You only have to look at the world of Politics to see how certain Media outlets rather than reporting the facts and letting the public draw its own conclusions seek to influence public opinion. What makes sport any different?
Anyone who does not follow AFL is well aware of the saturation and dominance the sport has in terms of column centimetres in newspapers and on websites, and on radio and television. The argument thrown up is that ‘this is where the money is’ in terms of advertising and sponsorship dollars. Yet those more cynical see it as a situation born of part laziness, part ignorance, mixed with a large dose of protectionism and parochialism.
Even when another sport has success how often do those covering the event twist it around to have an AFL angle? They will tell you that this is to appeal to their market, when it truth it is an attempt to keep the AFL relevant in a global sport market. How many stories on Matildas’ star Sam Kerr see her linked to her brother Daniel who played AFL? Yet her achievements have long surpassed his, not just on a national level but on a global level. How frustrating must that be to her? How disrespectful is it to her career?
In the past week we have seen disgraced former Test Captain Stephen Smith and Cameron Bancroft, both talk to the media about the events in Cape Town earlier this year. Bancroft’s nine month ban comes to an end in a matter of days. Smith still has three months to serve.
Is it any coincidence that these two are being introduced back into the public spotlight? Cricket Australia has a new CEO and a new Head Coach in Justin Langer. Langer has already gone through a dressing room and cleaned up a bad culture once, when he took over Western Australia. He knows what is needed to have every cog working independently, but for the overall good of the team. Having been at the airport to meet Cameron Bancroft, a player he brought through at the WACA, when he returned in disgrace from South Africa, Langer has a special relationship with the tenacious opener. Maybe he sees a little of himself in his fellow Western Australian? One thing is for sure you can bet he wants him involved in the national team again.
Stephen Smith was a class act as a batsman, with a Test average of 61.37. Who would not want him back in the side? Some are saying that the Captaincy will be returned to Smith at some stage, but surely if any lesson was learned from Cape Town it should be that making your best player the Captain is not necessarily the best idea. It may have worked for Australia in the past, but in the modern game where Captains are under far more scrutiny, and there are added responsibilities, a leader with greater diplomatic attributes and maturity is required. Possibly duties need to be shared amongst a few, as Ric Charlesworth did so successfully when coach of the Hockeyroos?
What has been interesting is the reaction to Cameron Bancroft’s interview overnight with Fox Sports, Adam Gilchrist. Was it a great interview? It will never go down along with the greats such as Michael Parkinson and Andrew Denton, but it may well have served its purpose. The irony was here was a man so totally respected by the Cricket world and you could say the Australian sporting public conducting an interview with a man who was part of a cheating scandal. Gilchrist was renowned for his sense of Fair Play, for playing the game the way it was intended. He nicked the ball, he walked, even though his team mates berated him for it.
Yet when Bancroft repeatedly said “I didn’t know any better,” he never once questioned that response. This was a guy who has played numerous A-Grade games in his State competition, as well as 76 First class matches. He should have known better. What’s more Bancroft is a player who loves cricket, who lives for the game, so if that is the case he would have known that what he was doing was wrong and should have know the same values as the man interviewing him.
What his actions highlight is the win at all costs attitude within the team. Former coach Darren Lehmann has said since the interview aired said Bancroft should have come to him when it was suggested, but that comment highlights his failings as a coach. Either he was involved in the win at all costs approach and was therefore more involved than has been revealed, or he was not a coach the players felt comfortable talking to about such an issue. His comment reflects his failings to his team.
Cricket Australia must have been planning a strategy as to how they are going to re-introduce the banned players back into the playing group. Let’s not kid ourselves these interviews would not have happened without Cricket Australia approval.
So is it any wonder that the interview was held with their new Broadcast partner? Are the viewers getting a truly independent view or are they simply being fed a message that will sway public opinion. How much was Bancroft schooled in his responses? Certainly he has had plenty of time to reflect, but one cannot help feeling that a clear story-line was planned and related.
