Media ethics paper

Critically assess the following: ‘Is a good journalist one with high principles or one who brings his employer, within the deadline, stories that will boost circulation’?

In the book Journalism, Ethics and Regulation 2nd edition, the author Chris Frost attempts to fully examine and analyse the ideas and principles behind ethics and morality and how these themes can be applied to journalism. Frost looks at the arguments for media ethics and considers the question of whether a good journalist should be defined by the moral and ethical principles that they adhere to or the number of stories and the amount of circulation they provide.

He begins by applying the idea of ethics to a common journalism case: ‘At their most praiseworthy, the journalist’s tussles are going to be between the right of the public to know and some other moral tenet - perhaps the invasion of an individual’s privacy - which would militate against publication’.

Frost sums up the issue of media ethics quite succinctly in that he implies a common struggle. The very idea of journalism ethics revolves around the right of the public to know information. If a journalist’s duty is to report the truth then one can argue that the public have a right to know what is happening truthfully. However, the pursuit of these truths can be a difficult path for a reporter to take as it may involve, as mentioned, an invasion of privacy or a period of apparent harassment. It may not necessarily be about getting the truth to the people but about how the journalist gets that truth in the first place.

Frost then provides an argument against the right to know of the public and claims that this ideal has fundamentally led to the creation of what he terms ‘circulation-boosting journalism’. “All too often the right to know is used as an excuse to publish circulation-boosting journalism. Whether this is designed to appeal to reader’s prurient natures or pander to their prejudices does not seem to matter as long as there is a profit to be made from increasing sales.”

What Frost is trying to imply is that the rise of ‘soft’ news (e.g. entertainment/celebrity stories, ones that are considered to be trivial and insignificant by comparison) has been exacerbated by the idea that the public have a right to know absolutely everything.

Matthew Kieran, in his book Media Ethics: A philosophical approach, provides a plausible explanation by saying that light news stories do have a function. “At best, an entertainment story may serve as a light-hearted leavener between the real news of significant events and disasters. Thus a story about Princess Diana and her children going white-water rafting in Aspen might be a therapeutic sweetener at the end of a bulletin cataloguing the latest serial killing, the day's proceedings of the 0 . J. Simpson trial, the disasters in Bosnia, or some current dispute between the president and the White House.”

It is clear that these types of stories do serve a purpose. Frost’s insistence that they are written mainly to boost newspaper sales may be true but there is a public demand for them. It may not be considered ‘hard’ news and, in some quarters, it may not be considered as real journalism. But if it is truthful, well researched and in the interest of the audience then it should be considered no less a journalistic piece than any other.

Frost then discusses the difficulty of ethics in journalism, stating that a perfectly ethical journalist is very much an almost impossible concept. “A reasonable definition of a good journalist is 'someone who gathers, in a morally justifiable way, topical, truthful, factually-based information of interest to the reader or viewer and then publishes it in a timely and accurate manner to a mass audience'. However, all too often journalism falls far short of this ideal.” He opines that many see the ability to ‘get the story’ as the yardstick by which a good journalist should be measured.

He goes on to imply that the means taken to access the story aren’t as important. “How the news was gathered and sourced, together with the degree of accuracy, would seem to be secondary considerations in this definition of a 'good journalist'. 'Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story' is an instruction that has been heard in more than one newsroom.” This description of journalistic values would seem to point to the notion that a good journalist is simply one who provides stories time and again which boost circulation of the publication. This theory certainly removes credit from the idea that journalism is a noble and high-principled profession.

It’s a long running argument; is money the key factor and motivation in journalism or is it about seeking the truth? In an interview with ZENIT, journalist and author Gabriel Galdon, a professor of journalism at Madrid’s CEU St. Paul University, states clearly his belief in high-principled reporting rather than consumerism. “Journalism's mission is to proclaim the truth that is good and the truth that serves for the good of society. Obviously a newspaper does not cover everything that has happened in the world. There must always be choice. That choice can be made with various things in mind: trends, looking to satisfy a certain audience, economic interests, power, etc. It can also be made by following the criteria that to seek truth is good, which citizens need to know to be freer and have more dignity.”

