Martin Crowe needs a little space

National Radio’s Friday interview with cancer-afflicted and depressed former New Zealand cricket captain Martin Crowe made for sad listening.

His protestations that cancer survival statistics didn’t apply to him because he is a positive thinker were clearly unconvincing to himself.

Nor is it helpful to cancer sufferers.

Many of us know very positive people whose illnesses seem more determined by genetics, than general healthy living.

Some survive, others don’t.

Sure, it’s good to be positive for a host of reasons – not least to enjoy the time we all have left and for those around us.

But the positive thinking solution can be a short leap to the idea that fortunes in life are determined solely by outlook.

A few folks even hold to the notion that their happiness and success in this life are determined by their behaviour in a former existence.

Therefore if someone suffers ill health, is it their fault because they are being negative and should society help them out?

At frequent points in the National Radio interview Mr Crowe was overcome with emotion and interviewer, Kathryn Ryan, completed some answers for him while he composed himself.

The emotionally brittle Mr Crowe is still coming to grips with his demons.

Maybe he thought he couldn’t say “no” to the interview, maybe he thought it would be therapeutic, maybe he felt he might inspire someone.

It didn’t come across that way.

The overwhelming impression was that he needed time out to come to grips with things. Perhaps at a later stage he may be able to offer considered advice and wisdom.

We have no idea how the National Radio interview came about.

Probably it was just one of several on a priority list that the programmes producers felt would be a winner because of Mr Crowe’s profile and willingness to talk about his recently published book on his depression and illness.

Once the interview was under way it was impossible to cut short because the under-resourced National Radio would be left without a topic.

But there must be times when journalists make up their own minds about how far they wish to advance the careers of chief reporters at their own expense.

I’ve seldom turned down an assignment to “door stop” as we call it in the trade.

But there have been a couple of occasions when I’ve simply decided there is no way I’m going to intrude on people’s grief.

It requires case by case judgment. What is the purpose? What good will come from it?

What about the Campbell Live interviews of disaster-struck folks? I would argue that Campbell Live’s coverage usually does have a purpose – to galvanise political or public opinion, to teach others about pitfalls they may face.

But apart from eliciting great sympathy for an individual damaged by the relentless pressure of a sporting career, the Crowe interview didn’t fulfil much else.

c.hutch@clear.net.nz