Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[RicePlateReddy]

I've read many of you on this newsgroup opine that Cricinfo has biased coverage. Personally, I feel some articles and so-called journalists on Cricinfo are pathetic.  However, I believe Cricinfo does not have an "agenda" when it comes to covering Indian cricket, and in their overall leanings.

I think Cricinfo will do what it takes to keep the "management" happy -- and that may mean toning down the criticism of the BCCI and avoiding any serious tracking of the money in the sport and what the management honchos make. They avoid these angles so they get whatever access they need. But when it comes to the Ganguly saga or now Dravid, I think the opinions professed more or less belong to the people writing the articles. One could argue that even here the so-called reporters follow the dictates of the "management", but I think that is too far-fetched. If indeed the management were that meticulous that they would directly and continuously influence Cricinfo journalists, there wouldn't be the randomness, chaos and contradiction that characterizes the BCCI today. Reminds me of Richard Clarke (the terrorism czar during 9/11 and an avid anti Bush character subsequently) characterize the 9/11 conspiracy theories by saying "anyone who thinks the government could have pulled this off obviously doesn't know how the government works".

[prfsr]

KoP
I do not speak for anyone else, but I think the allegations have been "most cricinfo articles have a slant" rather than "cricinfo forces people to put on a slant".

The former is observable, the latter cannot be ascertained/verified.

-P