There’s a story in today’s Age about Melbourne’s worrying water storage levels. However, the opening “claim” is little more than low-level sensationalism.

It starts off with these words:

MELBOURNE’S water storages are now 151 billion litres — or almost 10 per cent below where they were at the end of last winter, and householders should prepare for even tougher restrictions this summer.

While that’s true — it doesn’t reveal the whole story. Yes, the water issue remains as strong as ever. But making the claim above in the opening paragraph would have you believe we’ve been doing nothing as a community to save water, nor does it recognise this year’s good rains until much later in the article. You have to get to page two of the online article to find this:

Melbourne’s water storages had recorded levels either around or above their respective 30-year average winter totals already, (Melbourne Water spokesman Ben Pratt) said.

Melbourne’s water storages, at the start of 2007, were about 20 per cent below the January 2006 recordings. And they remained that way until mid-June, when our storages have picked up quite a bit. So — as of late August 2007 we are “almost 10 per cent below” — this means in fact we’ve closed the gap on 2006 levels by more than half.

(Compare the last 10 years of data on this Melbourne water storage graph page).

In other words, Melbourne’s rainfall and water usage patterns have resulted in us being at a better position than we would have been, had the 2006 trend continued after mid-June. In that case, our storage levels would presently be in the high 20 per cent range (around 28 per cent, not 38.5 per cent as they are as of 26 August 2007).

Of course, this doesn’t reveal the whole story either, as it’s only comparing the last two years of data. But it does reveal that this year’s trend is better than is being reported in this story in The Age.

They’re on a roll today at The Age.

From ‘Deck the gums, it’s Yuletide Down Under’:

BOOZE

Almost 930 drivers were breath-tested between December 23 last year and January 6, with the highest reading recorded .307. Of those tested, 184 recorded readings of .05 to .069 ($314 fine and 10 demerit points), 248 drivers registering .07 to .099 ($314 fine and six months licence cancellation) and 195 people recording readings between .100 and .149 ($440 fine and between 10 and 14 months licence cancellation).

A further 77 drivers with blood alcohol readings of between .150 and .307 had their licence immediately suspended and were given a summons to appear in the magistrates court.

Hang on, are you saying 704 out of 930 drivers that were breath-tested were over the limit?

Over 75%? Surely not!

My guess is that 930 of the thousands of tested drivers were given a second breath-test in the booze bus or down at the station, and of those 930, a total of 704 drivers were over the legal limit. That leaves the remaining 25% at 0.04 or below — meaning they were close enough to the limit for a second test, but not doing anything illegal.

(It still doesn’t account for any drivers on a zero blood alcohol limit who may have been at 0.04 below and still over their prescribed limit).

But surely this figure of 930 over the 2-week period does NOT represent the total number of drivers tested.

According to a media release on the Victoria Police website (Road Safety Blitz in Stonnington),

• 1,700 drivers were tested in just one night by two Booze Buses
• Just five of those drivers were charged for exceeding the prescribed blood alcohol limit

Let’s see — five out of 1,700 exceeded the limit … that’s less than 0.3% of all drivers.

So the article is wrong on two counts:

• An actual “strike rate” of 0.3% versus 75% — it shows how incredibly far off the mark the above claim is.
• 930 drivers tested during the festive season, versus 1,700 in just one night in one location — again, incredibly misleading.

Yet another example of media errors that have made it through all writing and editing stages to publication.