Perhaps the answer is a simple one. Frost goes on to suggest that a good journalist needs to be a bit of both. They need to be able to gather news stories in a fair and accurate way yet they need to be able to provide as much circulation as possible at the same time. If there’s a lack of stories then people won’t buy the newspaper and if there’s no newspaper, then what purpose does the journalist have then?

In a perfect world, it would seem that the arguments for good ethics do seem are stacking up. A high principled journalist will do all the things that Frost mentions; gather stories fairly, report the truth as accurately as possible, be careful not to impeach on any strict harassment rules. As a result, the stories produced will be honest and the readers will form a trust with that reporter, which is an essential component in the relationship between reporter and reader. Without trust, the journalist loses credibility in what they are saying and could be deemed a ‘bad’ journalist.

Lecha Neace, in an article on helium.com, says, “You want to say, ‘a journalist has to be honest’ but this is not always the case. There are so many types of journalism in the world. Yes, there is the journalist that stands politically correct, and then there is the kind that writes about things that are not so true. Journalism should be completely honest, have integrity, they should be accurate, they should avoid stereotyping, they should give a voice for those who don't have one, make sure to tell both sides of the story (if there are two sides), and always show respect in their work towards everyone. Good journalism is something that is priceless.”

It certainly highlights the pressures in which journalists work these days. With all these apparent ethical requirements - honesty, integrity, identifying sources, etc - it’s a wonder that any are considered to be highly principled when they have to contend with so much when writing a story. And it lends support to the reporter who is more interested in churning out stories to tight deadlines (regardless of how they gathered the story) than taking the time to be 100% accurate and honest in order to please the reader. Frost sums up the situation succinctly in the quote, “All too often a journalist can forget his or her loyalties to the reader in the rush to show loyalty to his or her employer.”

It could just, however, be a case of what counts as high principles. What is regarded as good ethical judgment for a journalist? Is it simply an idea of moral obligations to do what is judged as ‘the right thing’?

The principle of utilitarianism is widely accepted as a valid ethical system and is one that can have sizeable appeal for journalists. People who believe in utilitarianism believe that an action that brings more beneficial effects than detrimental ones must be the right action. In essence, it’s a case of the positives outweighing the negatives. Frost uses the following example to demonstrate it’s pull for journalists: “It justifies, for example, ruining the life of a children’s home superintendent by exposing him as a child abuser on the basis that it has saved children of the future for a good deal of misery.”

There are problems with this system however, as Frost points out. “For instance, one could justify the killing of a homeless down-and-out who has no family in order that his organs could be donated to several desperately ill patients on the basis that four people could live with consequent benefits to their families for the loss of only one life.” By using utilitarianism, an evil act can be defensible, provided that as a result there is an increase in happiness.

Perhaps a significant ethical theory is the concept of duty ethics, developed by Immanuel Kant. Kant determined that a moral act was one that followed only obligation and duty to others. Frost goes into more detail on Kant’s theory, explaining the implications for journalists. “Kant's theory allows the development of a set of universal laws for journalists that can be applied in many varied circumstances. Kant also believed that one would have to examine the motives of a person to see whether their behaviour was good or bad. If they acted solely from a sense of duty and not out of self-interest, then their action could well be morally justifiable no matter what the consequences. If a journalist were to report something that was not true, despite thorough checking (perhaps he or she had been lied to), then the journalist could not be blamed for the consequences, even if these were damaging.”

However, Kant’s theory raises a problem when you consider conflicts of interest. Kant uses the examples of a journalist being asked by the police not to publish a story about a kidnap in order to protect the victims life. How could the journalist not publish a story of such public interest? Yet, it must also be a duty to protect the victims life? Frost sums up the situation with the quote, “Since much of the ethical debate within the media is balancing the right to publish against some other right, such as a person’s right to privacy, Kant is not always that helpful.”

The debate is set to rage on. There are compelling arguments to suggest that being a good journalist requires impeccable ethical standards, just as the need for circulation would paint the picture of a good journalist being one who provides as many stories as possible, with little regard to preparation. In many cases, a sense of context is required. It’s very easy to cling to principles and ethics when sometimes the truth just needs to be reported regardless of damaging consequences. Just as at times a sensitive and moral approach is required to gaining as much as one can from a story.

