alcohol have been found asleep at the wheel of a stationary vehicle (and a jolly good thing too).

Not that it should fall to me to make such withering observations, but I sometimes wonder how the evening ended for three young women, so much under 18 and under the influence after the footy (about 10pm) that they took off their high heeled shoes and wobbled down Milton Road.

Are we going clubbing?” I heard one of them ask a less-than sober friend. “Do you reckon we should we catch a cab to Valley or walk?”

Given that a round of four beers at the footie will set you back $40 or so, this type of drinker is unlikely to belong to the ‘average’ household that drinks $32 worth of alcohol per week. Did you notice that the NIHW report implicates adolescents as young as 14? In a country where the legal drinking age is 18, this implies that older friends (or family) are buying alcohol for the under-agers.

The AIHW report found that 9.1% of adolescent males and 6.8% of females aged 12-17 exceed the adult guidelines for single occasion risk.

Young people are arguably more likely to be influenced by alcohol advertising at major sports events, prompting targeted opposition from alcohol education lobbyists.

You might have heard tennis ace Nick Kyrgios say to John McEnroe after Tuesday’s night’s Australian Open win – ‘he’s had too many beers’ – a response to a spectator who yelled out something incomprehensible.

The National Alliance for Action on Alcohol is taking on the Australian Open, urging organisers to consider the role of advertising in youth drinking. An e-petition to this effect has so far gathered 151 signatures.

Another critic observed: “…exposure to alcohol advertising places children at greater risk of drinking earlier and at more dangerous levels than they otherwise would.”

This is a long way from my youth in 1960s rugby-mad New Zealand, where drinking beer to excess was considered to be a badge of manhood. It’s not, but I guess the statistics in 2020 show that more of us realise that now.

More reading: alcohol and mental health

https://bobwords.com.au/mental-health-psychiatrist-walks-bar/