DRS and Indian Media's Deficient Role

See-Sawing Media

Indian media has failed to highlight both sides of the DRS

India’s stand against the DRS is interesting, to some, amusing. Not that the players or the establishment has made a U-turn. They have to be given ‘credit’ for consistently opposing it. It’s of course not fair to the DRS which deserves implementation.

What’s surprising is that our media, newspapers in particular, have started to speak for the DRS system whereas even some four months ago, there was hardly a column written in favour of the system. Was this part of our non-thinking tradition? Even if the ‘fourth estate’ failed to see its advantages and didn’t want it, it should have highlighted the other side of the judgement.

Best though not perfect
The DRS is never meant to be perfect. Theoretically, there will be occasions when the system will ‘by video footage’ deny a borderline decision. However, it will rarely tread the perilous path of awarding one where there is none. This itself is proof of having a state of the art system and worthy of adopting. It can evolve into something better based on the technology of the day anytime in the future. But we should not wait until then.

Is print media in India stuck in some colonial hangover? Can they not think for themselves, for that matter understand that their responsibility even in those early months of DRS should have been to show the other side of the story? Today, when they write in favour of the system, one wonders if newspaper correspondents have just accidentally found a new wise man, maybe a Sobers, or Thompson whose comments they can glibly recite.

Full Story
Therefore this article is more about our media whose obstinacy or non cerebral approach does not allow the Indian audiences to get a grasp of all the facts. The ‘true story,’ (read both sides of the story) is emerging now after an eon has passed, which means that a confused audience will hardly be convinced by the opinions or supposed facts.

To sum up, from the beginning a complete and fair view of the DRS’s pros and cons would have emerged if writers made an effort to either:
• Understand what ICC was actually saying e.g. about balls making an impact with the pad more than a certain distance in front of the stumps, or
• Be the devil’s advocate and present the other side of the opinion.

Gripes
The DRS is after all a worthy technology even given its non benefits. On thinks that maybe some officials in the establishment have been too preoccupied with biases against some countries or just trying to prove how much clout they have. Of course, it’s easy to criticise and perhaps justifiably they are taking the opinion of the players.

Who decides the common vote in India in respect of DRS?

However justifiability here is an oxymoron. One can’t expect players, especially in our country of crazed egos and traditional sentiments, not to mention being influenced by the events of a particular match day to present sound judgment. The matter has to be reviewed by those that have watched, maybe played and importantly thought of the larger good.