Aussie media-Old story but balanced one

Aussie media-Old story but balanced one

Post by lan.. » Fri, 19 Mar 1999 04:00:00


The disgraceful manner in which Aussie media treated Lankan cricketers
 By David Colin-Thome

 Following Sri Lankas recent and second consecutive disastrous tour of
Australia, it was interesting to note that the Sri  Lankan Press Association
has lodged a formal complaint against their brethren in Australia. Whilst
this action is  commendable, they should not be holding their breath waiting
for a reply in the form of an apology - certainly not after  the disgraceful
manner in which the Australian media treated the touring Sri Lankan team, and
in particular, Muttiah  Muralitharan and Arjuna Ranatunga.

 If the Sri Lankan Captain, Arjuna Ranatunga, in cricketing terms, shattered
every ICC code of conduct law in his  defence of Muralitharan, in human
terms, he achieved in twelve minutes what peace talks could not achieve in a
decade.  The images of this proud Sinhalese man, vigorously standing up for
his young Tamil team-mate under siege, would have  brought a tear to even the
most earnest Tamil separatists eyes. Ranatunga did not become petulant
because he got a  rough decision that cost him his wicket or his team a loss.
Ranatunga stood up against a perceived threat to his  team-mate, team and
country. He was shot down by the Australian press and public for acting in a
trait that Australians  pride themselves on - "standing by a mate". In a
recent television interview, when posed the question on Ranatungas
behaviour, Mark Waugh to his eternal credit, remarked that Arjuna stood up
for a team-mate and was left with not  much choice. In similar circumstances,
Australians would not have accepted anything less from their past greats like
Ian  Chappell, Alan Border or even the more diplomatic Mark Taylor.

 After Ranatungas confrontation with umpire Emerson, in criticising
Ranatunga, a frequent claim in Australia was, "we  were always taught that
the umpires word was law". All this is very noble, but obviously the fine
print states that this  only applies to umpires in England and Australia, or
else the other umpires, particularly from the subcontinent, must  have been
granted a special exemption from this grand virtue. How else could one
otherwise explain the numerous  John McEnroe" impersonations by teams from
England and Australia on past tours of the subcontinent? Have not these  two
nations threatened to take their bat and ball and go home midway through a
tour of the subcontinent?

 A recent example of this double standard was when the England Captain, Alec
Stewart told us that in England, too,  they are taught about accepting the
umpires decision (Messrs. Illingworth and Gatting must have been playing
truant on  the day of this particular lesson). When Mike Gatting had his
infamous finger pointing dispute with the Pakistani umpire,  Shakoor Rana,
who Gatting accused of cheating, what kind of disciplinary action did he face
from the English  authorities, the then TCCB? The only book they threw at
Gatting was the cheque book`. The TCCB paid Gatting and  the whole team an
additional 1000 each, at the end of this tour, and provocatively called it
"a hardship-tour bonus".  The fact is that no touring Australian or English
team, no matter how many real or imagined umpiring decisions went  against
them, or how unpalatable their perception of the situation was, can profess
to have encountered, even remotely,  the gravity of the situation that
Ranatunga found himself in. The strength of character that Arjuna Ranatunga
displayed on  the recent tour of Australia, in the face of unprecedented
pressure, was nothing short of awe inspiring. This was all the  more so
because in a career rarity, he did not have by his side, particularly during
the height of the controversy, his long  term friend and right hand man,
Aravinda de Silva.

 When Stewart, perhaps with an eye for future employment, took on the role of
the Match Referee and condemned  Ranatungas behaviour, the sweat from
Mahanamas chest was still glistening on his (Stewarts) shoulder. Mahanamas
 action was not an act of aggression. It was at worst, a cynical act, more in
line with the Michael Schumacher School of  Manocuvres. However, it is food
for thought that one cynical act from a Sri Lankan player was able to extract
the  gladiatorial instincts of a group of men, who, for four months, behaved
like church mice in the face of verbal ***s and  humiliating defeats at
the hands of the Aussies.

