My innocuous Facebook message hurt the sentiments of many people. One of ex- Facebook friends (he blocked me on Facebook after our argument over “Tendulkar” issue) asked me how many runs, how many hundreds have I scored? You have no right to talk about Tendulkar. The argument got intense and sadly there was an impasse which was broken when he decided that the best way to win an argument is “not to listen to the other party” on the social media platform.
Now by the same line of argument, a person like Sunil Gavaskar, who had scored 36 not out in a 60-overs, has no right to use the terms “big hits”,”keep looking for singles” and “sixes and fours.” Sanjay Manjrekar, who did not make use of his abilities, has no right to condemn players for the lack of purpose and inability of the player to optimize his talent.
The English commentators- Nasser Hussain, Mike Artherton, Sir Ian Botham – and former captains of England are the most respected commentators in the world. Similarly Ritchie Benaud is considered a doyen of cricket commentary, while stalwarts like Bill Lawry and Mark Nicholas have set a high benchmark for cricket commentary. The fact that they have played the game of cricket helps them analyse the situation in a better way. They are also good writers as seen by their insightful cricket columns in newspapers and websites. Their observations are respected and often not challenged because these people have “been there and done that” in the past.
In India, we have had some fantastic cricketers. But sadly, in this competitive era, they are seen as money-spinners – people who can generate good revenues for the media houses. Often, ghost-writers write on their behalf and the presence of a big name is really of no use to the readers per se. Someone like Harsha Bhogle is loved because he understands what the viewers or the readers want. Often that is not the case with some of the ex-cricketers who dwell in their glorious past and fail to gauge that important parameter “What do the audience want?” It is here where a journalist comes into the picture.
Do we have the maturity to judge a journalist/sports broadcaster by the quality that he brings into his work and not talk about the past? If we disagree on some of their viewpoints, the best way to pin them down is to malign them. In case of a journalist, the best way to answer his barrage of questions is to just ask him “Have you played cricket?”
Does a journalist who writes about cricket need to have scored a century, or relentlessly pitch the ball in the “corridor of uncertainty?” Agreed, cricketers turned media pundits’ opinions have an edge over that of a journalist (who has not played cricket at any level), but does that dismiss the journalist’s opinion? A personal attack for the things he writes is uncalled for. Remember, we are a free society (at least as per our constitution).
These days, the panel discussion that happens on some news channels is a big joke. The guests are hardly allowed to speak and the decibel level of the news room goes northward with every passing minute. An intelligent debate is now non-existential. So are we bred by chaos? Do we believe things that we are made to believe? As French Enlightenment writer Voltaire said “I do not agree with you but I’ll fight to death to defend your right.” Do Voltaire’s words glitter only in the books or do they have any practical relevance?
And about getting personal- well, that shows person’s narrow-mindedness. He has nothing valuable to add to the discussion. There is a civilized way to discuss the issue. Unlike animals, we humans can listen to each other’s perspectives and enrich our learning in the process. even though you may disagree with the other person.
0 votes