Perhaps the opinion of today’s journalists is the most important one and it would appear that ethics are becoming secondary concerns. Andrew Marr sums up the cynical view in My Trade: A Short History of British Journalism when he suggests that the phrase 'responsible journalism' should be ignored: “Responsible to whom? The state? Never. To ‘the people‘? But which people, and of what views? To the readers? It is vanity to think you know them. Responsible, then to some general belief in truth and accuracy? Well that would be nice.”

(University essay on Media Ethics, 2009)

Broad at seven and no Bell

Not that I'm an England selector or have anywhere near the credentials required for such a role but here follows my gut feeling for the First Test in Centurion that's slowly creeping up on us in December:

Strauss
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom/Plunkett
Anderson
Onions

No, I don't like batting Stuart Broad at seven. I don't like it one jot. But the alternative is handing a debut to Luke Wright, a decision that seems a tad premature in my opinion, and moving everyone down a place. Ideally at this stage in his tender career, Broad would come in at eight, in front of the capable but not 100% reliable Graeme Swann. But the void created by Andrew Flintoff's departure means England need a stroke maker to come in after Matt Prior and, while Wright may have explosive potential, Broad is the safer option.

With Graham Onions and Jimmy Anderson as the other pacemen, the remaining spot is a toss up between the perennially injured Ryan Sidebottom and the reborn Liam Plunkett. Sidebottom's Test career is in the definition of word 'stagnation' at the moment and my instinct would be to avoid him. Having said that, it's a tough baptism of fire for Plunkett, who is known to have a wayward radar when things aren't going his way. Do the selectors opt for Sidebottom's experience and unique left arm threat? Or do they gamble on Plunkett's late swing and new found confidence?

With no Ravi Bopara in the squad, Paul Collingwood's spot is safe - for now, at least. Jonathan Trott should probably be entrusted with the troublesome number three slot over Ian Bell. His tough demeanor and knowledge of South African conditions will ultimately put him in better stead than the infuriatingly inconsistent Bell. With all the luck in the world, Kevin Pietersen will be fit and happy again to bat at number four, giving the line-up a touch more flair and firepower. Pietersen's achilles injury will hopefully have given him the chance to recharge his batteries and regain some enthusiasm for the game he admits he needed a break from.

On paper, it doesn't appear a hugely strong team and pundits have been predicting a series of leather chasing for tourists. But underestimate this England side at your peril. Australia made the mistake of being too blase with their attitude towards Andy Flower's men and paid the ultimate price. In Onions and Swann, England have two underrated bowlers who the South Africans have yet to face and whilst it'll be a mightily tough challenge, they will take with them the faintest glimmer of optimism and the firm belief that, on their day, they can upset anyone.

Ferdinand's failings exposed

As much as I enjoy seeing Man Utd get beat, there was something quite disturbing about the casual ease in which Fernando Torres shrugged off Rio Ferdinand for his opening goal yesterday.

The Spain hitman, widely acknowledged as one of, if not, the best striker in the world, combined superb upper body strength with beguiling touch to keep Ferdinand (widely acknowledged as England's best defender) at bay and create space to lash his shot into the roof of the net. A fantastic goal and a joy to watch it most certainly was.

But it comes with mighty ominous signs for England followers; The nation's best centre half is having a torrid time at the moment. For the all the celebration of Torres' goal, fast forward nine or so months and put both players in their international kits. I very much doubt there'll be much euphoria when Torres has Ferdinand wrapped around his little finger in a World Cup quarter final.

Liverpool's gain, England's loss.

The morning after the night before

Hands up if you don't care about this one day series?

After just three games, it's fairly obvious that this contest embodies the very meaning of the word 'anticlimax'. And there's a plethora of reasons as to why public interest in this arduous series is on the wane.

A lack of big names, some dire cricket, September-like weather, an outrageously long schedule and the fact that it directly followed a gripping Test series; you can take your pick from excuses to avoid the action. Injuries to Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff and the absence of Ricky Ponting have robbed the series of some of it's most reputable players meaning that there isn't as much of a pull to the general public as the Test series had.

