Not the PCB and all their internal wranglings, not the Pakistani players and their out of control egos, not the support staff with their own axes to grind, not the shenanigans that is the hallmark of Pakistan cricket and most definitely not the media - the biggest contributor to Bob Woolmer's sad demise was the passionate fan.
You write " In such a climate, it should surprise no one when the pressure proves too much to take".
So let me ask you this - who contributes to creating that climate?
Have you or your brethren in the Media ever paused to navel-gaze; just to retrospect on how much you as a whole are culpable in fanning the flames?
It is not I nor any other "passionate" fan who devotes reams of paper and TV footage on 10 idiots burning an effigy and exhibiting it as a display of "peoples outpouring of emotion".
It is not I nor any other "passionate" fan who, while moderating a discussion threatens " The players know what is in store for them if they bow out of the World Cup".
It is not I nor any other "passionate" fan who acts as an agent provocateur by deliberately misquoting people.
It is not I nor any other "passionate" fan who asks of journalists to be opinionators instead of reporters of the news.
It is not I nor any other "passionate" fan who forces the media to aggressively pursue sound bytes because that bumps your TRP. Did you pause to watch the yobo over at Headlines Today who has been trying his darnedest to get Sir Richard Hadlee to state India is better than New Zealand?
It is not I nor any "passionate" fan who asks of the media to parade buxom women with their bosoms hanging out on TV and Print. Mandira Bedi did not happen because of the fans, she happened because of your need for TRP.
It is not I nor any "passionate" fan thats asks of your esteemed company to shift locations from England to India because that is where the "passionate" fans are - fans who make all the difference between being in the red and a bumper year.
It is not I nor any "passionate" fans who asks for "astrological predictions" of the "Men in Blue" nor do we ask for "tarot card readings" or "numerological signs" on how the team performs.
It is not I nor any "passionate" fans who label an India Pakistan encounter "Parakram" or an India Australia game "Aakhri Sangharsh" or some such.
It is you and your brethren in the media who hype the team. It is you and your brethren in the media who provoke. It is you and your brethren in the media who instigate.
It is you and your brethren in the media who contribute hugely to the climate that creates the pressure cooker situation that exists today in modern day cricket.
Yes, the fans have their share of idiots. But your ilk is not exempt either.
By giving 10 odd idiots their 15 minutes of fame, you encourage other idiots to join the bandwagon.
And you don't do it because of any altruistic reasons either - you do it because that gets you more eyeballs and more eyeballs translates to more money.
Bob Woolmer was a good man, a passionate man. He understood the passion with which people watched and played the game of cricket on the sub continent- his question answer sessions on his website are proof. He believed in his job and gave it his all.
So please take this self righteous indignation some place else - Bob Woolmer would not have approved.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
And what of the Media Dileep ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Several telling points Homer..... all though i think aiming this at Dileep Premachandran at Cricinfo is a bit like preaching to the choir...
I agree with karthikeya.
Some of your points struck home, but others I feel a rae taking it a bit too far. I wish I had the time to express myself more on this, but to claim that all the reactions of the 'fans' are provoked and engendered by the media is simplifying it all way too much.
I, for one, blame no one but the hooligans for their despicable actions this part of the world. But, thats another topic altogether.
Very apt, Homer
Reminds me of one of the worst programmes ever on one of the Indian news channels. It was called "Match ka Villain" - a definite agent provacateur, to borrow your term.
As others also said, very good point indeed, Homer. I wish Dileep would read and respond.
Yes, the media is to blame too. But surely not just the media, or definitely not any more than the fans? Why would the media dish out all that tripe (that you listed) if their weren't enough consumers of it? Surely the media panders to these sentiments because it realizes that the masses are capable of reaching that frenzy?
What the media should realize is that it has certain responsibilities, and that unlike many other professions, its not 'just another business' where the only concern is the bottom line.
Oh and btw, I think cricinfo is one of the better (not the ideal, nor the best) outlets in this respect, a Dileep or a Vasu notwithstanding.
Shakester,
I am not saying that all of the reactions of the fans are provoked by the media.
But surely the media has a role to play in stirring the pot.
I am not holding the media solely responsible for all the yobos who want their fifteen minutes of fame. But I do question the logic of giving them more than their due which in turn causes other yobos to join in.
There surely is a difference between the effigy burning, slogan shouting crowd and people who really care for the game. Not every passionate fan burns effigies.
And just how much has the media as a collective done to "educate" people on the game as against sitting back and being a part of the "tamasha" ?
amit: that's "match ka mujrim"
I hated that show- both in premise and the tripe they ran in it.
I get that homer, but to be fair- giving them a report is just news reporting. A Channel.paper does not glorify a fan who burn effigies, but I dont think we can condemn them for reporting such thngs, its what they do.
An yes, absolutely- not every fan burns effigies, and I think thats what is being said- the 'so called' fans who throw paint and break walls are not really 'passionate'.
As for media 'educating' the viewers, I am not sure what you mean by that. The likes of us would love to see pure analysis and insight on TV (or read it in the papers) when it comes to cricket, but unfortunately thats not the only consideration for people in the media.
i think there are some channels/publications whose very basis is sensationalism (Star News is pretty exceptional on this front) and some whose basis is more 'reporting'. I would surely bracket Cricinfo and Dileep into the latter. Which is the only reason I found your reaction to the issue absolutely fine, but to his artcile per se , incongruous.
