THE DEBATE: Are journalists too close to administrators and players?

YAY OR NAY?

NO: Says John Etheridge, cricket correspondent of The Sun

Aged 16, and my first week as a messenger/postage boy/tyro hack in Fleet Street. The advice arrived from Reg Hayter, proprietor of the agency that remains the all-time most-successful training ground for sports journalists: “It’s not what you know,” he said, “it’s who you know.” It is as true today as it was in 1977. The best reporters speak to people and, importantly, listen. If you want to read the view from the stands, go to a blog. If you want to know the inside story, go to a newspaper. We inhabit a privileged world and can chat to cricketers on a daily basis.

Sure, it is changing, with access now more formalised, but snippets and home truths can still be gleaned. We need more off-duty contact, not less. It does not mean we are obsequious or compromised in what we write. We still ruffle feathers – I’ve had finger-jabbing arguments with Nasser Hussain, Mike Atherton, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff et al. Most journalists know when to leave players alone but, if no contact existed, you would read bland, uninformed copy.

YES: Says blogger Tregaskis, aka Peter Casterton

This year, Wisden condemned the cricket media for failing to investigate the money-grubbing self-interest behind the Big Three power grab. Last year, it spoke of the “nexus of self-preservation” smoke-screening the incompetence of the ECB. Mutual backslapping was largely supported by a press pack that responded much like raucous backbenchers blindly cheering the minister through a difficult time. The reader is left thinking, wait a minute, why did the press not investigate or report on these issues? Why did the pieces filed align so closely with the press release, the briefing or the world view of those they are meant to scrutinise?

The question exposes a breakdown in trust between the journalist and the reader. Similarly, any writer who gets too close to their source risks compromising their independence. Great as a matey round of golf with a player may be, without professional distance critical assessment and impartiality are jeopardised. The reader is entitled to ask, is the writer being rigorous, has there been verification, are they just protecting a useful pal? It’s a matter of trust and like Caesar’s wife the journalists have to be above suspicion.

The May Debate poll: Has technology in cricket gone too far?

Next month we look at whether umpires should be armed with red and yellow cards...