Friday, 3 March 2017

Misbah to decide on Test future 'soon'

The Pakistan Super League (PSL) has come and gone - for Misbah-ul-Haq at least - but no decision has emerged on the Pakistan Test captain's future in the game, or at least a decision he is willing to share publicly.
On Wednesday night in Sharjah, after the defending champions Islamabad United were knocked out by Karachi Kings, Misbah said he was planning to meet the board chairman Shaharyar Khan upon his return to Pakistan to let him know about his future plans.
Questions about his future have become a permanent feature at Misbah's press events these days, though they have increased since the Test series defeat in Australia. He was even asked about it by Ramiz Raja in Sharjah at the post-match ceremony following his side's exit.
He has been resolutely non-committal in his responses: before the PSL, he told ESPNcricinfo he would take a call after seeing how he fares in the tournament; during it, he told ESPNcricinfo he was likely to go on Pakistan's next assignment, a tour of the Caribbean, where they are yet to win a Test series.
After Islamabad's defeat, he chuckled when the first question on the subject came up. He was asked about comments he had made in which he suggested he could go to the Caribbean as a player and not as captain.
"I don't understand what you want to hear from me," he said. "I was asked whether I would go as a player or as a captain and this decision is for the cricket board. I have to decide whether I want to play or not, but, obviously, the final authority is always the cricket board on who will or won't be captain."
Part of what will no doubt form any decision is his form. He began the PSL well, with an unbeaten 61 against Lahore in Dubai, but has since trailed off with a series of low scores with low strike rates.
On Wednesday, he was bowled by an Imad Wasim delivery that skidded through his defence. And he admitted afterwards that his lack of runs had "made a difference" to Islamabad's campaign. "It is important to perform in such pressure situations. When, as a senior player you don't contribute, you have pressure on you, on the team."
The words more or less echo those he had been saying while on duty for Pakistan over the last few months: he averaged 15 in four Tests across New Zealand and Australia, and just over 26 if you include the three Tests against West Indies in the UAE just before that.
Given his mode of operation, it is unlikely Shaharyar will make the first move. He has left it to Misbah to inform him of the decision. "I want to decide soon," Misbah said. "I am very happy that the chairman has given me this honour that he has left it to me to decide. I am honoured by that. Obviously, I will tell him sooner rather than later because there's not much time now [to the West Indies tour].
"I will now go to Pakistan and speak to the chairman and tell him whatever my final decision is."

Eden Park redux for series decider

The Big Picture
Neither side has wanted to grasp hold of this series. There has been some impressive cricket from both, headlined by Martin Guptill in Hamilton and AB de Villiers throughout, but also vulnerabilities exposed - perhaps more than expected in the case of South Africa who arrived as the No. 1 side. It has made for compelling viewing.
New Zealand have made it their thing this season to dethrone the top one-day side. Firstly they did it to Australia and now they have done it to South Africa (at least briefly). Whatever the outcome at Eden Park it is unlikely to change each sides' thinking too much in terms of the Champions Trophy, but South Africa have a few unwanted concerns over the middle order while New Zealand remain in a muddle over the wicketkeeping position which has a knock-on impact to the middle order.
Talk of momentum heading into the decider would appear pointless given how New Zealand responded to being bowled out for 112 in Wellington. South Africa need to find a similar reply after being Guptill-ed. If they don't, de Villiers will leave Eden Park with that sinking feeling again.
Form guide

