Peter Williams: Muzzle on Muzza a sad day for free expression

If Murray Mexted has been taken off the air by Sky TV, and we won't know until next season if it's permanent, then it's a sad day for freedom of expression.

But it's entirely consistent with what's been going on in television sports since it became a competitive industry in this country 20 years ago.

Mexted maintains because he criticised the NZRU about their plans to cull four teams from the Air New Zealand Cup, he was taken out of the commentary box for this year's cup final. He also says he received a letter from Sky's director of sport saying that because the pay TV company is a commercial partner with the NZRU, he should refrain from being critical.

I know how Mexted feels. Early in 1990, during an especially dull, rain-affected cricket test between New Zealand and India in Napier, the commentary team that I was part of were pulled aside by the producer before play one morning and told that we were being too negative about the match.

As the game was meandering towards a totally forgettable draw, it was darn hard to get excited about its prospects. This was my first experience of editorial control being exerted by people outside the production team - although in this case, it was not New Zealand Cricket but rather the sales and sponsorship people inside TVNZ.

This was only months after TV3 had come on air and Sky was being launched a few weeks later, so TVNZ was, quite understandably, in audience protection mode and wanted all its on-air product to be seen in the best possible light.

The instruction was met with a high degree of cynicism by the commentators concerned, especially the laconic duo of Grant Nisbett and John Morrison, who just rolled their eyes every time they heard an instruction in their headphones to "talk it up" as a teenage Sachin Tendulkar played out yet another Danny Morrison maiden over.

From about that time on, things in TV sports started changing quite dramatically. Decisions about who would broadcast a particular event started coming not from the executives of the sports production department, but from network bosses more concerned with ratings and satisfying advertisers than with the integrity and honesty of the coverage.

Then the national sports bodies became involved. There were regular meetings between television production staff and the NZRU's fledgling marketing department about how best to promote the game. Relationships between broadcasters and sports bodies are now sophisticated, and neither side wishes to have them upset by rogue comments such as Mexted's.

The irony is that in 1980, very soon after I started in TV, I was pilloried by some senior people for being too cosy with the New Zealand cricket team during some interviews at the famous test win against the West Indies in Dunedin.

Apparently wishing the team "good luck" in a between-innings chat before they set out on their chase for a modest winning target was deemed far too partial. Thirty years on, that kind of attitude and comment isn't just accepted, it's almost compulsory.

The problem with all this coziness is that viewers are not stupid. They know when a game is awful and they expect people on air, especially those like Mexted who have been in the thick of the action, to give strong opinions, not just about the match in front of them but about wider issues surrounding the game.

As our society has become flooded with more and more media during the past two decades, especially of the broadcast type, it's the well-reasoned opinion and honesty which stands out as content that consumers enjoy most.

If the circumstances of the Mexted affair are as they've been stated, then it's a victory for commerce over comment.