FROM THE STANDS
S R Khelkoodkar
Someone complained that this column carps too much. So I have decided this one will be an analysis of what importance they have given to various stories. The approaches are different, and none are wrong. Some are just more right. Satisfied?
The Times of India
True to form, the Times of India focused on the glamour side of cricket. Dhoni and Co, as the TOI referred to them, unveiled the Indian team¿s new One Day jersey. The lead photograph was a blow-up of Dhoni posing while wearing it. It certainly grabs the reader¿s attention, which is the point, so fine. The Chennai edition of the paper filled almost a quarter of their sports page with a history of the jerseys the Indian cricket team has ever worn. A little too much importance here, would you not say, Excellencies? We all know the readers are idiots, but should the newspaper behave like one too?
The upcoming India tour of New Zealand was the lead and they did well with the treatment. There were three different stories under a single umbrella headline. One single column story informed the reader that Dhoni and Kirsten were confident about India¿s chances. Another three column story was about Srinath saying that a third seamer would be vital in the series. Both these stories were important because of the people mentioned. Dhoni, as captain, and Kirsten as coach, both deserve to have their opinions heard or read. Srinath, the old soldier, on the strength of his achievements for India, also deserves a hearing.
The England-West Indies test match was second lead. The headline ¿Swann skittles WI out for 285¿ reveals the angle that the Times of India was taking regarding the match. The piece focused on England¿s achievements in the match, barely mentioning the West Indies. Just a mistake or the reporter¿s bias?
The anchor story was about how Shahrukh Khan was no longer a brand ambassador for Pepsi, after ten years. How is this a sports story, or even a sports feature? It has no place on the page. Just because he is ¿the badshah¿ it doesn¿t mean that he can be put on any page.
The Indian Express
The India tour of New Zealand took the lead in this paper as well, with several pictures of the various players leaving for the series. The shoulder of the story also gave the news that Kirsten was confident about India¿s chances in New Zealand. The paper also provided a small box giving the history of all India-New Zealand clashes in all formats of the game. Irrelevant to the result of the upcoming tournament, but interesting nevertheless.
High up on the page, there was a large black box on Sachin Tendulkar. It had excerpts from an interview where he talked about his reactions to the adulation of millions of fans. This works. Even if what he is saying has no real bearing to sports, it is still Sachin Tendulkar saying it, and the nation will read anything he says, no matter how irrelevant.
The England-West Indies test match was also prominent on the page. However, there was a completely contradictory headline to the one in the TOI. ¿England¿s victory bid on hold¿ and a shoulder that said ¿Chanderpaul, Sarwan hold after rain delays start¿. Sounds optimistic for the West Indians, doesn¿t it?
The Hindu
The test match got a lot of space. The paper sided with the Windies as well, with a headline that read ¿Sarwan, Canderpaul hold the fort¿.
Manchester United was given more space than the Indian cricket team. This, I think, is a big no-no. Yes, so Man U had beaten Fulham and had extended its lead over Liverpool, but that doesn¿t mean it should get more space than the Indian cricket team, which is doing so well, and is heading to New Zealand for a series.
The Indian cricket team was represented by a longish piece on Robin Singh and a barely 200 word report saying that the Indian team was leaving, hidden in a corner.
The Hindu relishes being boring, it seems. Why don¿t they get an imagination, if only a small one.