If there is blame to be had, then a portion of it belongs to the administrators. Whoever decided it would be a good idea to schedule a seven match series ending on the 20th of September needs a change in profession. Ignoring the fact that audience focus would naturally be on the Test series anyway, seven matches is simply far too much. There's no urgency to it - a team could lose the first two games then still win the series (a team more competent that England, that is). I genuinely feel for the beleaguered bunch of players who will see out the series in the cold and bitter reaches of Durham in late September.

The fare on offer so far has been sub-standard. At The Oval and Lords, England bowled with great skill only to see their batsman let them down when chasing a relatively easy total. At The Rose Bowl last night, the batsmen again let them down, this time setting a mediocre score for the Aussies to chase. The games may have looked quite close on paper but the slow scoring and lacklustre fielding on display are deadly ingredients in the recipe for audience killing cricket.

This is all after England were making reasonable progress in the shorter form of the game. Consecutive series wins over the West Indies had manifested a degree of confidence - a confidence that has been rolled away by the combined efforts of Cameron White and Callum Ferguson and co. The powers that be will certainly panic and make widespread changes. Don't be surprised to see the likes of Eoin Morgan and Adil Rashid rudely dismissed from the squad, despite having genuine promise.

The failure of the series so far also points to the apparent decline of the one day game. With the ECB cancelling the domestic 50 over game from next season onwards, it would appear that public for demand is decreasing. And this series so far will have done nothing to re-awaken that interest.

So, frankly, it's a dire contest and not one that people are too concerned about. A 7-0 defeat is never desirable but there won't be too many tears shed if that's the outcome. It may sound harsh but, with players like Owais Shah, Paul Collingwood and Tim Bresnan, England are never going to be a thrilling side. Collingwood typifies the current malaise of the team; slow, a bit boring and unable to deliver when it really matters.

Is there anything else on?

Interview with Aaron Norton

Breaking into the music scene can be a gruelling task and it’s certainly not one for the easy dissuaded. The glory and adulation provides a strong motive at first but, all too often, the time and perseverance required to make it to the top is all too much. But there’s one local musician who has his eyes firmly set on spreading his music to the masses and it’ll take a great deal to stop him in his quest.

Aaron Norton is a supremely gifted musician. Armed with his acoustic guitar, he’s been turning heads on the local music scene for some time now and it appears only a matter of time before he cracks the big time. With an army of local and dedicated fans, his gigs in and around the Kingston area are always popular events and as the biography on his website says, ‘His desire to perform and to entertain the world with his music is now unstoppable’.

Curious to learn more about the hype, me and a friend went to one of his gigs: an intimate performance at the Waggon and Horses pub in Surbiton. And we were not to be disappointed as Norton thrilled the closed in crowd with a variety of his own songs and some contemporary classics. Alone on a small stage with nothing but his guitar and a pint of Guinness behind him, he immediately captured the undivided attention of the assembled throng and didn’t lose it all night.

He wowed the audience with soulful renditions of well known songs such as Wherever You Will Go by The Calling and Fall At Your Feet by Crowded House. Later on in the night, he chose to present his acoustic take on some more alternative numbers such as Umbrella by R’n’B songstress Rihanna and the immortal reggae classic No Woman No Cry by the great Bob Marley. His choice of songs was a considerable success and clearly a big drawing point for his fans – by performing his renditions of crowd favourites, Norton immediately established a rapport with his followers and it’s clearly fundamental to his success.

So where does he see himself going in the big, bad world that is the music industry? “I look at artists like James Morrison and Paulo Nutini. That’s the kind of genre that I’m aiming at. It would have been nice to corner that market first but those guys have had success already so it’s just a case of emulating what they’ve achieved.”

The list of venues he has performed at reads like a where’s where of south London music scene haunts. From the Rose Theatre in Kingston to the grand London Palladium, he’s even managed to squeeze in two live performances on Capital FM radio. Norton has impressive and burgeoning CV to his name - so does he have a favourite venue? “The Oak (a Kingston pub) is always a popular place to play, I always enjoy it there. Every crowd you get is different. There’s a different atmosphere or a slightly different age group.”

