Potential bias in the media - does it matter?
Recent evens in other sports present an interesting comparison with cricket's broadcast culture
Given the time of year, rugby’s international window has consumed much of my time in recent weeks. Yet even when in the depths of trying to work during the cricket-less winter, there is a moment that takes us back to our stick and ball game.
In this case, it was a question on media culture; as consumers of sport, how important is it that we know as much as possible about those who broadcast it?
Welsh rugby is in the pits with their national team having lost 11 games in a row. Last week, former Wales centre Jamie Roberts said during TV coverage that this was the worst period in the country’s rugby history.
This sparked a debate with current head coach Warren Gatland, who used to be Roberts’ boss. In an interview prior to Wales’ game against Australia on Sunday, Gatland said he was “disappointed” with criticism from some ex-players. “You’d like to think there’s an opportunity to back your corner a bit.”
Once the interview concluded, TNT Sports (the artist formerly known as BT) went straight to Roberts, now on their pre-match panel. He pushed back against the idea that it was his job to protect his former coach. “The pressure is on, it’s only right we mention that.”
Cue presenter Craig Doyle, an Irishman, dropping what, depending on Roberts’ reaction, could well have been a bombshell.
“A lot of people have mentioned that you are on the WRU [Welsh Rugby Union] board. You are there to bring honesty, this is part of being on the job I take it?”
Snap.
Here is a prominent ex-player criticising his former coach on TV, all while sitting on the board of the governing body which signs Gatland’s cheques. The potential conflict of interest bells are ringing.
Roberts, to be fair to him, took the question in the spirit in which it was intended. This wasn’t a drive-by on his credibility, but rather a desire to see the viewer armed with important context.
“There’s nothing I say here I wouldn’t say in the boardroom either,” he replied. “I took that job under the agreement that I would continue to give honest appraisal of the Welsh national team in the media and I’ve done that.”
During TNT’s coverage of England’s defeat to South Africa on Saturday, a pair of ex-England internationals clashed. Ugo Monye, who last played for his country in 2012, all but accused Courtney Lawes - whose most recent cap came only last year - of being too close to the current group of players to be able to call out recent results.
Both men were critical of England, but to varying degrees. Monye was ready to label England’s run of five consecutive defeats a “crisis” while Lawes wanted to cut the side some slack. The former second row suggested that he was a “fan”, and that fans should be more patient.
The implication of Monye’s response, pointing out that he too was an England fan but was still able to say that results have not been good enough, pointed to a fascinating truth. Plenty of elite athletes, who are trained to ignore outside noise, believe that fans and media should support them through thick and thin. Negativity does no one any good, so why bring it up?
Given he was recently in that environment, Lawes still has that attitude to an extent. Monye, 12 years removed from international sport, is more willing, as he sees it at least, to call a spade a spade.
We saw a similar attitude from Wales coach Gatland. In the above quote, he said he would like to see ex-players “back his corner”, rather than criticise. We were once in the trenches together, why are you now throwing grenades from the media? Roberts pointed out that, as a pundit, it’s his job to be critical when the time is right.
I’ve experienced this in my work, albeit not on live television. I’ve had Irish cricketers snap back at negative commentary. Which is fair enough; everyone has a right to disagree with an opinion.
This phenomenon isn’t universal, it should be said. I’ve also heard some players say that they welcome any sort of public analysis of their game, positive or negative, as it means their public profile is increasing. One player said that if they do get criticised, their first instinct is to look inwards and fix the performance which earned negative reviews, rather than go after the journalist doing the talking.
Given that bias-free commentary is impossible, the extent to which people allow their background to unfairly sway their views becomes vital. Over the weekend, we saw two prominent examples of broadcasters pointing out these biases. You might say that Roberts is doing stellar work in remaining critical given that it might jeopardise is position on the board. Others have asked if he aims the same negativity held towards players and coaches at the administrators who run the game, with whom he now works at board level.
The answers to these questions remain in the eye of the beholder. The discussion is only possible, though, because TNT allowed - or rather forced - its on-air talent to be honest. TNT’s credibility increased as a result, even if some people might have lost faith in the individual pundits.
Cricket, on the other hand, is not as good at providing the same levels of transparency in its broadcasting. There are a variety of reasons for this. The most important one is the name signing the cheques which are handed over to television production companies.
TNT Sport is an independent broadcaster which paid a fee to be able to show the international rugby fixtures this November. They paid for the rights, they have the power. TNT can hire whoever they like to be pundits and - within libel laws - these people can say what they please on-air.
In global cricket, this arrangement isn’t as prevalent. Sky Sports pays the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) millions to broadcast their home matches, but for the most part, television stations aren’t queueing up to hand over cash to governing bodies.
Cricket Ireland, for example, pays a production company a six-figure sum to broadcast a home international series. TV stations, should they wish, then pay to show those pictures on their platform. But they are paying for the product created by cameras and commentators which are financed by Cricket Ireland. When TNT showed Ireland’s ‘home’ series against South Africa from the UAE, they were simply broadcasting a Cricket Ireland production. Whereas when they show rugby, TNT use their own product created by their own cameras.
Sometimes, no television station bites and the feed ends up on Cricket Ireland’s YouTube channel instead.
Ireland isn’t the only country which does this. Really, only England and Australia have independent broadcasters paying to show cricket. Other countries, such as India, do have a competitive broadcast market and a valuable rights package, but I don’t know enough about their media market to be able to comment on its independence.