 The negativity shown by large sections of the Australian cricket fans towards
Muralitharan and the more hostile attitude
 towards Ranatunga is not hard to understand. They were fed by a frenzied and
totally inward looking media, whose
 cricketing expertise I will leave for the experts to judge, but whose life
experience I would suggest, does not travel
 beyond the SCG Members Bar. Unfortunately for the Australian public, the
number of well balanced media
 personalities they are privy to could be counted on one hand, and even these
few were buried by the sheer weight of the
 other mobs diatribe.

 Robert Craddock, the Chief Cricket Writer for Sydneys Daily Telegraph, is
not one of those reporters that could be  counted on one hand. Once, due to
an obvious lapse in concentration, he did write a positive piece about
Ranatunga,  thereby shocking all those around him. However, his recovery was
swift, and in a summing up of the recently concluded  cricket season, he
wrote about the "feuds of the season". Amongst others, he ended it with "and
Arjuna Ranatunga  versus the rest of the world". This is a typical sheltered
life attitude of the majority of the Australian media. What  Craddock and
his ilk have not discovered yet, is that, the worlds population is a tad
more than 18 million, the North  Pole is not Darwin and the South Pole not
Tasmania. More than a billion people in the subcontinent that see Ranatunga
as a hero can attest to this fact.

 Following Sri Lankas controversial tour of Australia in 1995/96 and
particularly after their win in the 1996 World Cup,  the Australian media
have created an unhealthy "us and them" situation, which has unfortunately
flowed on to their  public. For example, Malcolm Knox covered Australias
last tour of Sri Lanka in 1996 for the Sydney Morning Herald  newspaper. What
he saw were fanatical, hostile crowds against the Australians. In addition he
saw stray dogs and  cattle, garbage on the streets and so on. Covering this
same tour was Ian Chappell, who reported in the Inside Edge  magazine that
the crowds in Colombo were amongst the best behaved and entertaining in the
world. He also noted that  Sri Lanka is an ideal country for Australia to
send their junior teams to as a part of their future development. A balanced
reporter like Chappell is someone who, whilst proudly standing below their
countrys flag, none the less reports events  accurately as they unfold.
Certainly, in relation to the Australia/Sri Lanka cricketing relationship,
the majority of the  Australian media has continued to run around with the
Aussie flag firmly attached to their eyebrows.

 Off the field however, in the name of ratings and sales, no one can expect
to be spared - certainly, the truth is not going  to get in the way of a good
story. Just look at the shameful manner in which the Ricky Ponting incident
was reported. If  they could treat one of their own countrymen in this
manner, what chance does a foreign player have? The Australian  public have
been taken for a huge ride by their media over the Muralitharan issue. The
media consistently peddled a  litany of lies, myths and misinformation in a
most disturbing manner. To add credence to their harangue, they constantly
quoted a variety of so-called people "in the know", such as "Senior ACB
Officials", "past or current umpires", all of  whom of course did not wish to
be identified. This is the most gutless, cowardly and unethical form of
reporting. If  someone is not prepared to be identified, he simply should not
be quoted.

 The answer to the question on the legitimacy of Muttiah Muralitharans
action should not be based on an allegiance to a  country, team or
individual. Just as there are many Australians who believe Muralitharan is a
chucker because an  Australian umpire said so, there are many Sri Lankans
who believe Muralitharan is legitimate simply because he is a Sri  Lankan. An
"us and them" situation is definitely not the answer. What is required,
however, in line with that strongest of  Australian ideals, is a "fair go" -
in other words, an impartial and equal chance at success.

 There is no question that Muralitharans bowling action is very unorthodox
and was always going to raise a few  eyebrows around the cricketing world. As
a consequence, Muralitharan was "no balled" by three Australian umpires in
1995/96. Everyone has his or her own theories regarding the events that
unfolded on that tour. However, what can be  said about the course of action
these three umpires chose to follow is, at the time, there were no guidelines
or guidance  from the ICC with regards to Muralitharans action - the umpires
were left to their own devices.