It appears that there was no way that all three of the banned players could return to wear the baggy green cap. It also appears that David Warner, whether you love him or hate him, is the sacrificial lamb. Warner is the player who will be left in the cold, while the much-loved and talented Smith and the gifted opener with age on his side, and talent yet to be realised, is seen as a better investment for the future than his former opening partner now aged 32; Bancroft is 26 years of age, and some would say in his prime.
Warner has always been a time-bomb to the Cricket establishment. Yet it would appear he was also used by that same establishment. His aggression was often encouraged, when it suited the powers that be. Yet at other times when ‘he went too far’ or ‘crossed the line’ he was berated by the same people who encouraged that aggression.
It was the late former New Zealand captain Martin Crowe who branded Warner “thuggish” for his on-field behaviour, and said that the Australian was “the most juvenile cricketer I have seen on a cricket field.” Maybe immature may have been a better word than juvenile. However did anyone heed Crowe’s warning?
Warner has skirted controversy throughout his career. It has been well documented that he was the team’s go-to man when they wanted aggression. He has been supported publicly by his wife, but there are some who say that her comments to the media and being so publicly involved has not helped his case, and in fact may have worked against him. Hopefully they are truly a team, she is there for him at this time.
There are some independents in the media who are asking why David Warner is not speaking at this point in time. It is a valid question. No doubt he must be wondering what happened to ‘his mates.’ Frequently we have been fed the line that the Australian Cricket team are ‘all mates,’ yet the reality in top flight sport is far from the case. There will be some players who will be mates for life, but most will only ever be work colleagues.
Warner may not be speaking now, he may never speak. Yet one cannot help feeling that at some point in his life he will need to get his side of the whole episode of his chest, whether that is privately or publicly. There is even the possibility that he may even have been paid to keep silent. If that is the case we may never know. However, we should never forget that he is human, and he made a mistake. He did not commit a murder. He too should be shown some compassion.
That may take a while, as what it appears the public are watching is a very clear planned-out media strategy. A storyline that will be followed by the returning players, Cricket Australia and key allies in the media. It is a storyline that will see Smith and Bancroft eased back into the Australian team, and Warner left on the outer.
Cameron Bancroft stated in his interview with Adam Gilchrist, “I valued fitting in.”
Sadly many Media outlets are the same, they value ‘fitting in,’ being accepted. For some the relationships are far too cosy. As a result of this ‘relationship’ they will go along with the storyline that they are being fed, believing that they will now be given inside stories or tipped the odd exclusive. Yet rarely does it work that way.
Fox Sports respected football journalist Simon Hill recently posted on Facebook how three years ago, he attempted to write about Hakeem Al-Araibi the Australian refugee currently being held in Thailand and facing deportation back to the country he fled, Bahrain. Hill revealed that “Hakeem was critical of Sheikh Salman for his alleged refusal to intervene in his case. Salman was – and still is – the head of both the Bahrain FA and the Asian Football Confederation, and is also a member of the ruling family in Bahrain. He was (at the time of the story being written), attempting to become the President of FIFA.”
Hill went on to reveal “Upon asking Salman for comment on the Al-Araibi case, his lawyers immediately issued a threatening letter – I was not the only journalist to receive one. The story never ran.”
It is hard enough in today’s world with social media “breaking stories” to know what is true and what isn’t, without having the media gagged. It is equally worrying when sport, like the political environment is able to influence the media to have an event reported the way they want.
Football is a prime sport in which certain people in the media are in cahoots with player agents. They run a “story” that player X is being watched by Club A in order to facilitate a move for an unhappy player. When that move happens the agent will invariably “look after” the person who stirred the pot. (Would Transfers Between A-League Clubs Avoid Player v Club Stand Offs)
Maybe it is no coincidence that when turning a negative story into a positive one became a trend it was referred to as “spin.” After all spin is a key component of cricket, and didn’t Australia create the Sheik of Tweak?