Whether he makes it to the big time or not, no-one can fault the guy for attitude. When you speak to him or listen to him play, he gives off a powerful aura of relaxed confidence and determination. As we conclude our conversation, he tells me he’s confident that the opportunities will come if he keeps trying his hardest. And with talent and bravado like his, it’s difficult to imagine him not getting all he wants. Watch this space.

(Chessington Chat Magazine, 2009)

When the dust has settled: The Ashes 2009

Innings of the series – Michael Clarke 136, Lords

Clarke was the outstanding batsman of the entire series and his superb, unfathomable rearguard innings against all odds was just about 100 runs shy of bringing his side an unthinkable victory. With the Aussies struggling at five wickets down and still a good 400 away from victory, Clarke found a willing partner in Brad Haddin and showed astounding courage. He played some brilliant shots whilst ensuring that England would not be able to get him out easily.

He frustrated them to the point where there was genuine talk of Australia actually chasing down their mammoth target. Jonathan Trott’s debut 119 on a tricky Oval pitch was just as impressive for effort but for combining sheer guts alongside audacity, Clarke takes the plaudits. What a remarkable batsman he has become for his side.

Bowling spell of the series – Stuart Broad 5-37, The Brit Oval

Whilst Andrew Flintoff’s 5-92 at Lords was one of the most awe-inspiring and terrifying spells of fast bowling in recent history, Broad’s effort was something miraculous. Written off in many quarters for an apparent lack of penetration, he arguably won the series for England in one electrifying and devastating spell of pace bowling. Combining deadly accuracy with inherent seam movement, he reduced Australia from a comfortable looking 73-0 to a match and series defining 111-7.

He got good players out, too: Ricky Ponting, not for the first time, outdone by Broad’s uncomfortable bounce; Mike Hussey leaving a ball that shaped back in and struck him plumb in front; the dangerous Clarke chipping straight to short extra cover. It really was a sight to behold and was a testament to Broad’s mental skill as well has his considerable bowling talent. The new Flintoff? Not quite yet but he’s showed tantalising signs of being even better.

Men of the series - England: Andrew Strauss, Australia: Michael Clarke

Strauss deserves accolade for both his gutsy and authoritative batting as well as his intuitive captaincy. He led from the front in every sense of the phrase – be it setting the tone at the top of the innings with the bat, his frank and honest assessments in post game press conferences or his knowledgeable use of the players. His utilisation of young Broad at The Oval was a perfect example example of brilliant man management.

As for Clarke, the statistics say it all. 448 runs at an average of 64 paints the picture of a sublime series and he played some of the tour’s most eye-catching innings. He became the prize wicket alongside the captain and when England didn't get him early, he invariably went on to punish them. Surely it must be only a matter of time before he is handed the captaincy.

Unsung Hero – England: Matt Prior, Australia: Marcus North

Prior had a fine series both with the bat, as we’ve come to expect, and behind the stumps. The fact that he went unnoticed when keeping alludes to the fact that he didn’t make any noticeable errors, especially when keeping to some diabolical bowling at Cardiff and Headingley. His alacrity with the willow helped inject much need momentum into England’s batting and he can reflect on a job well done all round.

North arrived as a batsman familiar to English conditions but with very little Test experience. He ended it with an average of just over 52, having scored two hundreds. His ton at Headingley went much unnoticed as the bowlers claimed much of the credit for Australia’s win. But he effectively set up their victory bid with a classy and uncomplicated 110. He even grabbed a few wickets on the spinner’s haven at The Oval and ends the series very much a fixture of the Aussie middle order.

Best commentator - Matthew Hayden

Aside from the always superb Mark Nicholas, Hayden stood out on both TMS and Five. Imaginative, wise, objective and was the voice of calm to Boycott’s age old fervour.

Rising star – England: Jonathan Trott, Australia: Ben Hilfenhaus

Trott’s debut hundred confirmed his golden boy status among the press. He’s already being primed as the next unfortunate candidate to take on the poisoned chalice of the number three slot. Still, he does appear the best qualified to take on the role at present. He played with a maturity that belied his limited international experience and hung firm with his mind focused on the task while all around him were throwing the bat and getting themselves out. He is certainly one for the immediate future and possibly longer.