 In the current context, umpire Ross Emersons decision to "no ball"
Muralitharan in January this year was inexcusable  and intolerable, either by
the individual or the current system or both. As a consequence of
Muralitharan being "no     balled" in 1995/96, an eminent ICC panel cleared his
basic action and pronounced it as legal. Their decision was based  on video
footage and medical evidence, which enabled the panel to understand the
mechanics of Muralitharans action.  The panel concluded that "No remedial
action was required". This certainly does not mean that Muralitharan or any
other bowler in a similar situation cannot subsequently bowl illegally, nor
does it mean that an umpire cannot "no ball"  him in the future.

 The burning question, then, should be whether the ICC
...

read more »

 
 
 

Aussie media-Old story but balanced one

Post by Sound » Sat, 20 Mar 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
>The disgraceful manner in which Aussie media treated Lankan cricketers
> By David Colin-Thome(ummmmm..who???)

<snips the bit where Im supposed to cry for SriLankan cricket>

Another piece of crap.I cant believe I read the lot,but
anyway........................Arjuna is a disgrace and Murali chucks.

How about you provide the source of your info(crap) next time.A balanced
story???   hahahahahaha

 
 
 

Aussie media-Old story but balanced one

Post by Pet » Sat, 20 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Yawnnnnnn, up arms, lets the ball go through to the keeper

Quote:
>The disgraceful manner in which Aussie media treated Lankan cricketers
> By David Colin-Thome

> Following Sri Lankas recent and second consecutive disastrous tour of
>Australia, it was interesting to note that the Sri  Lankan Press Association
>has lodged a formal complaint against their brethren in Australia. Whilst
>this action is      commendable, they should not be holding their breath waiting
>for a reply in the form of an apology - certainly not after  the disgraceful
>manner in which the Australian media treated the touring Sri Lankan team, and
>in particular, Muttiah      Muralitharan and Arjuna Ranatunga.

> If the Sri Lankan Captain, Arjuna Ranatunga, in cricketing terms, shattered
>every ICC code of conduct law in his  defence of Muralitharan, in human
>terms, he achieved in twelve minutes what peace talks could not achieve in a
>decade.  The images of this proud Sinhalese man, vigorously standing up for
>his young Tamil team-mate under siege, would have  brought a tear to even the
>most earnest Tamil separatists eyes. Ranatunga did not become petulant
>because he got a  rough decision that cost him his wicket or his team a loss.
>Ranatunga stood up against a perceived threat to his  team-mate, team and
>country. He was shot down by the Australian press and public for acting in a
>trait that Australians      pride themselves on - "standing by a mate". In a
>recent television interview, when posed the question on Ranatungas
>behaviour, Mark Waugh to his eternal credit, remarked that Arjuna stood up
>for a team-mate and was left with not  much choice. In similar circumstances,
>Australians would not have accepted anything less from their past greats like
>Ian  Chappell, Alan Border or even the more diplomatic Mark Taylor.

> After Ranatungas confrontation with umpire Emerson, in criticising
>Ranatunga, a frequent claim in Australia was, "we  were always taught that
>the umpires word was law". All this is very noble, but obviously the fine
>print states that this      only applies to umpires in England and Australia, or
>else the other umpires, particularly from the subcontinent, must  have been
>granted a special exemption from this grand virtue. How else could one
>otherwise explain the numerous      John McEnroe" impersonations by teams from
>England and Australia on past tours of the subcontinent? Have not these  two
>nations threatened to take their bat and ball and go home midway through a
>tour of the subcontinent?