(completed matches, most recent first)
New Zealand WLWLW
South Africa LWLWW
In the spotlight
Tim Southee has had an interesting series. He has bowled some superb deliveries, and his four-over spell of cutters in Hamilton helped throttle the South Africa middle order, but overall he has gone for 6.59. Although it needs to be qualified that he bowled to de Villiers at the death and, crucially, got his yorkers in to seal the Christchurch victory. He returns to the ground where he (just about) held his nerve against Marcus Stoinis' onslaught earlier this season.
AB de Villiers has barely put a foot wrong with the bat - although some help from his middle order would not go amiss - but he now needs to steel himself and his team for a crunch encounter. Was it fate that there would be a deciding match at Eden Park? Before the T20I, he had noticed now much that semi-final was replayed on TV. This is another excuse for the sports channels in New Zealand to re-run the match again.
Team news
New Zealand have added Matt Henry to the squad on duty in Hamilton. It is unlikely they will play two frontline spinners at this ground although Jeetan Patel's offspin added a new dimension to the attack. Henry bowled well in the recent Plunket Shield match, even if it wasn't enough to keep him in the Test squad, while Lockie Ferguson was expensive in the Wellington ODI.
New Zealand (probable) 1 Martin Guptill, Dean Brownlie, 3 Kane Williamson (capt), 4 Ross Taylor, 5 James Neesham, 6 Luke Ronchi (wk), 7 Colin de Grandhomme, 8 Mitchell Santner, 9 Tim Southee, 10 Lockie Ferguson/Matt Henry, 11 Trent Boult
Andile Phehlukwayo sat out the previous match with a tight groin - his changes of pace were missed - but is fit and could rotate with one of the other allrounders. South Africa would have liked a chance to rest Kagiso Rabada, but with the series on the line may find it difficult. After backing from de Villiers, it appears unlikely JP Duminy or David Miller will be replaced by Farhaan Behardien.
South Africa (probable) 1 Hashim Amla, 2 Quinton de Kock (wk), 3 Faf du Plessis, 4 AB de Villiers (capt), 5 JP Duminy, 6 David Miller, 7 Dwaine Pretorius, 8 Wayne Parnell, 9 Andile Phehlukwayo, 10 Kagiso Rabada, 11 Imran Tahir
Pitch and conditions
This could be the truest wicket of a series where the pitches have provided unexpected assistance, especially for the spinners. De Villiers said that Imran Tahir, who took 5 for 24 in the T20I here, would enjoy the extra pace in the wicket. There is the chance of late showers. Rain in an Eden Park match between these two. Where have we seen that before?
Stats and trivia
  • New Zealand have won just two of their nine one-day series against South Africa: 2004 at home and 2013 away.
  • In 73 ODIs at Eden Park, New Zealand's record is level-pegging: 34 wins and 34 losses (with two ties and three no results)
  • AB de Villiers averages 203 against New Zealand on their home soil. He has only been dismissed three times in 11 innings. The most runs by a visiting batsman to New Zealand in a series of up to five matches is Rahul Dravid's 309 in 1998-99 - De Villiers is on 239.
Quotes
"Really looking forward to it, it's a nice challenge for us as team. Don't think this series has seen the best cricket we capable of, so tomorrow is a little opportunity to play in big pressure game."
Faf du Plessis
"I don't think either side has played the perfect game. There have been patches of brilliance but not a complete performance."
Tim Southee