It seems unthinkable that Hilfenhaus wasn’t tipped to make a single appearance in the series before Cardiff. But Brett Lee’s injury and doubts over Stuart Clark’s effectiveness saw the Tasmanian given a chance with the new ball and, boy, did he repay the faith shown in him. He ended as the leading wicket-taker with 22 scalps at an average of just over 27 and generally made England sweat every time with the new cherry in his hand. Not the quickest of bowlers but with an uncanny ability to swing the ball, he posed problems time and again to England’s fragile top and middle order. Quiet and unassuming by nature, Hilfenhaus must now be a cornerstone of the Australian attack.

Biggest disappointment – England: Ravi Bopara, Australia: Mitchell Johnson

Bopara was heralded as England’s number three saviour but ultimately he found the pressure to be a little too much. He was always likely to be targeted by the Aussies and as bad score followed bad score, England ran out of patience and replaced him for the final match. His time will come again for sure but his unfortunate failures remain a large regret for England fans. With any luck, however, he won't be written off quite yet.

Johnson had a ridiculously strange series. Wayward at Cardiff and unable to prize out the last England wickets, it obviously affected his mindset as he had a complete shocker at Lords. Be it spraying balls down miles down leg, firing them wide through the slip cordon or delivering wild ill-directed bouncers - he gave keeper Haddin an absolute nightmare. He improved marginally at Edgbaston and then was back to something like what he was capable of in the win at Leeds. But by the end of the series, he was back to his shocking worst as he completely failed to turn up when it really, really mattered. He suffered so many maulings at the hands of England’s lower order, he must still be having nightmares about seeing Swann or Broad stride to the wicket. Still managed 20 wickets but was a monumental letdown.

Comedy moment of the series – Ricky Ponting getting hit in the mouth at The Oval

You had to feel for him. Having witnessed his side toss away the series in a Broad-inspired collapse, Ponting and his beleaguered bunch took to the field again. And it wasn’t long before Ponting, fielding at silly point, was back in the wars as took a nasty looking hit on the mouth at point blank range. The crowd cheered unforgivingly but stopped when the extent of the blow was realised. Ponting shrugged it off but it was yet another painful Oval memory from a ground that has shown him nothing but contempt.

Moment of the series – Andrew Flintoff getting his 5-for at Lords on the last morning.

It was a moment that received a rapturous applause. Flintoff was peppering Peter Siddle from all angles before all of a sudden he turned and steamed in off a shortened run up. A full length ball nipped back and defeated Siddle’s tailender-like prod, shattering the stumps. Siddle, having been lucky to survive the amount of balls he did, smiled at his wicket’s inevitability and Flintoff went down on one knee, arms aloft, to celebrate only his 3rd Test match five wicket haul. In his final Test series, Freddie had secured his place on the famous honours board and it was a perfect Lords farewell for the great all rounder.

Biggest commentary overreaction – Michael Atherton

Iron Mike scared the life out of millions of viewers at Edgbaston when Graham Onions bowled out Hussey, seconds after trapping Shane Watson lbw. Anyone wishing to settle down to a quiet start to the morning was out of luck as Atherton’s over-zealous ‘BOWLED HIM!’ yelp could be heard all the way from Birmingham to Sydney.

The future...

Possible England side for First Test vs. South Africa –

Strauss (c), Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bopara, Prior (w), Wright, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Harmison

This is all dependant on Kevin Pietersen getting fit. My god, how we miss him. The best batsman of his generation, he was voted into Cricinfo's all time England XI, a testament to his sheer presence at the crease and outrageous talent. His absence proved England can win without him but the batting looked nervous and uncohesive. Frankly, he is simply unreplaceable.

Adil Rashid must now be groomed as England’s 2nd spinner. Monty Panesar’s performance with the bat at Cardiff was admirable but as a spinner he is good for nothing at the moment. Rashid needs to be slowly introduced to international cricket and touring with such an excellent spinning role model in Swann can only be a positive thing. Make no mistake, this kid is the future.

Steve Harmison may or may not tour. But should he take the gamble to continue his international career, one suspects England will need the firepower his bowling offers as it provides a better balance with the swing and seam of Jimmy Anderson and Broad. Onions is a more than credible alternative although there remains the fear that he may be slightly innocuous in less helpful conditions.