> A recent example of this double standard was when the England Captain, Alec
>Stewart told us that in England, too,  they are taught about accepting the
>umpires decision (Messrs. Illingworth and Gatting must have been playing
>truant on  the day of this particular lesson). When Mike Gatting had his
>infamous finger pointing dispute with the Pakistani umpire,  Shakoor Rana,
>who Gatting accused of cheating, what kind of disciplinary action did he face
>from the English  authorities, the then TCCB? The only book they threw at
>Gatting was the cheque book`. The TCCB paid Gatting and  the whole team an
>additional 1000 each, at the end of this tour, and provocatively called it
>"a hardship-tour bonus".  The fact is that no touring Australian or English
>team, no matter how many real or imagined umpiring decisions went  against
>them, or how unpalatable their perception of the situation was, can profess
>to have encountered, even remotely,  the gravity of the situation that
>Ranatunga found himself in. The strength of character that Arjuna Ranatunga
>displayed on  the recent tour of Australia, in the face of unprecedented
>pressure, was nothing short of awe inspiring. This was all the      more so
>because in a career rarity, he did not have by his side, particularly during
>the height of the controversy, his long  term friend and right hand man,
>Aravinda de Silva.

> When Stewart, perhaps with an eye for future employment, took on the role of
>the Match Referee and condemned  Ranatungas behaviour, the sweat from
>Mahanamas chest was still glistening on his (Stewarts) shoulder. Mahanamas
> action was not an act of aggression. It was at worst, a cynical act, more in
>line with the Michael Schumacher School of  Manocuvres. However, it is food
>for thought that one cynical act from a Sri Lankan player was able to extract
>the  gladiatorial instincts of a group of men, who, for four months, behaved
>like church mice in the face of verbal ***s and  humiliating defeats at
>the hands of the Aussies.

> The negativity shown by large sections of the Australian cricket fans towards
>Muralitharan and the more hostile attitude
> towards Ranatunga is not hard to understand. They were fed by a frenzied and
>totally inward looking media, whose
> cricketing expertise I will leave for the experts to judge, but whose life
>experience I would suggest, does not travel
> beyond the SCG Members Bar. Unfortunately for the Australian public, the
>number of well balanced media
> personalities they are privy to could be counted on one hand, and even these
>few were buried by the sheer weight of the
> other mobs diatribe.

> Robert Craddock, the Chief Cricket Writer for Sydneys Daily Telegraph, is
>not one of those reporters that could be  counted on one hand. Once, due to
>an obvious lapse in concentration, he did write a positive piece about
>Ranatunga,  thereby shocking all those around him. However, his recovery was
>swift, and in a summing up of the recently concluded  cricket season, he
>wrote about the "feuds of the season". Amongst others, he ended it with "and
>Arjuna Ranatunga  versus the rest of the world". This is a typical sheltered
>life attitude of the majority of the Australian media. What  Craddock and
>his ilk have not discovered yet, is that, the worlds population is a tad
>more than 18 million, the North  Pole is not Darwin and the South Pole not
>Tasmania. More than a billion people in the subcontinent that see Ranatunga
>as a hero can attest to this fact.

> Following Sri Lankas controversial tour of Australia in 1995/96 and
>particularly after their win in the 1996 World Cup,  the Australian media
>have created an unhealthy "us and them" situation, which has unfortunately
>flowed on to their  public. For example, Malcolm Knox covered Australias
>last tour of Sri Lanka in 1996 for the Sydney Morning Herald  newspaper. What
>he saw were fanatical, hostile crowds against the Australians. In addition he
>saw stray dogs and  cattle, garbage on the streets and so on. Covering this
>same tour was Ian Chappell, who reported in the Inside Edge  magazine that
>the crowds in Colombo were amongst the best behaved and entertaining in the
>world. He also noted that  Sri Lanka is an ideal country for Australia to
>send their junior teams to as a part of their future development. A balanced
>reporter like Chappell is someone who, whilst proudly standing below their
>countrys flag, none the less reports events  accurately as they unfold.
>Certainly, in relation to the Australia/Sri Lanka cricketing relationship,
>the majority of the  Australian media has continued to run around with the
>Aussie flag firmly attached to their eyebrows.