Can assure you won't see a performance like that again: Kohli

Virat Kohli, the Indian captain, on Friday (March 3) said that the 333-run loss in the first Test of the four-match series provided India with an opportunity to understand where they were lacking and what areas the team needed to work on. When asked on the combination that India were going to play in the second Test in Bangalore, the skipper didn't commit to any on the eve of the match. All that and more from the press conference in Bangalore.
Excerpts:
Importance of restricting Steve Smith
Our focus is not only him. I think the whole team has to play well against Australia to win a Test match. That is something that we have identified. We are not focusing on one player at all. As I said last time, if we don't grab on to our chances, it doesn't matter how many runs someone ends up scoring. Basically, what was in our control, we did not execute that. So we are not focusing on one player only. The whole ten wickets have to be taken twice to win a Test match and that's something that we already know.
Do you think losses like Galle, Pune galvanise the team better?
I think it's an opportunity to understand what other things we still need to work on. We are all professional cricketers, but sometimes when you are winning a lot of games, you don't tend to focus on points that need to be improved as such because someone or the other is stepping up. When the whole team does not execute the things that you want to, you understand the things that you need to work on as a team. That's always a good sign. We got to know a lot more things that we need to still keep working on to be the top side in the world. As I said last time, you can't take anything for granted at any stage of a Test match. It's something that you look as an opportunity to learn rather than a setback. I think these things are also important for your cricket journey.
Is everyone available for selection?
Hardik Pandya is not available for selection. He has a niggle in his shoulder. So yeah, he's not fit to be available for selection. Rest of them are. Combinations, I won't let it out right now but we do have two or three combinations that we are looking at. We'll see what works best for this surface.
How's the morale of the side?
Sometimes such losses are necessary for the team. We have to test a lot of things. We look at it as a chance to improve some of the things that we need to win a Test match. We already know but sometimes you can't do it all. Very rarely does it happen that the full team doesn't contribute, it was one such Test for us. We got to learn a lot from the Test and our intention remains the same that we try and win. I think that's one thing that we have done consistently, it becomes very important to practice consistently to perform consistently. When we win, we have to practice with intensity and even when we lose we have to practice with the same intensity. Basically, seeing the result you can't change the way you practice.
Steve Smith suggests you will be under pressure...
Me? Does it look like? I'm pretty relaxed, I'm happy, I'm smiling. It's fine. It's his view, whatever he wants to say.
Thoughts on having to face Starc on this pitch?
I don't think there is going to be any extra variation added to his bowling suddenly. He is the bowler he is. We've got to accept that and we've got to face him the best way possible that we can as batsmen. That's all we look at. We're not looking too much into it. I think it's time to focus on our skills rather than what Australia is saying or preparing like. I know these mind-games, and these press conferences are something they're very good at. We're still going to play the cricket that we played in the last two years and see where the series ends in the fourth game.
Disappointed that after winning so many Tests and after one defeat people start criticising you?
I felt this sort of strange energy that some people were quite excited about the fact that they had something to write about the team after two years. Yeah, the pitch came into contention and the players' mindset and skills and pressure and whatnot, everything came into contention. It's fine, some people would have made more out of their jobs in those few days, I guess. Us as a team, we never got excited by praise, we don't focus on criticism either. What we focus on is what we think of each other as individuals in the change room and the respect that we maintain there. We take losses together, we take wins together and that's how we move forward as a team. That's one reason that we ended up having that streak, which we didn't expect honestly. It became a streak eventually. Our focus was to win games, every game that we play. And the focus remains the same, it doesn't matter whether we lose or we win, it's the way we play. Last game was a disappointment in the way we played, it wasn't more about the result - we've lost before, but we've lost fighting hard. But when you don't have enough intent during the game, that's when it hurts you. I think that's all that we made of it. The comments or headlines don't matter to us, they never have and we don't base our cricket on that.
You lost from a winning position in Galle. How inspiring is that example?
You look at the situation differently. It's similar to when you go into bat or bowl. You try to break a partnership by taking three wickets in a spell. You perceive the situation differently than other guys in the field and that's where you can make a difference. Similarly with batting, a situation might look difficult but if you believe that you can win from there, things start happening. We have more belief and more experience in the team right now than we did back then (Galle). I can assure you that everyone's taking this as a massive challenge. Everyone's raring to turn things around in the series and play the kind of cricket we know we can play, not take a backward step at any stage.
Long time since India lost. Have the players been sharper in training?
We don't necessarily push people to practise in different ways because every individual has his own way of preparing for the game. But in terms of mindset we have made a conscious push to go out there and express ourselves without thinking what if. Individuals want to play their natural game they should; they want to bowl a certain way and they should, not thinking about the outcome necessarily. There won't be any hesitation from here on till the end of the series from our side. That's something we've addressed. Practice has always been similar, win or lose. That's how you become consistent as a team, when you repeat the same things day in and day out. We have a set pattern of practise we always execute before every Test match and this time is no different. When you lose because of lack of intent, those things need to be addressed and we've done that.
Jayant Yadav to be replaced by Kuldeep? And Ishant to be replaced by Bhuvi?
These are perceptions. We have our ideas; we will go in with the best combination possible. Jayant has been outstanding. You can't put too much pressure on a guy who's played just one series. He's been brilliant so far; the way he's grabbed his spot has been outstanding. He's a very intelligent cricketer. All of us go through the grind. We have good games, bad games, off days as well. Pune wasn't his best game. I won't sit here and judge him because he's played only a few games but he knows how to turn things around and get back into that mindset he started his first series with. I'm sure he'll get back into that zone. As far as the combinations are concerned, we are studying a lot of options. Eventually we'll come to a conclusion thisevening...on what is the XI we want to go with. But yes, all kinds of possibilities tomorrow...might be a few surprises.
When do you decide?
We have a combination that we think of. And then we take a couple of days to convince ourselves. Finally if everyone's on the same page then you go ahead with the combination. More often than not, that ends up being the case. We all agree on the same XI. We're almost there. We will be there in a couple of hours.
Nature of the wicket?
I've played a lot of games here; I don't think the wicket has changed over the years at all. It looks like a typical Bangalore wicket. There's no surprises about the wicket. Whenever we've played Test cricket here we've done really well. We take all those things into account and we always play well at this stadium. The last time we played here against Australia, we won. Those things are big positives for us. We know exactly how the wicket plays. We know exactly what to do.
Combination - five bowlers?
We're studying a lot of options. I can't say whether five bowlers will play or four will play or how many batsmen will play. That should be left up to the team management to decide. I don't want to say something here only for us to end up playing someone else. Then you guys will rip me apart in the next PC. Why give you the pleasure?
Raat gayi, baat gayi. Importance offorgetting the pas and moving on?
It's very important, sir. Obviously you will want to forget a bad result but it's important that you take it to heart. It's important that you learn from it. If you ignore it then you can't improve. It's important to accept that we lost the Test match because of a lack of intent and because the other team played better cricket than us. If your ego is hurt and you ignore it then that thing piles on. We know we didn't play well and Australia did; that doesn't mean that will happen in every Test match. If you play well every day, every session, then you will win the Test match. We didn't do that. You will not get to see a performance like that again; that I can assure you

