Asif MahmoodThe issue is neither Qasim Khan and Suleman Khan, nor their right to freedom of expression, nor even the interview itself. The real question is: should a sports channel conduct an interview of this nature, concerning the host country’s internal political and criminal affairs, during an international cricket match?Does this come within the scope of its broadcasting rights? What professional rules govern a sports broadcaster? Is it free to take a sports broadcast and turn it into a platform for current affairs and political commentary? Can the sporting arena be used for political intervention? And what happened to the old principle that politics should be kept out of sport?There is also the question of the visiting team. What rights does a visiting team have when it travels to another country for an international match? Is it simply at the mercy of the host broadcaster? And are we now prepared to accept that if someone wants to twist the arm of a visiting country, he can do so even during the intervals of its matches?Had this interview been part of the channel’s regular news programming, there would have been no issue. A news channel can interview whoever it wishes within the limits of its own editorial policy and applicable law. But when a broadcaster acquires the rights to televise a sporting event, those rights come with a certain professional responsibility. The coverage is supposed to be about the sport. Political current affairs are a different matter.We have seen how seriously such boundaries are taken when it comes to players and spectators. British cricketer Usman Khawaja, for example, was stopped from taking the field with a symbolic message relating to Palestine. Political banners are not allowed in sporting arenas. Even Palestinian flags have faced restrictions inside stadiums. If players cannot use the ground for political expression, and spectators cannot bring political symbols into it, why should the broadcaster be free to do exactly that through the television screen?When broadcasting rights are granted for sport, do they also grant a licence to pursue a political agenda?And then there is the question of money. Was this interview by Sky News broadcast purely out of humanitarian concern, or was it paid content? In societies where there is no such thing as a free lunch, it would be reasonable to ask whether a commercial arrangement was involved.If it was paid content, the question becomes even more serious. Can a broadcaster use airtime purchased or allocated for a sporting event to conduct an activity unrelated to sport, earn money from it, and at the same time intervene in the internal affairs of the visiting country?The broadcasting arrangement between the host and visiting sides also needs to be understood. When a team travels abroad to play, is it entirely at the mercy of the host country’s........

© The Patriot