A "balanced reporter like Chappell".  Seeing stray dogs and cattle on
the streets is not a slight at Sri Lankans sir.  It is merely an
atmospheric  comment.  Are you saying that if the comment is welcoming
the commentator is balanced and if it is perceived in any way as
crictical it is not balanced?  A flag attched to the eyebrows besides
being painful is a comment that can equally be attached to many
elements of the Sri Lankan media.

Quote:
> Off the field however, in the name of ratings and sales, no one can expect
>to be spared - certainly, the truth is not going  to get in the way of a good
>story. Just look at the shameful manner in which the Ricky Ponting incident
>was reported. If  they could treat one of their own countrymen in this
>manner, what chance does a foreign player have? The Australian      public have
>been taken for a huge ride by their media over the Muralitharan issue. The
>media consistently peddled a  litany of lies, myths and misinformation in a
>most disturbing manner. To add credence to their harangue, they constantly
>quoted a variety of so-called people "in the know", such as "Senior ACB
>Officials", "past or current umpires", all of  whom of course did not wish to
>be identified. This is the most gutless, cowardly and unethical form of
>reporting. If  someone is not prepared to be identified, he simply should not
>be quoted.

"The media consistently peddled a  litany of lies, myths and
misinformation in a most disturbing manner" - one assumes this is an
example of balanced reporting.

Quote:
> The answer to the question on the legitimacy of Muttiah Muralitharans
>action should not be based on an allegiance to a  country, team or
>individual. Just as there are many Australians who believe Muralitharan is a
>chucker because an  Australian umpire said so, there are many Sri Lankans
>who believe Muralitharan is legitimate simply because he is a Sri  Lankan. An
>"us and them" situation is definitely not the answer. What is required,
>however, in line with that strongest of  Australian ideals, is a "fair go" -
>in other words, an impartial and equal chance at success.

Indeed.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> There is no question that Muralitharans bowling action is very unorthodox
>and was always going to raise a few  eyebrows around the cricketing world. As
>a consequence, Muralitharan was "no balled" by three Australian umpires in
>1995/96. Everyone has his or her own theories regarding the events that
>unfolded on that tour. However, what can be  said about the course of action
>these three umpires chose to follow is, at the time, there were no guidelines
>or guidance  from the ICC with regards to Muralitharans action - the umpires
>were left to

...

read more »

 
 
 

Aussie media-Old story but balanced one

Post by G I A » Sat, 20 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> >The disgraceful manner in which Aussie media treated Lankan cricketers
> > By David Colin-Thome

(snip)

do you really have to bring this old story up again?

 
 
 

Aussie media-Old story but balanced one

Post by Karthik Sankara » Sat, 20 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Pete what's the matter....couldn't take criticism?  Convict mentality hasn't
changed over the centuries I guess.
Quote:

> Yawnnnnnn, up arms, lets the ball go through to the keeper

 
 
 

Aussie media-Old story but balanced one

Post by Pet » Sun, 21 Mar 1999 04:00:00

No Karthick but it sounds like a broken record.  The bat and ball will
do more talking then we can ever do. Anyhow,  what has not being able
to take any criticism have to do with having a convict mentality, your
thesis would be interesting to hear :)

Prey tell what does convict mentality actually mean, and how should it
be affecting my opinions on matters cricket?   Generalisations be they
about nations or races or cicket supporters, or classes for that
matter (maybe that's the convict mentality you are getting at), have
rarely served any positive purpose throughout history, so I will now
proceed to let your comment go through to the keeper who I'm sure has
taken it and tossed to Steve Waugh at gully.

Quote:
>Pete what's the matter....couldn't take criticism?  Convict mentality hasn't
>changed over the centuries I guess.


>> Yawnnnnnn, up arms, lets the ball go through to the keeper