The all important all rounder slot could be filled by Luke Wright, who is maturing slowly into a medium/fast bowler and powerful middle order batsman. His batting is a concern, with a susceptibility to get himself out before getting set. But with Prior providing a safety net at number six, there is less pressure on whoever plays at seven. Rashid would provide a better batting option but England may not want to play him and Swann in a twin spin attack. We all saw how well badly that worked at Cardiff.

Bopara is too good a batsman to be left out of the England team but he probably lacks the ideal temperament and composure to bat at number three. His time may come at first drop but for now he should be utilised in the middle order, in place of the struggling Paul Collingwood. Oval hero Trott looks to have the ability to handle the pressure of a promotion to three and his steely determination and resilience gives England a balanced batting order. You’d have to say that in Strauss, Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bopara, Prior and Wright you have a mixture of everything – solid defence, attacking flamboyance and resolute determination. Throw into the mix Broad’s increasing confidence and the carefree hitting of Swann and you have a competent top nine. Hell, even Anderson can play his shots when he applies himself.

England are taking great care to ensure they don’t go over the top in the wake of this triumph. The mindset is spot on, the players are more or less the correct ones and, in Andy Flower, they have a thoughtful and on-the-ball coach. The only thing remaining is genuine progress. It may take time and it may not be easy sailing but perhaps they’re finally on the right path.

The ECB's deal with the devil

Much has been made about England's low key celebrations in the wake of their Ashes success, especially so when you consider the endless hullabaloo that surrounded the 2005 win. Gone were the open top bus rides, speeches to a packed out Trafalgar Square and clearly drunk cricketers falling head first out of hotels. Gordon Brown will have certainly rested easy on Monday knowing that no-one would be pissing in his 10 Downing Street garden.

Indeed, there's a different feel about this Ashes win and it's a world away from the carefree euphoria of 2005. The standard of cricket was inferior to last time though the level of drama was almost as thrilling. For the 2005 Old Trafford draw, read Cardiff in 2009. For England's dramatic win at Edgbaston, read the easier but no less exciting Lords win. There is a feeling this time around that England didn't deserve the victory as much as they had last time out. And, not to take anything away from Andrew Strauss and his men who did deserve their win, Australia are certainly easier to beat these days.

Lily Allen aside, this series win hasn't drawn the masses of newly found cricket fans that 2005 did. Perhaps there's another reason for the lack of national outpouring of emotion. Where last time everyone in the land had access to live pictures of Michael Vaughan lifting the famous little urn, this time only those lucky enough to have a Sky subscription could watch Strauss' turn.

The viewing figures do not do this series justice. Sky do a brilliant presentation and can only be commended for their cricket coverage. But the truth remains that many in the UK were unable to watch any of the series because they were saddled with plain, old, regular terrestrial television. What hope is there for cricket to take off again as a summer sport if children up and down the land have no basic exposure to it?

The ECB have their reasons for selling out to Sky and the revenue earned per year from the lucrative deal probably allows them to sleep a little easier each night. But as long as international cricket is only available for a subscription fee, then national interest in the game will continue to falter.

It's a sad truth that whatever heroics Strauss and his men achieve, their efforts may not be as universally recognised as those from years gone by.

The legacy of Freddie

The King is dead, long live the King.

Yes, Andrew Flintoff has departed the Test match arena for the last time and England will have to do without the man whose Herculean efforts over the last 6 or 7 years have propelled his country to glorious heights, even if there were some forgettable lows scattered inbetween. Statistically, he won't be remembered as one of the game's great players and when you consider his all round talents, a feeling resides of what might have been. But the Lancastrian leaves a sizeable impact on England cricket fans and will be held in the highest esteem, regardless of how little five wicket hauls he took.

The memories are plentiful.

His spell to Jacques Kallis at Edgbaston in 2008 as he tried single handed to drag England back into a Test match; His pugnacious twin fifties at Mumbai in 2006 where he took on the responsibility of captaining an injury depleted side with aplomb; That breathtaking 95 at The Oval against South Africa in 2003, dragging England from simply a 'good' score into a match winning one. The list of memories Flintoff's cricket has created is both mightily impressive and lengthy.

