Journalists or spindoctors?

[Bun]

Reference to this article by Daniel Brettig :

Big Bash League news: Michael Clarke makes priorities clear by skipping BBL | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

It portrays in length Clarke's decision not to play in the inaugural BBL and goes to the extent of suggesting he's the real saviour of test cricket in Australia and portraying CA as money hungry corporate vultures with no regard for the most pristine form of cricket.

But, he misses out on two points:

• Clarke conducted detailed negotiations with Perth BBL team before taking this step
  
• And his most important quote from the press release,"I am also only available for one BBL game this year, and that was a consideration as well."

The last quote does not appear anywhere in the above article, while it has been extensively quoted elsewhere.

Now, fair enough if Clarke doesn't want to play T20 and concentrate on what he's best at, in whites. And fair play to the chap. But let's not make heroes out of thin air, Mr. Brettig.

 

[Bun]

Not saying the above is limited just to Australian writers. It's a curse on cricket journalism that's this is visible across almost all countries. The lesser said about Indian journalists, the better. :/

 

[Spark]

Australian cricket journalism is bad? Never would have thought.

I agree that the article is badly overblowing the situation.

 

[hang on]

australian cricket journalism is bad, barring haigh, when he is not on one of his highhorses. but, then so are most of the others, with the exception of the english, which ranges from dishraggy and less bad to excellent.

also, we need to remember that the whole point is to get as many eyeballs and have as many comments below the line as possibe, and so there is some creative headllining and editing that takes place. for example, the guardian, who, in my 'umble, have the best stable of writers around, had a so many articles about tendulkar this past week that it defied belief. and was truly exasperating. bet the powers on the ediorial board had something to do with that.

for example, the foxsports and the smh take on boycott's take on the icc popular all time test 11. boycott's original article in the telegraph had made it abundantly clear that tendulkar wasn't chosen since he is still playing. and once he retired, he would be a shoo in. now, that would make everything so mundane, assuming people actually read the whole article instead of just the parts that appeal to the righteous indignation modules in their noggins. so, just get rid off that part so that people could write in and debate about tendulkar's omission among other things. just using one example of what was wrong with the article as it was reported in the antipodean press. there were others. bet it was the same with the indian press, though really can't be effed to check.

 

[Bun]

australian cricket journalism is bad, barring haigh, when he is not on one of his highhorses. but, then so are most of the others, with the exception of the english, which ranges from dishraggy and less bad to excellent.

also, we need to remember that the whole point is to get as many eyeballs and have as many comments below the line as possibe, and so there is some creative headllining and editing that takes place. for example, the guardian, who, in my 'umble, have the best stable of writers around, had a so many articles about tendulkar this past week that it defied belief. and was truly exasperating. bet the powers on the ediorial board had something to do with that.

for example, the foxsports and the smh take on boycott's take on the icc popular all time test 11. boycott's original article in the telegraph had made it abundantly clear that tendulkar wasn't chosen since he is still playing. and once he retired, he would be a shoo in. now, that would make everything so mundane, assuming people actually read the whole article instead of just the parts that appeal to the righteous indignation modules in their noggins. so, just get rid off that part so that people could write in and debate about tendulkar's omission among other things. just using one example of what was wrong with the article as it was reported in the antipodean press. there were others. bet it was the same with the indian press, though really can't be effed to check.

Good point.

But fact is this article in entirety is a Clarke ode. The author's deliberately doing a cyberworship of the Australian captain. No problem if that was based on some facts, as it turns out, it is laughably shoddy journalism using lies and half truths.

 

[Dan]

Good point.

But fact is this article in entirety is a Clarke ode. The author's deliberately doing a cyberworship of the Australian captain. No problem if that was based on some facts, as it turns out, it is laughably shoddy journalism using lies and half truths.

Agreed, all they do these days is write what sells papers/gets website hits. Facts don't seem to matter at all anymore

 

[Spark]

Brettig is known to be very very pro-Clarke tbh. This ain't the first article along these lines he's written. I guess it balances out a lot of the antagonistic rubbish lying around.

 

[hang on]

Brettig is known to be very very pro-Clarke tbh. This ain't the first article along these lines he's written. I guess it balances out a lot of the antagonistic rubbish lying around.

of which there is a lot. frankly, the antipathy towards clarke in aus, as evinced through below the line comments, is bewildering.

 

[Spark]

of which there is a lot. frankly, the antipathy towards clarke in aus, as evinced through below the line comments, is bewildering.

You're telling me this?

 

[hang on]

You're telling me this?

pardon my presumption.

 

[benchmark00]

Clarke clearly does have a greater focus on test cricket over getting a pay day than most modern cricketers though. Hasn't wanted a piece of the IPL and doesn't want a piece of the BBL, and that's what the writer has tried to portray.

 

[Spark]

That's true but this particular instance doesn't exactly merit lavish praise.

 

[benchmark00]

But the greater thread of the story is about Clarke choosing test cricket over t20, and he's again made this choice, even if he did contemplate it.

 

[silentstriker]

Clarke clearly does have a greater focus on test cricket over getting a pay day than most modern cricketers though. Hasn't wanted a piece of the IPL and doesn't want a piece of the BBL, and that's what the writer has tried to portray.

TBF Clarke demanded some obscene amount of money from Modi for the IPL and Modi laughed in his face....so that was that.

 

[benchmark00]

TBF Clarke demanded some obscene amount of money from Modi for the IPL and Modi laughed in his face....so that was that.

Yeah but that was for good reason. It's like putting your house on the market for $8million when you know it's only worth $500,000.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Clarke is a turd T20 player, tbf.

 

[Spark]

He'd be an automatic pick anyway though.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah but that was for good reason. It's like putting your house on the market for $8million when you know it's only worth $500,000.

What was the good reason?

He thought he could command top dollar, and he got laughed in his face. Then tried to bullsh*t and say he wasn't interested, wanted to save himself for his country. It was Hayden's book that outed him, right?

 

[Son Of Coco]

I used to think a lot of the **** cricket journalists simply hadn't played the game and didn't really know what they're talking about...then I found out Ben Dorries had actually played the game, and at a first grade level too. Not sure what his excuse would be given that information...and I don't know why they'd be dumbing down what they write and catering for the lowest common denominator. Let's face it, people with only a passing interest in the game probably won't take the time to read about it in the paper, and those who like it enough to read about it will think something catering for the broader population is rubbish.

 

[benchmark00]

What was the good reason?

He thought he could command top dollar, and he got laughed in his face. Then tried to bullsh*t and say he wasn't interested, wanted to save himself for his country. It was Hayden's book that outed him, right?

What, you didn't read the second half of my post or what? Don't be afriad of reading between the lines.