Even at World Cups, despite the high demand for coverage, the broadcast is paid for by the International Cricket Council. They pick a production company and pay the camera operators and the commentators - giving the ICC final say on who makes it on-air. By contrast, RTÉ, an independent broadcaster, still uses its own commentators on Rugby World Cup matches which are organised by World Rugby.
In a lot of cases, we know about commentator biases already. If someone is from a certain country or is an ex-player, it’s taken as given where their loyalties lie. These affiliations aren’t seen as debilitating to a broadcaster’s ability to do their job. Should other links, though, such as Roberts’ seat on the WRU board, be made public?
In an Irish context, in a way which perhaps should not be surprising given the small nature of the cricket community, our regular broadcasters have their connections. Niall O’Brien, arguably the most prominent Irish cricket voice, is an agent. Many of his clients play for Ireland, meaning he is offering a critique on performances which may have a bearing on their earning potential. Isobel Joyce, another increasingly influential Irish commentator, is the sister of Ireland women’s head coach Ed Joyce and a full-time employee of Cricket Ireland. Like Roberts, she works on a platform which may allow for public discussion on her employers.
These are mere statements of fact, rather than any pejorative judgement. Both are skilled, well-respected commentators.
Broadcasters are not the only ones with potential biases. Us hacks are not immune. I went to school with one current Ireland international. I played with and against plenty of others growing up, developing friendships and rivalries. I also played with one player’s dad (I am not as old as that makes me sound).
Does this impact upon my ability to comment impartially? I’d like to think not, in the same way I have never heard comments made by an Irish commentator and thought, ‘hang on, they’re only saying that because they want to advance the interest of their client/brother/employer.’
That is in regard to on-field matters. It remains true, though, that if someone is paying you for a service, it is very difficult, in some cases impossible, to be critical of them while performing it.
When news broke of Ireland’s male players rejecting contract offers on the eve of a series against Pakistan last May, broadcasters on the CI production did not discuss what was, at the time, the biggest story in Irish cricket. In my own experience, I have been warned when working on broadcasts across the world to be careful of what is said about the company paying the bills.
Does this matter?
Again, the answer is in the eye of the beholder. Do we really need to have utmost faith in the impartiality of a commentator whose job is to entertain? Are these people broadcasters or journalists? Is there a difference? If their job is to inform, rather than purely entertain, do potential biases then become important?
During Ireland’s Test against Zimbabwe at Stormont, Cricket Ireland chair Brian MacNeice was interviewed on-air while on a guest commentary stint. Here was one of the most powerful figures in Irish cricket being given a platform to push his company’s narrative. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this. Only in all likelihood, this was an unchallenged interaction given the platform was paid for by the company whose very message was being put into the public domain. The broadcasters on-air wouldn’t have been in a position to, for example, ask MacNeice about the statement he released earlier this year defending the purchase of two company Teslas for CI’s CEO and CFO (one car was subsequently returned).
Compare this to Sky’s Michael Atherton interviewing ECB CEO Richard Gould during an England Test match. Yes, Atherton is an ex-player and an inevitable England supporter, but he is also an independent journalist (working for both Sky and The Times) interviewing a public figure on a platform over which the ECB has no control.
To be fair to Cricket Ireland and MacNeice in particular, under his chairmanship the organisation has tried to become more open. In my experience, with MacNeice’s help, I have been granted access to important employees I had not previously met. All of this has occurred during a period where coverage of fixture cancellations, company cars and player contract negotiations had not been positive. Other figures in the organisation have closed shop as a result of the heat.
Context is vital. This isn’t an exercise to convince you that no one can be trusted, but rather of the importance of being informed of who is doing the talking.
Myself included. I have previously worked on Cricket Ireland-funded broadcasts of interpros and women’s internationals. However, this summer, on the one occasion I was asked to commentate on a domestic fixture, the production company was told by a CI employee that they could not use me. Does that render all of the above information biased and useless? For some people, it might. One senior figure has accused me of having it in for Cricket Ireland. I disagree, but they are entitled to that opinion. Other readers may have more trust in journalistic professionalism. Either way, it is important that the paying public has all the facts.
The inevitable riposte to this centres on survival. It’s great to have an independent TNT Sports highlighting potential partiality issues live on air, but they pay large sums to broadcast a game in demand. In Ireland’s case, cricket would not be shown if the host board did not fund the broadcast. For the game to survive, it needs to be watched, media impartiality be damned. It would be naive to then expect in-depth, objective analysis to take place on partial platforms.
Live sport is ultimately content, and content is king. Most fans only tune in for the spectacle. They don’t care about governance issues which are ignored because of the name signing the cameraman’s cheque.
Ours is a sad state of affairs. Because it’s a sport, and a minority one at that, state broadcasters won’t step in to ensure there’s a well informed cricket electorate - which itself is the wrong word, given cricket’s governance is not a democracy. If fans want objective analysis, they have to seek it out from a limited number of outlets. Impartiality is important when bodies in receipt of taxpayer funding are in the public eye, but that eye needs to be bigger to preserve independence.
Is there anything which can be done? For fans who do care, the important thing is to make sure you’re informed of who’s doing the talking (this website included). When armed with the required context, it’s up to those who pay for a subscription or buy a jersey to decide on the merits of the information offered.
Over the weekend, we saw refreshing examples in a different sport of transparent broadcasting. Often in cricket, especially in Ireland, that additional information is lacking.