Mark Richardson: Forget the truth, just sell a story

Following the inadvertent release of a segment from a Cricket Company story, the week of fallout has been interesting although somewhat frustrating.

The big message to come out of it for me is that broadcast news is nothing more than entertainment dressed up as information. It would appear that the truth is disposable in the pursuit of an angle to sensationalise.

Sure, as far as a scoop is concerned, the item in question was gold. But as for investigative journalism, it would appear listening on the other side of the wall with a glass to the ear is good enough.

The amount of people, so called intelligent people, too, who were prepared to formulate an opinion based on very little information and something in isolation staggered me.

It just shows that when you look at something out of context it can take on a very different and, in this case, sinister appearance. But what is even more staggering is that when given more information and an explanation, many refused to move from their original and misguided positions.

It saddened me the number of people who were turned on by the prospect of dirt or controversy and allowed this to cloud their judgement. One idiot even used it as a chance to have a crack at a third party. Then there was the conspiracy crowd who, no matter what facts you gave them, still found a way to justify their belief and didn't stop short of calling myself and Stephen Fleming liars.

Actually, after the conclusive evidence shown on Thursday's Cricket Company show, I'd still bet they are finding a way to believe the footage in question was for real.

These two groups were so vocal, drooling and numerous, that perhaps the well-known media commentator who questioned my naivety in publishing a book with no dirt on team-mates or administrators was right - it won't sell, even though it leaves readers with something positive and constructive.

Then there has been the high and mighty tut-tuters who have inferred that what Fleming and I did was unwise. But what are we guilty of doing? Trying to provide some lighthearted moments and improve a programme we care for?

If you look at the end product, it was harmless and hurt no one. Funny? Well, obviously that's a matter of personal taste.

Surely I can't be blamed for the leak and when a media release of explanation was given, it didn't seem to matter to anyone.

Mud sticks, it's said, but what mud? Sure, I feel for Stephen Fleming because he's not a nasty person and perhaps his reputation was in jeopardy. I hope the reaction to this has not harmed what has been an excellent rapport I have with him. But as far as my reputation is concerned, so what?

I thought it was standard that sportspeople in this country feared, loathed and generally mistrusted the media to the point they try to control what they have to say - that appears to be the norm in other codes.

I'm disappointed in many of you!

 - HERALD ON SUNDAY