Press Censorship provides Minor Blot on Famous Win

It is a real shame that when I read the papers tomorrow, or look at websites today there are no photos from the Second Test between India and England. It just adds to the other farcical elements on this tour - Sky having their commentators in Isleworth, BBC TV reports having to be delivered by phone from outside the ground etc.

I fully support the action taken by the British media in the interests of a free press.

The BCCI's policy towards photographers has the potential to severely damage the interests of independent photographers (an industry which has sadly already been damaged by the growth of agencies), as well as setting a precedent which if repeated would be highly damaging to the photographic agencies and their photographers who specialise in cricket. The work of these specialists is thus at risk of being marginalised, with the photographs that are provided of a considerably lower standard: of the seven of this morning's play on the BCCI website I would say that only one, maybe two, is of publishable standard for a broadsheet newspaper.

In addition, it creates the impression of a Soviet-style partisan media, with the BCCI unlikely to provide images which display it in a negative light.

As I've said before my late father was a freelance golf photographer, and had similar issues with the Augusta National - where, despite the reputation he'd built up as a leader in his field, he often had difficulty gaining accreditation. This was part of a wider pattern which has seen the work of the independent photographer marginalised first by the emergence and dominance of agencies like Getty Images, and now it seems by moves to centralise the photography made available. Whilst this may have gone unnoticed to the average newspaper reader, the net result is that the photographs people see in their papers today are rarely of the same quality as those taken in the past, as papers see it as cheaper to sign contracts with agencies than pay more for the slightly better photo. This would certainly be the case with centralised photographers - an established independent with a high reputation as a member of the media is unlikely to want to work under the restrictions imposed by the BCCI. Therefore, we can assume that the photographer responsible for the pictures we are seeing is probably the cheapest, rather than the best available.

End of rant.