Wednesday, 1 March 2017

A new study says young Americans have a broad definition of news

Younger Americans have a broad definition of news that expands beyond the output of traditional news organizations and includes information gleaned from social media and user-generated content, according to a report out Wednesday from the Data & Society Research Institute.

“I think you have to really just listen to everything, and then pick out what you believe and what you think is really truthful,” said a 22-year-old African-American female who participated in the survey.

The report is based on focus groups with 52 people in their teens and 20s that were conducted last summer in Chicago, Charlotte, and Philadelphia. (Disclosure: The report was funded by the Knight Foundation, which also supports Nieman Lab.) Here are some of the report’s main takeaways:

Young people are accessing news in more ways than ever
A Pew study released last year found that 44 percent of Americans access news on Facebook. These focus groups found that younger news consumers tend to stumble upon news by accident or when they are utilizing various social platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat.
“[I was] not purposefully looking for it. Like Facebook, you get a notification for Facebook or something and you click on it and you start scrolling,” a 16-year-old white female told the researchers. “You’re going to find a bunch of news articles that you didn’t necessarily go there to see, but you’re going to see them and you’re going to click on them…I wouldn’t know a lot of the news if I didn’t go on Facebook and just look through it. Like the Orlando shootings — that’s how I found out about it, through Facebook.”
“If I don’t see it on social media, I’m not going to hear it,” a 17-year-old African-American said.
However, many of the participants said they were reluctant to share news and their thoughts on the news on social platforms publicly. Instead, many said that they will send links or screenshots to friends in messaging apps or other more private channels:
Many young people remove content from its original platform and share it through other means and channels. Some described cutting and pasting a link into a text message or screen shotting stories to send to friends through a third-party messaging app. Screen shotting was preferred by some to sending links because it provides a quick overview of the story while eliminating the need to click through advertisements.

