Amateur and proud

Good article at The Age about our misconceptions of amateurs vs. professionals.
“Amateur, properly speaking, means lover. Amo, amas, amat-eur. The amateur does it for love. Professional, on the other hand, which used to imply membership of a profession or guild with its own, protected skill set and enforced ethical code, now means, simply, paid. Chook breeding, fishing, rocket science: what amateurs do for love, professionals do for money.

And yet we, whose ethical standards show direct lineage from the ancient texts of the Harvard Business School, presume the dollar differential to mean that professionals do it better. That anyone worth having is worth paying - handsomely. And, conversely, that if you don’t pay, only fools and incompetents will come to your door. Pay peanuts, get monkeys, all that.

The evidence, however, is otherwise. It’s not just the great list of history-shaping amateur scientists, from Gregor Mendel to Michael Faraday to Arthur C. Clarke (who in 1945 first proposed the use of geostationary satellites as communications devices). And not just Telstra, sharing $50 million a year between its top eight execs and still unable to send you a bill that makes sense, with or without legal advice. The professional soldier differs little from the mercenary. The professional politician is simply someone who has never experienced anything else, anything real. The professional footballer plays for Australia this week, France next. No worries. What did we expect?”

An interesting take on the monopolisation of Olympics coverage, near the end of the article too:

“Imagine if the Olympic spirit applied. If potential Olympic broadcasters, like Olympic athletes, had to prove performance. How would performance be measured? Could we apply, perhaps, a learned panel, as in gymnastics? What if commentary had to be fair, smart or insightful? If meanness and jingoism were banned? If advertising had to be clever, chic or public-spirited? What then?”

I love that idea.

Campbell (Amateur and proud)