Of leaks, gags and lacks

If the BCCI has a priority list as part of its drive to become more professional, the setting up of an active media and communication wing must head it. A fresh example of that need was underlined recently.

Last week VVS Laxman did not play in Hyderabad's Ranji Trophy tie in Mumbai. The media were naturally interested in his absence. When asked, both Kanwaljit Singh, Hyderabad's coach, and Vijay Bharatiya, the physio, said Laxman had aggravated a heel injury he had picked up during the previous round, and that he was recuperating. Bharatiya predicted a rest period of about a week or two.

The next day Laxman, not pleased by the media reports, called journalists in Mumbai and Hyderabad to say the injury was not as serious as it was being made out to be. He was probably concerned the national selectors, who were to pick the squad for the England Test series in a couple of days, would get the wrong idea about his fitness. In fact, it turned out the BCCI had composed a letter to Laxman, asking him to produce a medical certificate to prove his fitness. That letter was never sent, after the Hyderabad Cricket Association issued a clarification in the nick of time, stating that there had been a communication problem.

Kanwaljit and Bharatiya were swift to vociferously deny the comments made on the eve of the game, and fingers were duly pointed at the media.

There have been many such instances of chaos, especially frequent when team selections are imminent, and also when any news does emerge out of the Cricket Centre in Mumbai, the BCCI headquarters.

There is a simple fix: Have in place a structured media management unit, which will be the dedicated point of contact between the media and the BCCI. Such a system will bring immense clarity, and consequently contribute to balanced and accurate media coverage.

There are enough examples around for the BCCI to take a lead from. The ICC, Australia, England, South Africa, West Indies all have dedicated media wings. Even Bangladesh has a media manager who travels with the national team, a position India has never had on a permanent basis. This lack is of a piece with the way Indian cricket has traditionally been run. The administration has only now, reluctantly it would seem, been made even somewhat professional; the board's website is updated at leisure; and there are no media protocols whatsoever.

The BCCI may say they have started to put a media appratus in place by having a manager for media relations and corporate affairs, but he is ill-equipped to handle the media's queries. Take the example of Indian squad selections. The media wants details, but the media manager, even if he has the necessary information, is not in a position to divulge it. It is harsh to blame him, though, because he clearly has not been given authority to respond in any substantial manner to media queries.

By setting up a dedicated media apparatus, the BCCI can save itself a lot of trouble. Take the case of team selection. The media taps their contacts on the selection panel or in the board administration for leads on which players are in favour and which ones might be dropped. Once the team is declared, the BCCI just releases the list of the names in the squad without offering any explanations about notable inclusions or exclusions. By contrast, in almost every other country the media department issues a brief comment on the team selection.

The lack of officially dispensed information forces the media to speculate or look for loose-lipped officials who will spill the beans. The recent controversy about alleged differences between Mahendra Singh Dhoni and the selectors over the selection of RP Singh for the ODI series against England is a case in point. Dhoni went public, rightly, admonishing those responsible for the leak. The BCCI, for its part, went into damage-control mode and forbade the selectors from speaking to the media.

The BCCI's gag orders, which are issued periodically, smack of hypocrisy: on the one hand players and selectors are banned from speaking to the media, but some top officials in the administration have themselves been guilty of planting news in the media. How else do you explain the stories that emerge almost daily in newspapers and on TV channels, attributed to unnamed BCCI sources?

Rather than just having a media manager for the India team and the state teams, the focus should be on having a full media-management unit in place. In countries where the boards have dedicated media units, there is a staff of two or three who handle three aspects. Firstly, overall media management, which involves creating protocols for dealings with the media and organising a smooth-running framework to ensure there is an ongoing positive relationship between the media and the board. Second: team-media relations, where media managers relay information about the team and its members to the press in a timely and accurate manner. And thirdly, the day-to-day handling of home events, which includes among other things, overseeing media accreditation, seating and other facilities; liaising with media persons; and providing media kits and other information to do with the sponsors or the board when required.

Having such a structure in place makes things so much easier for everyone. Had a system of this sort been in place, the whole Laxman incident could easily have been avoided. You would have had a media manager who would have spoken to the relevant chief selector, the coach and Laxman himself, and then, at a media briefing, put out a statement even before the question was asked.