Media blackout a dangerous precedent

The much-awaited Test series between Australia and Sri Lanka has entered its fifth day with a media boycott in place, and there seems to be no end in sight.

With the three leading global news agencies refusing to cover the match following their stand-off with Cricket Australia, it's been as good as a blackout by the entire print media.

Worried that their spin ace Muttiah Muralitharan's overhauling of Shane Warne's record haul of 709 wickets may not receive enough words back home (the Sri Lankan is expected to reach the landmark in the second Test in Hobart), the Sri Lankan board has shot off a request to their counterparts in Australia asking them to resolve the problem at the earliest.

The jury may be out yet on who's in the right, but the issue looks serious enough to snowball into a contentious one in the coverage of major sporting events in future.

Same in essence

Remember the fuss over the coverage of Rugby World Cup in September? The controversy was very much the same in essence with the organisers in France coming down hard on the use of pictures on the web, but fortunately enough, disaster was averted in the last minute on that occasion. All this, of course, boils down to the ethical question: should news be actually up for sale?

With almost all the major sporting events worth their salt pre-selling the telecast rights to the highest bidder in today's scenario, it's suddenly the print media that is left to contend with issues such as image rights.

Granted that covering such international sporting events is very much a business proposition for all forms of the media, but to deprive three of the biggest global news agencies of their basic rights raises a simple question: what next in the name of commercialisation of sport? It was rugby yesterday, cricket today and there could be more such 'surprises' in store.

Cricket Australia, one of the most progressive and professional bodies to run the sport, is now being termed as 'greedy.' It's very much a subject of debate, but what is certain is that they have set a rather dangerous precedent now.

We know of a certain 'richest national cricket body' of the world (no prizes for guessing), who are not even averse to selling different sponsors' logos on the leading arm and non-leading arm of the players' shirts. What if they also decide to keep such an influential section of the print media at bay during home fixtures, asking for 'intellectual rights?'

With almost all the major sporting events worth their salt pre-selling the telecast rights to the highest bidder in today's scenario, it's suddenly the print media that is left to contend with issues such as image rights.