Skip to main content

Ralsina.Me — Roberto Alsina's website

Romanitas: Volume 1

Review:

In­ter­est­ing. The al­ter­nate his­to­ry side of it is not all that in­ter­est­ing to me in this case, but the sto­ry is good.

That's not cheating.

If you read ar­ti­cles about Maradona in Eng­lish me­di­a, of which there are many, you'll see ap­pre­ci­a­tion and com­pli­ments but there's a con­stan­t. They say that in the first goal (and no­body needs to be told what "the first goal" is) Maradona cheat­ed.

Sure, the sec­ond one (and ev­ery­one knows what "the sec­ond one" mean­s) was great and all but the first one ... he cheat­ed.

For in­stance, Pe­ter Shilton, the bit­ter­est briton, a man whose main fea­ture as a goal­keep­er was not keep­ing those two goals says:

I don't par­tic­u­lar­ly like be­ing as­so­ci­at­ed so fre­quent­ly with an in­ci­dent where the world's great­est play­er cheat­ed and got away with it. It was the ref­er­ee and lines­man­'s fault re­al­ly. No, you sad, sad lit­tle large man, it's your fault that be­ing al­most two me­ters tall and weart­ing gloves you were beat­en to an air­ball by a guy that's four­teen inch­es short­er than you and did­n't jump much.

But be­yond that ... why do they call that cheat­ing? Let's agree that yes, he punched it. But ... cheat­ing?

Against the rules. Sure. If the ref­er­ee saw it, it was a free kick for Eng­land.

Al­so against the rules was Fen­wick­'s kick­ing him in minute 9, and that was a free kick for Ar­genti­na. Against the rules was the el­bow in minute 44. Al­so against the same rules as bump­ing his head at 5 and 20 of the sec­ond half.

Not on­ly against the rules, but they caught him!

The pun­ish­ment for each one of those was the same as for punch­ing the ball like Diego did in the first goal. The on­ly "first goal" there is. Was Fen­wick cheat­ing?

No, Fen­wick did­n't cheat. If he land­ed some tack­le that was not pun­ished he did not call the ref­er­ee and told him "here's his kneecap, free kick for them gu­v'nor".

No, Fen­wick, just like Maradona and ev­ery­one that ev­er kicked a ball did what he tought need­ed do­ing, and if it worked, it worked. Be­cause that's the game.

But al­ways, al­ways, good writ­ers and jour­nal­ists whether in The Guardian or in But­t-upon-Avon's Dai­ly Pen­ny­far­thing will say "Maradona cheat­ed". Be­cause for some it's a worse sin to score a goal than to break a leg. Be­cause they will make a show of moral rel­a­tivism speak­ing about re­bel­lious­ness to pre­tend they jus­ti­fy it, but in truth what they are jus­ti­fy­ing is that that year they were a team of plod­ding farm­ers whose on­ly chance was to kick him be­cause they could nev­er see the bal­l.

Tests, jurisdicciones y quejas capicúas: periodismo de datos en La Nación

Es­ta no­ta es asom­bro­sa, pe­ro no de una bue­na ma­ne­ra.

Arran­que­mos con un "pro­ble­mi­ta" me­to­do­ló­gi­co: los tí­tu­los de los grá­fi­cos que no coin­ci­den con los da­to­s:

Yo soy Garrahanense

No hay una "ju­ris­dic­ción Hos­pi­tal Ga­rra­han". Si uno se mo­les­ta en su­mar­le los hos­pi­ta­les que es­tán en CA­BA a CA­BA en rea­li­dad CA­BA, que se­gún el grá­fi­co re­ci­bió 3000 tes­ts .... re­ci­bió 31480.

Me ol­vi­da­ba: el tí­tu­lo es "El go­bierno de­jó mues­tras sin usar" ... eso sig­ni­fi­ca­ría que se hi­cie­ron hi­so­pa­dos (mues­tra­s) y no se ana­li­za­ro­n.

Pe­ro en rea­li­dad es so­bre que hay TES­TS sin usar. Que ... es al­go to­tal­men­te nor­ma­l? Por­que si no nos ha­bría­mos que­da­do sin tes­ts?

Des­pués es­tá es­te co­men­ta­rio:

Y ... sí, qué que­rés que te di­ga. ¿Sa­bés co­mo se lla­ma la si­tua­ción cuan­do dis­tri­buis­te to­dos los tes­ts? Se lla­ma "NO TEN­GO MÁS TES­TS PA­RA DIS­TRI­BUI­R".

Se guar­dan en re­ser­va pa­ra dis­tri­buir don­de fal­ten tes­ts!

Y acá es­tá la que­ja ca­pi­cúa. Por un la­do se ha­bía dis­tri­bui­do po­co, pe­ro por otro ... se ha­bía dis­tri­buí­do mu­cho!

De nue­vo: sa­bés co­mo se lla­ma cuan­do una pro­vin­cia usa el 100% de los tes­ts que le man­da­ro­n? Se lla­ma NO TEN­GO MÁS TES­TS.

Es per­fec­ta­men­te nor­mal que ha­ya una re­ser­va. Si no la hu­bie­ra se­ría que es­tán al bor­de del co­lap­so!

Quién di­ce que no lo jus­ti­fi­ca­ba? En cual dis­tri­to no lo jus­ti­fi­ca­ba? Nun­ca lo sa­bre­mo­s.

O, di­cho de otra ma­ne­ra: las 3 pro­vin­cias más gran­de­s, otra go­ber­na­da por la opo­si­ción y una que tu­vo un bro­te muy fuer­te.

Acla­ra­ció­n: si le su­más a CA­BA los tes­ts que man­da­ron a los hos­pi­ta­les que es­tán en CA­BA que por al­gú mo­ti­vo se­pa­ra­ro­n, de esa lis­ta te­nés que sa­car a Ju­juy y po­ner a CA­BA.

O ... de he­cho a PBA le man­da­ron re­la­ti­va­men­te po­co.

Y acá lle­ga­mos al meo­llo. La no­ta bá­si­ca­men­te di­ce que el go­bierno na­cio­nal dis­cri­mi­nó a CA­BA man­dán­do­le po­cos tes­ts.

Pe­ro la mis­ma no­ta di­ce que CA­BA ha­bía com­pra­do 400000 tes­ts al prin­ci­pio de la pan­de­mia. O sea, en CA­BA no ha­bía de­fi­cit de tes­ts.

En­ton­ces pa­ra qué les man­da­ría Na­ció­n?

  • Pa­ra que ha­ya sto­ck sin usar co­mo se que­ja­ban ha­ce un ra­to cuan­do pa­sa­ba en otras pro­vin­cia­s?
  • Pa­ra que hi­cie­ran mu­chos tes­ts con po­ca po­si­ti­vi­dad co­mo se que­ja­ban de For­mo­sa?

Co­mo pa­sa muy se­gui­do en no­tas de "pe­rio­dis­mo de da­to­s" ... si no in­ten­tás in­ter­pre­tar­los y to­do lo que ha­cés es ti­rar nú­me­ros agi­tan­do in­dig­na­cio­nes a ve­ces contra­dic­to­rias se­rá "de da­to­s" pe­ro es­tá le­jos de ser pe­rio­dis­mo.


Contents © 2000-2020 Roberto Alsina