(sorry for rambling!)
Manish,
Thanks for your comments.
Sure there is a market for all the tripe the media dishes out. But then there is a market for a whole lot of other things that the media either self regulates or regulations are forced upon it.
There is also a significant market for people who crave to understand the nuances and intricacies of the game. But does the media pander to that market? Just how many publications and/or TV stations have actually sat back and dissected the game and really made an effort to explain the ebbs and flows of the game?
And why is that not done? Because Mandira Bedi's plunging necklines is a lot less effort than sitting out there and explaining the nuances of the game.
Because a 15 second sound byte is more important than a 30 minute monologue on why the game is such a glorious one.
The masses may be capable of murder, but is it incumbent on the media to test that? Then what does one say about "responsible" journalism?
I agree that personal responsibility matters. But to tar every passionate fan by the same brush is as much an abdication of personal responsibility as those effigy burning yobos.
This is not about CricInfo - it is about the media stirring the pot and then getting oh so sanctimonious.
I think that is out of line.
Shakester,
All those so called "fans" who indulge in sloganeering, effigy burning and property destruction - let us call them for what they are - hooligans.
They are no "fans". I think it is simple minded of the media to call them "cricket fans".
homer- iam not sure which feed of the matches you get to see where you are, but surely you cant blame any of the channles (except max) of not doing enough analysis and 'proper' cricket chat...They all do! Just because off late other aspects such as winsome young girls and sometimes inane fan inserts have begun, doesnt mean the fans who are into the nuances are not catered for.
In fact, people go so far as to say that Sports channels 'invent' things to talk about, and harp for 30mins on aspects of the game that are easily covered in 10, and that the experts and hosts talking about the technicalities are pandering to themselves and the few who are interested in it, etc etc....
Shakester,
fair point :)
"There is also a significant market for people who crave to understand the nuances and intricacies of the game. But does the media pander to that market? Just how many publications and/or TV stations have actually sat back and dissected the game and really made an effort to explain the ebbs and flows of the game?
And why is that not done? Because Mandira Bedi's plunging necklines is a lot less effort than sitting out there and explaining the nuances of the game."
Homer, firstly, most publications do have good writers. Admitedly much less than bad ones, but there is a lack of skills issue at work (although a cricinfo gives serious effort to grooming skills - best case in point being Will Luke, picked up for having a good, popular cricket blog!)
Secondly, there are not enough serious followers of the game. Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to say I'm special. Just that its too much of a time consumption for common man to follow the nuances of the game (just go to any cricket gathering online or offline, of non-friends and check out how many serious followers u find there). And its difficult for media outlets to give serious results through the 'headline journalism' business they often have to be in (willingly or not)
But yes, your point is also valid. Getting Mandira to entice audience is much easier way out than bringing them serious analysis. But then, that's true for many other sporting and non-sporting occasions. Its a well proven formula.
Manish,
Three points
1. Why is the expectation that an argument vis a vis the media should be nuanced whereas the media is given allowance to paint fans of all hues with the same brush.
Look at Dileeps article and tell me if it is nuanced.
Look at this article too
http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/08/stories/2007030809112200.htm
2. I personally think it is hypocritical of the media in general to sit in their ivory tower and pontificate on fan behavior while absolving themselves of all responsibility.
3. Why call hooligans "cricket fans"? Having spent time, money, emotion and everything in between following the game,I find the trivializing of my passion for the game by the media insulting.
Hi Homer,
Excellent perspectives and insights - not just on this post, but in general.
I'm an editor for Desicritics.org, a web magazine covering media, culture, politics, sports with a global South Asian perspective.
I'd like to invite you to write for Desicritics - your writings are quite interesting. Please email me (click my name) so we can get you on board
Regards
Huzaifa
Homer: I already expressed my views about Dileep. Don't want to go into that again.
And media doesnt paint everyone with the same brush...as I said earlier...media has good and bad elements (in wrong proportions, but thats another issue)...and so do viewers. You get balanced opinions through the same media, don't u? Now, why are you painting the entire media with the same brush and acting just like them (or atleast the image you have of them) :-)
Oh btw, many of those hooligans are indeed cricket fans. Sorry if you feel insulted. But then, there are humans who would put the entire race to shame. So what?
I can say a lot more about it, but Prem Panicker does it much better in a recent post
http://sightscreen.rediffiland.com/scripts/xanadu_diary_view.php?postId=1174388577
Manish,
If fair weather fans are to be equated to die hard supporters of the team and more importantly, the game - that ends all argument, doesnt it?
Homer, not die-hard, but they are fans indeed.
If you go looking for informed cricket fans who stick by their team through thick and thin (as long as they can see a reason behind the results, even if there are wrong moves), then you are looking for a very very small minority. And unfortunately, this is not big enough a 'market segment' for cricket, as we know it today, to exist.
You and I may not want the current form to exist anyways, but then, we don't own the game.
Oh, and btw, this is how the current 'democratic' form of society works, the one we have chosen to live in.
Post a Comment