The bloke is obviously a spoof writer and is published for his humour
The internet makes it too easy for people to masquerade as experts and
journalists, and human nature makes it easy for the masqueraders to be
regarded as experts and journalists.
This is the downside of an egalitarian, anarchic medium like the world wide
web. Search engines just tell us where articles that contain certain
combinations of characters can be found. They don't tell us that there's a
difference between, say, Anil and Mike Selvey or ....
... hang on a minute. There's hardly a cricketing journalist who DOESN'T get
rubbished on RSC. We trot out the quotes from whichever source suits us and
rubbish the sources that don't. Our pronouncements about any given report
actually have very little to do with the reputation of the author - though
if we can attack that it helps - and everything to do with our own
Most of us use the media, and especially the web, as a drunk uses a
lamppost - for support, not for illumination. I see web sites run by people
who describe themselves as journalists that say things about South Africa
and it's government that are wildly inaccurate and sometimes outright
mendacious, but these reprots get seized on by disgruntled expats, neo-nazi
organisations and right wingers within SA because it suits their agenda and,
look here, they are writen by journalists. So we know it's not just idle
And most of us are convinced that they know the absolute truth about [fill
in the subject] despite what Roebuck, Benaud, Cozier, CMJ, Brearley, Haigh
or most anybody else might have to say. We're entitled to our own opinion,
and besides it's not opinion, its FACT, but heaven help the poor journo who
dares to go against the tide of the know-it-alls on RSC.
Interesting... another thing that happens on the on-line world is that
instead of journalists exposing their own aukat they help us expose our own.