Young adults say they don’t trust the media

The study says “the most striking point of consensus across the groups was their shared lack of trust in the news media.”
“Even if it’s factual, it may be sort of tainted,” a 23-year-old Hispanic and African-American female said.
Still, the participants said they tend to trust specific outlets and will often check multiple sources of information for stories they’re following. Some also said they were concerned about the algorithms that control Facebook’s News Feed.
“The problem with Facebook is if it constantly just shows you the stuff you want to see, it can create like a echo chamber, and you can really become very entrenched in your own opinion, and you won’t be able to understand people who have different views,” a 16-year-old white male said.
But with most young people using their mobile devices to consume information, the way stories are rendered on phones can also have an impact on trust levels, the study found:
Ads that are not overly intrusive, navigability on mobile phones, quick load times and having the latest details of a story are all critical factors for establishing trust that were mentioned in our groups and have been highlighted in other recent research. Trust in a news source often implies an emotional connection and a relationship of convenience.

Live video and user-generated content are seen as trustworthy

The participants said that they tend to trust videos from protesters or participants more than coverage from traditional news media.
“I’ll believe your [citizen-captured] video before I’ll believe theirs,” a 17-year-old African American said. “Because they will tamper with theirs. Why would you tamper with yours? They tamper with theirs to get more views for it so more people will watch their channel to see the news. You don’t have to do that. You just add a video. Why would you tamper with it?”
The focus groups were conducted last summer around the time of the deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota at the hands of police officers, where videos taken by bystanders differed from the official narrative put forward by the authorities.
“In situations where there is a dispute over how events played out, video is seen as a powerful (if imperfect) way to challenge mainstream media coverage of controversial news events,” the report says.

Friday, 24 February 2017

Trump administration bars several news organisations from White House briefing

The White House excluded several major US news organisations, including some it has criticised, from an off-camera briefing held by the White House press secretary on Friday.
Reporters for CNN, The New York Times, Politico, The Los Angeles Times and BuzzFeed were not allowed into the session in the office of press secretary Sean Spicer.
Spicer's off-camera briefing, or "gaggle," replaced the usual televised daily news briefing in the White House briefing room.
He did not say why those particular news organisations were excluded, a decision which drew strong protests.
Reuters was included in the session, along with about 10 other news organisations, including Bloomberg and CBS.
President Donald Trump has regularly attacked the media and at a gathering of conservative activists on Friday he criticised news organisations that he said provide "fake news", calling them the "enemy" of the American people.
Spicer said his team decided to have a gaggle in his office on Friday instead of a full briefing in the larger White House briefing room and argued that “we don´t need to do everything on camera every day.”
Reporters at the Associated Press and Time magazine walked out of the briefing when hearing that others had been barred from the session.
Off-camera gaggles are not unusual. The White House often invites handpicked outlets in for briefings, typically for specific topics.
But briefings and gaggles in the White House are usually open to all outlets and they are free to ask anything.
A pool reporter from Hearst Newspapers was included in the gaggle on Friday and gave full details to the entire press corps.
Media outlets allowed into the gaggle also shared their audio with others.
Spicer's decision drew a sharp response from some of the media outlets that were excluded.
"Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties," Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, said in a statement.
"We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organisations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest."
The White House Correspondents Association, or WHCA, also protested. "The WHCA board is protesting strongly against how today´s gaggle is being handled by the White House," said Jeff Mason, president of the association and a Reuters reporter.
During the election campaign last year, Trump´s team banned a few news organisations, including The Washington Post and BuzzFeed, from covering his campaign rallies for a period of time to protest their coverage.
CNN posted a Twitter message on Friday afternoon saying, "This is an unacceptable development by the Trump White House. Apparently, this is how they retaliate when you report facts they don’t like. We’ll keep reporting regardless.”
Ben Smith, editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News, said in a statement, "While we strongly object to the White House´s apparent attempt to punish news outlets whose coverage it does not like, we won´t let these latest antics distract us from continuing to cover this administration fairly and aggressively."
On Friday, Spicer said the White House plans to fight against what it says is unfair coverage. "I think we’re going to aggressively push back," he said.

"We’re just not going to sit back and let false narratives, false stories, inaccurate facts get out there."

Multiple news outlets denied access to White House press briefing

The White House barred several news organizations from an off-camera press briefing on Friday, handpicking a select group of reporters that included a number of conservative outlets friendly toward Donald Trump.
The “gaggle” with Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, took place in lieu of his daily briefing and was originally scheduled as an on-camera event.
But the White House press office announced later in the day that the Q&A session would take place off camera before only an “expanded pool” of journalists, and in Spicer’s West Wing office as opposed to the James S Brady press briefing room where it is typically held.
Outlets seeking to gain entry whose requests were denied included the Guardian, the New York Times, Politico, CNN, BuzzFeed, the BBC, the Daily Mail and others. Conservative publications such as Breitbart News, the One America News Network and the Washington Times were allowed into the meeting, as well as TV networks CBS, NBC, Fox and ABC. The Associated Press and Time were invited but boycotted the briefing.
The decision to limit access to Spicer, hours after Trump once again declared that much of the media was “the enemy of the American people” while speaking at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, marked a dramatic shift.
While prior administrations have occasionally held background briefings with smaller groups of reporters, it is highly unusual for the White House to cherry-pick which media outlets can participate in what would have otherwise been the press secretary’s televised daily briefing. The briefing has become indispensable viewing for journalists trying to interpret the often contradictory statements coming out of the Trump administration, and Spicer’s aggressive handling of the press and delivery of false or misleading statements have already been memorably mocked on NBC’s Saturday Night Live.
“Gaggles” – more informal briefings – with the press secretary are traditionally only limited to the pool when they conflict with the president’s travel, in which case they often take place aboard Air Force One. At times, impromptu gaggles form with reporters who spend their days in the White House, but denying outlets wishing to participate is extremely uncommon.
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
Mute
Pinterest
 Trump at CPAC: I oppose fake news, not the media
The White House Correspondents Association president, Jeff Mason, said the organization’s board was “protesting strongly” against the Trump administration’s action.
“We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not,” Mason said. “The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”
The executive editor of the New York Times, Dean Baquet, said “nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties”.
Stephanie Grisham, a spokeswoman for the White House, said: “Claims that outlets were excluded are not factual.”
In a statement, she added: “The pool was there, so various media mediums were represented.” The pool is a system by which a small group of reporters take turns covering the president and share their reports of his activities with a larger group.
Contrary to Grisham’s statement, outlets who made requests to attend were told this would not be permitted.
When the Guardian asked to participate, pointing to its possession of a “hard pass” that grants daily entry to the White House, an official declined.
“No, unfortunately a hard pass does not necessarily guarantee entry into the gaggle,” Catherine Hicks, a junior White House press aide, emailed in response.
“The gaggle today is just today’s pool with the addition of a few others here at the White House.”
Some outlets lingered in the West Wing hallway out of frustration but were asked by a Secret Service agent, upon instructions from the White House press office, to leave the area.
Earlier on Friday, Trump continued his assault on the press in a speech before the nation’s largest gathering of conservative activists. 
He said the press should not be allowed to use anonymous sources, a restriction on free speech he has not suggested before. “You will see stories dry up like you have never seen before,” Trump predicted.
“As you saw throughout the entire campaign, and even now, the fake news doesn’t tell the truth,” Trump said at CPAC
“I say it doesn’t represent the people, it never will represent the people, and we’re going to do something about it.”
Trump’s comments came on the heels of revelations that his chief of staff spoke with top officials at the FBI about the bureau’s investigation into potential links between the president’s associates and Russia. The White House lambasted the reports, which appeared in CNN and the Associated Press, but in doing so confirmed the conversations between Reince Priebus, the FBI director, James Comey, and his deputy, Andrew McCabe.
The decision by Trump’s administration to restrict access to the press for Spicer’s briefing prompted at least some seasoned reporters to observe that the White House had successfully changed the topic:
Spicer defended his move in the off-camera gaggle, telling reporters at the private briefing that he was keeping with a promise “to hold sort of gathering [with the press] every day”.
“The president spoke today. As you know we don’t generally do – we haven’t done briefings when the president’s had a major event or an event with a world leader,” Spicer said. Events with world leaders typically include at least a few press questions; Trump’s appearance at CPAC was a speech with no questions.
Spicer added: “We want to make sure we answer your questions, but we don’t need to do everything on camera every day.”