And who can ignore his greatest moments, saved for the greatest enemy of all? Ashes contests brought the best out of Freddie, none more so than 2005 where he rose above himself time and again to deliver the most cherished of all cricketing achievements for his country. It's no surprise Adam Gilchrist spent his 2005 nights unable to think of anything else but the tall paceman steaming in towards him from around the wicket and delivering searing out-swingers time after time. If ever Flintoff did earn the term 'legend', it was in this series.

2009 may not have brought as much personal glory but he had his moments. The devastating spell on the final day at Lords, where he moved earth, wind and fire to bring victory for his country. The blistering 74 at Edgbaston where he batted as if to put the Australians back in their place. The fantastic run out of Ricky Ponting on that last day where he came from nowhere in the game to stamp his own influence on proceedings.

He may not be an all rounder to compete historically with the likes of Ian Botham, Imran Khan or Richard Hadlee, whose exploits are the stuff of cricketing legend. But what Flintoff leaves to the English game is a legacy of popularity and drama. His personality endeared him to many a worldwide cricket fan and he played the game in the best spirit possible. Rarely flustered, always with a smile on his face, Flintoff made cricket look fun more than any other player in his generation. Sometimes wickets fell as a result of his sheer force rather than cricketing skill.

No matter who eventually replaces him in the England set up, his all round talents will be greatly sought after for years to come.

Speaking of replacements, attention has inevitably turned to who should fill Freddie's giant shoes. Stuart Broad is in the process of being hyped up to gigantic proportions by the media but, at 23, he needs time to mature and develop. No one can doubt his potential but what England fans crave is a big hitting middle order batsman and a fast, relentless pace bowler. Broad isn't yet either one of these. He needs to spend more time developing his potency as a bowler and, in time, his batting can be worked upon to attain the middle order temperament he so craves.

There's another two young guns waiting in the wings who would seem in a possible position to assume Flintoff's role. Adil Rashid is a much talked about leg spinning all rounder with bags of promise. He has limited England experience, having played in the World Twenty20 earlier this summer, is a prodigious turner of the ball and can bat as high as number 7. He seems destined to have an England future sooner or later, having been touted to play in this summer's Ashes contest.

And for all the arguments that it's too soon to play him, there remains the distinct possibility that holding him back will do him no good. Perhaps it's time to see if he's as good as we all pray he is. He certainly ticks all the boxes in the all rounder category. His one 'limitation' perhaps is that he is a spinner and not a terrorising fast bowler in the Flintoff mould. Playing him would effectively mean England go into games with two spinners and three pacemen, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing on certain surfaces - it just may leave them short of express pace.

Another burgeoning talent is Sussex's Luke Wright, a dashing middle order batsman and improving seam bowler. Wright has been in and around England's one day setup for a few years now, having been tried in a number of batting positions and having failed to make a consistant impression. However, two County Championship centuries this year have led to calls for him to be given a chance to step up too Test level and, provided he learns to rein in the sometimes mindless stroke play that has inhibited his one-day batting, he looks like he can be a decent enough batsman. His bowling is coming along nicely - initially considered as medium pace, Wright is starting to hit the enviable heights of the mid 80's, in terms of mph. He already possesses a superb yorker length ball and, if he can step up in pace a notch, he could just be the bowler England desire.

However, with both candidates comes an element of risk. Whatever they achieve or fail to achieve will invariably be hung up next to Flintoff's imposing stature. And it will take time and steady performances to properly fill the void. But perhaps this is precisely the new ethos of this England team. Keep our feet on the ground, regardless of what we achieve, and build steadily towards getting better and better. Whoever takes Flintoff's place, it may be a case of giving them time to blend into the role and not getting too critical or too praising.

Still, it's an exciting time for this brilliantly inconsistent but promising England team, who head to South Africa in November to try and further the progress made this summer. It's a time for blooding new players and Wright and Rashid will almost certainly be on the tour at the very least if England want them to succeed. But for now fans should bask in the memories of the great Andrew Flintoff. He may not have been perfect but nothing should give fans greater pleasure than seeing reruns of him shattering Peter Siddle's stumps to gain his fifth wicket at Lords in the Second Test last month.

A fantastic player and a thoroughly decent bloke, Flintoff was and is one of a kind.