Archive for March 9th, 2008

‘Nationalism in place of cricket journalism’

9 March 2008

India’s best-known sports writer, now a happy resident of Australia, has torn into the output of cricket correspondents covering the ill-tempered series down under. Rohit Brijnath, formerly of Sportsworld and India Today, writes on the BBC website:

“Cricket is crying out for independent voices (and certainly for the well-crafted cricket piece).

“Commentators who romance clichés seem not to have heard the one about “without fear or favour” and some writers seem to be crafting nationalistic speeches rather than objective match reports.

“Hostility bounds out of sentences and bias drips from paragraphs. The job of the journalist is not to mend fences or cool emotions, but neither is it to incite.

“At the end of the second final, an Indian television reporter more or less told Harbhajan Singh, now you can say whatever you want. Next he will be handing players a flag.

“Some of the Indian writing was unworthy, unabashed, chest-beating jingoism; some of the Australian writing was worse, a one-eyed, arrogant, player-baiting, character-bashing orgy.”

Read the full article: Caution amid India’s cricket euphoria

Also read: Debate: who killed (good) cricket writing?

Cross-posted on churumuri

Is media having an impact on US prez poll?

9 March 2008

The mainstream media—television networks, newspaper groups, radio houses, internet behemoths, sometimes all of them owned by the same corporation—like to believe that they play a vital role in deciding how the country is run. Wisened old political commentators, in India and the United States and everywhere in between, actually think that politicians wake up every morning, read their pontifications, and then go about conducting their affairs.

On the New York TimesBloggingheads, David Corn of Mother Jones argues that unlike in the past, when the media played firm and fast gatekeepers, when “seven people” decided which way a country would vote, people now make up their minds on their own, despite the plethora of information out in the public domain.

“Four hundred thousand watch Chris Mathews on a good night; on the other hand 27 million took part in the Democratic primaries, caucuses….”

Rachel Sklar of The Huffington Post argues that the old metric does not apply, especially when voters have a variety of ways to get their cues—like YouTube and social aggregators like Digg, Clip, etc. And that although the impact of the traditional media may seem to have waned,  voters may be picking up their cues from a plethora of sources.

View the full video: Do the media matter?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,522 other followers

%d bloggers like this: