Mixed bag of reports

IN Opinion | 26/01/2009

FROM THE STANDS

S R Khelkoodkar

Good reporting

Hockey, despite being our national sport, does not get as much space in the newspapers as cricket does. One reason could be that we don’t win at hockey. Well, not enough anyway. For example, India tied the four match test series against Argentina at Mar Del Plata, despite leading the series 2-1 going into the final match. So the real praise must go to the Indian Express and the Hindustan Times for covering the match so well.

The Indian Express had a crisp 220 word report on the final match of the series, while giving some detail about the series itself. Where it was, how it progressed, etc. the report on the match was detailed, giving information about who scored when and what shape India’s forward and defense lines were in. To be fair to the Argentineans, Indian Express gave details about who scored for them and when they scored. All in all, the paper reported hockey well, giving it importance without embarrassment.

Hindustan Times had a similar report, though shorter in length. Around 140 words, the report dealt with the bare facts of the match. With no additional information about the tournament or its progress, the report was bare except for the important details such as who scored for both teams, and the goal times.

Both reports had almost identical last paragraphs which told us about India’s upcoming tournament in Mumbai, the Punjab Gold Cup. Probably taken from the same news agency? That aside, both papers fared well while reporting hockey. That they haven’t given the hockey players a full page spread is because very few people would read it, and also because the players frankly don’t deserve it, yet. What is inexcusable, even if India didn’t win, is the Asian Age’s complete non-coverage of the match. Come on, Asian Age, hockey may be boring now, but it’s still your job to report the news. The others papers had reports that were as good as not having any at all.

Reporting mystery

The Australian Open is always a hotly contested tournament, in the same way as the other three Grand Slams are. Venus Williams, one of the favourites, was knocked out of the tournament. Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray stormed into the third round. Sania Mirza and Mahesh Bhupathi advanced in the tournament in the mixed doubles section while Leander Paes and Rohan Bopanna also advanced, in the men’s doubles section.

While the Indian Express and the Asian Age reported the losses and wins of the foreign players, the Indian contingent received coverage only in the Hindustan Times. An interesting study in news sense, this. The Asian Age doesn’t consider either the Indian hockey team’s exploits or the tennis contingent worthy of mention.

The Indian Express and the Hindustan Times have a fairly large news desk, giving importance to foreigner as well as Indian players. But that alone cannot be the reason for poor coverage by other papers which also have large sports desks. As a newspaper in India, some coverage of Indian teams would be a good idea, no?

The Indian Express had a 140-odd word report on Venus William’s match, which included details about other players as well. With nothing incredible happening in the tournament other than Williams’ ousting, it was only natural that her match took centre stage in the report. However, some more details about the rest of the players would have been welcome.

The Asian Age had a 280 word report on the Australian Open. Again, Venus Williams took the lead and main section of the report. The rest of the report was devoted to other players such as Nadal, Murray, Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina. Now, this is the way a news report on a tournament should be. I don’t need to read any other report to know what happened all day in the tournament. The Hindustan Times, full credit to it, had a report on the Indian contingent in Australia, giving details about Mirza, Bhupathi, Paes and Bopanna.