The BBC - Misrepresent Anything? Plug Your Ears!

Something tells me that Andy Murray has learned his lesson.

According to him, what he's said to have said ain't quite what he said.

Ordinarily, I'd think, "Yeah, a likely story." But, unfortunately, I know the credibility of the BBC. So I'm listening, Mr. Murray.

So, you say that your remarks in your interveiw with BBC 5live were taken out of context. OK.

Here is what the BBC says.

Murray told BBC 5live he believed some tennis matches are being fixed - and that all the players are aware of it.

Unequivocal. That's what they say he says.

But click the Interview button in that article and listen. He says NO SUCH THING!

Credibility Score: Murray 1 / Press -1

Where's a quote to that effect in this entire article? Nowhere!

Credibility Score: Murray 1 / Press -2

You don't even hear the question he was answering, do you? No context whatsoever. So, Mr. Murray is telling the truth. His remarks were taken out of context. Why?

Credibility Score: Murray 2 / Press -3

Do Auntie Beeb a favor and read further than the headline, subheadline and first two paragraphs now and then. Always catch what's buried in the second-to-the-last paragraph.

You have Roger Federer saying he knows of no bribe taking. You have Tim Henman saying that he has no first-hand knowledge of bribe OFFERS but has heard rumors of such. He says nothing of any knowledge of bribe TAKING. So, since "all" the players are supposed to know what these two deny knowing, where's one bit of evidence here that doesn't CONTRADICT the BBC's claim? one bit of evidence that players are taking bribes?

Where have I seen that stunt before? Hmmm. Hmmm. Oh, I remember now! The Inquisition used to pull it. If you actually read the pile of testimony under the indictment, you discovered that it all was probative of innocence, not guilt. But of course nobody ever bothered to read much beyond the headlines.

Credibility Score: Murray 2 / Press -4

I note that Andy's repeated efforts in plain English have all somehow failed to inform the press that he wasn't talking about "match fixing." That he was talking about bribe offering.

Who are the press to disagree with him on what he was talking about? They weren't present at the BBC 5live interview. How can they fail to regard Andy as anything but THE authority on what he himself was talking about? Sheesh.

Credibility Score: Murray 2 / Press -5

It isn't just the BBC now. For example, here we have a journalist report:

• Murray's clarification of his remarks as his "trying" to clarify them
• his denial that he was talking about match fixing as his "seeking to clarify" his remarks on - you guessed it - "match fixing."

That ain't credibility.

Credibility Score: Murray 2 / Press -7

match fixing / bribe offering
Journalists are wordsmiths, so don't expect me to believe that they don't know the difference between those two terms.

And here get an eyeful of the press' infuriating stubbornness in head-lining his comments as his "match fixing" comments! (That's for the 70% of readers who read the headlines and maybe the first few sentences only.)

Credibility Score: Murray 2 / Press -8

Murray:

It was taken out of context, I never said once that players fixed matches and that players were involved directly in betting on matches. I did say that there was a lot of betting in tennis and everyone knows that betting within tennis is going on. Three or four of the players have said that they've been offered [bribes to throw] matches, and I definitely said that that stuff goes on but whether players are accepting the money or not, nobody's been [found] guilty and until they have I don't think tennis matches have been fixed. I never said that. I know what I've said and I've spoken to a couple of other players about it and I don't think what I said is as big an issue as has been made out.

The bracketed clarifications are mine. When people speak extemporaneously in a press conference, they constantly misspeak like that. But when it's obvious what they meant, it is unethical for you to take advantage of the error to muddy the quote so that hurried readers miss the point or, worse, interpret it backwards. Honest journalists either indirectly quote accurately or add a bracketed clarification to make clear what the speaker meant.

It's about truth, not word games.

Notice in those articles, how seldom the British press credits the source of the information. How do you check their quotes against a transcript then? They make it sound like Andy said this to them. This makes the American press look good, because the American press would have stated that Andy made his initial remarks in an interview with BBC 5live.

Credibility Score: Murray 2 / Press -9

("Number 9 ... number 9 ... number 9 ... number 9 ....")
This may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Players like Andy have learned a lesson about the press. Let's hope it sticks. For, as Dave Winship pointed last week, tennis must not just be clean; it must be perceived to be clean. Just the perception of corruption could have a devastating effect, and Andy's remarks were used to portray tennis as corrupt. Players must be wary of the press sexing up their remarks on issues like this.

Let's hope they also have learned how important it is for them to immediately report any bribe offers and to name names. If you are a player, any other player taking a bribe is not your friend: he is endangering your livelihood.

And it is good that tennis authorities are taking this seriously. The amount of betting on tennis has skyrocketed. So there WILL be attempts to fix matches. You can count on it.

Tennis must respond by shoring up its defenses against corruption. One weak spot in the battlements is the players who usually lose in the first round. They hardly win enough to cover expenses. That makes them vulnerable to bribery. You not only have to discourage corruption; you have to reduce the temptation to it.

Yes, this may mean that the players at the top may have to get a little less money so that those at the bottom get more. That won't kill anybody.

Why would anyone bribe a low-ranking player to throw a match he's almost certainly going to lose anyway? First, that isn't always as certain as one might think - not against an up-and-comer for example. And, second, this could be done just to implicate a player so that he doesn't dare disobey orders to do some dirty work for the Mob later.

Anyone who thinks the risk of corruption is a minor matter should study some history. The history of professional boxing. Once corruption in a sport gets started, it is very hard to stop. It spreads like gangrene throughout, and the result ain't a pretty sight.

All indications are that tennis is clean. This doesn't mean that no one anywhere has ever taken a bribe, but if that has happened it is rare. Let's take care to keep it that way.

Technorati Tags: tennis