Archive for January 2010
- In: Humour
- 2 Comments
First published “The Chronicle” 19 January 2007.
During the 16 years (now seventeenth year) of my column in The Chronicle, I’ve had people ring and tell me that it’s no wonder you can’t believe what you read in the paper. They base their comment on having come across some spelling mistakes in the body of the paper not to mention the column, which I’m certain was their real reason for calling. While probably right in both cases I think the mistakes are few and far between. In my own case I was hauled over the coals, and rightly so, by a former High School Principal for confusing principle and principal.
Of egregious spelling mistakes in The Chronicle’s past was the headline that included the word “codswhallop.” When I read it I telephoned the editor (not the current editor) and told him a reader had called me and said the spelling was codswallop. Unfortunately, he refused to admit it saying he had used the word in other papers without a problem. Why he denied it I don’t know as the mistake was of minor importance except, perhaps, in the sense that readers who think spelling in the paper is always right would go on to use the wrong spelling at a later date.
Apart from mistakes in spelling, misprints and poorly worded phrases in newspapers often make things funny, even if unintentionally and they occur in even the most prestigious publications. At times they are to be found in The Canberra Times, The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald and other major publications, as have reports that not only are inaccurate but also are not true.
One of the most famous examples of misreporting concerned Mark Twain himself a reporter and once the owner of the Buffalo Express newspaper. Most people will be familiar with this piece of misreporting because Twain’s reply to a reporter’s question about the rumour of his death has become one of the world’s’ most used quotes: “the truth of my death is greatly exaggerated.” This is a good example of the fact that reporting slips in newspaper, magazine, and now radio and television programmes provide the most memorable humour.
Advertising also provides much humour. I doubt anyone wouldn’t know that the following magazine advert was for dogs: “Great Dames for sale” or that the truth of the advert: “Man, honest. Will take anything” means something different to what is implied. Mind you they might think twice about the following phrase: “Change is inevitable, except from vending machines.” I also think the following advert a classic: “Illiterate? Write today for free help.”
For myself I get fun attaching using advertising phrases that created the wrong impression to create an ad to make the ad for an activity more interesting. For example the advert that said: “Our bikinis are exciting. They are simply the tops” might be of benefit to the board of a mixed swimming club seeking new members.
By this time, however, and because you might have started wondering what the title of the column applies to, let me take you back to page 9 of last week’s Chronicle which carried a picture of Boadicea, myself, my daughter Elizabeth and husband David under the following caption: Marriage milestones run in the family,” followed by a brief story.
The story was true but for one small detail: it said that Boadicea and I had just celebrated 60 years of marriage. Much as I would like to claim that as true, I can’t. Boadicea and I have only celebrated 50 years of marriage. Indeed, whether either of us will live a further 10 years is a matter of doubt with my case less certain than Boadicea’s.
My case is less certain because it could depend on Boadicea’s horoscope. If it says she has a great opportunity to remove an obstacle to happiness and if we’ve fallen out and haven’t spoken for a couple of days, she might decide to pick up her trident and dispose of me before the ten years are up.
Apart from adding to view that you can’t believe what’s in the paper such an event would give The Chronicle a story and the headline: “More than 50 years of marriage could be dangerous”
Every Tuesday, get The Chronicle for the best local news in Canberra
What would Captain Ahab say?
Posted on: 9 January 2010
Been reading, watching or listening to reports of the whale of a battle about whales in what, allegedly, is Australia’s Antarctic Southern Ocean (exclusive) Economic Zone? Whether or not the latter is accurate is a matter of dispute as some 47 member countries of the International Whaling Commission do not recognise Australia’s hegemony over the zone.
Japan is one such country, as indeed is Canada. That this is the case puts a different gloss on whether or not Australia has the right to stop Japan killing a number of whales which, Japan says it does in the interests of research.
But the cause of the current trouble is Canadian Paul Watson, Captain of the environmental ship, Sea Shepherd, whose small high powered and highly mobile second vessel Ady Gil collided with the whaling ship Shonan Maru while trying to prevent it from doing its job.
The collision was captured on video, since when there have been as many calls from the anti whaling lobby and other environmental zealots who blame the Japanese for the collision as there have been interpretations of what took place. They also advocate Australia launching legal proceedings against the Japanese.
On the other hand I know of many who think that if action is to be taken it should be against Captain Watson. As a former merchant seaman – I did not serve on a whaler – I agree with them. I am of the view that Captain Watson and his vigilantes should be prosecuted for their disregard of Maritime Law and safety at sea rules. Indeed, many compare his actions to terrorism or the actions of the pirates operating off the Somaliland coast.
My opinion about Captain Watson is based on watching the collision scene many times. In my opinion his claim that the Ady Gil was not under way at the time of the collision is spurious. That it was not under power is not the same as saying it was not under way.
Indeed many have taken the view that the collision occurred because Capatin Watson was trying to be too clever by half; that he had ordered the Ady Gill to cut its motor before it closed on the Shonan Maru and so was under way at reduced speed.
Other people who have viewed the collison said they could see no wake churn something that adds credibility to my theory that power had been cut too early thus making Ady Gil too slow to get out of the way of the Shonan Maru. Indeed had power not been cut ithe Ady Gil would have avoided colliding with the Shonan Maru. Unfortunately sensible discussion about this subject will never take place because Captain Williams personifies the kind of leader who is never wrong.
Of course, had everything gone to plan and a narrow miss instead of a collision taken place, Captain Watson would have been trumpeting in the media that it was only his seamanship that prevented a maritime disaster. The truth: his lack of seamanship and his need to be seen as the whale messiah nearly caused crew of the Ady Gil to lose their lives.
Too harsh a view of Captain Watson? I think not. His record speaks for itself. Never once during previous incidents has Captain Watson ever admitted to being in the wrong, either morally or in terms of seamanship. Not only has danger to life always been Japan’s fault but dangerous sea practices that could have caused loss of life have also been its fault.
I think it’s about time the Conservation movement for whom Captain Watson works reined him in because the ocean can not be taken lightly. It has never listened to messiahs who think they know all the answers. I hope, too, that his extremism in the Antarctic’s whale battles does not lead to a major disaster that causes people to lose their life. Unfortunately I am less than hopeful.
A note to Chronicle Canberra readers. Next edition: Tuesday, 13 January
Allan Takes Aim Blog 