Female Cricket Journalists Face a New Challenge as Social Media Turns Sexism into Relentless Harassment

Female Cricket Journalists Face a New Challenge as Social Media Turns Sexism into Relentless Harassment

Twenty-four years ago, a young woman journalist entered the press box at Mumbai's Wankhede Stadium to cover an India-England ODI. England won by five runs. Andrew Flintoff celebrated by running across the outfield twirling his shirt, and Sourav Ganguly later responded with his famous shirt-waving celebration at Lord's. The incident became part of cricket folklore. For the journalist covering that match, however, the more difficult contest was taking place inside the press box.

There were only two women among the journalists present. Male colleagues repeatedly reminded her how talented and knowledgeable her predecessor had been. Every assignment became an opportunity to demonstrate that she belonged. More than two decades later, the nature of the challenge has changed. A woman journalist must now establish her professional credibility not only before editors and colleagues but also before thousands of strangers who may respond to her work with sexual insults, racist abuse and threats of violence.

The central issue in cricket journalism is no longer simply access to professional opportunities. It is also the ability to maintain a safe and independent public presence. That is the central finding of Anjali Doshi's article, published on November 8, 2026, through the Guardian Sport Network as a contribution from Wisden Cricket Monthly.

Two decades of experience and a changing cricket-media environment

Doshi's career has included coverage of the 2026 World Cup, the 2026-08 India-Australia series associated with Monkeygate, the 2026 T20 World Cup and the 2026 World Cup. She has worked for major Indian publications and broadcasters, served as cricket editor at NDTV 24x7 and reported across print, digital and television platforms. She has also interviewed Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne and Brian Lara.

Her experience gives the argument historical depth. She is not an outsider commenting on cricket culture. She has worked within a profession where male dominance was long treated as normal. Traditional print and television journalism offered a relatively contained professional environment. Journalists filed reports, presented programmes and returned to work the following day. Unless someone knew them personally, audiences had limited ways of contacting them directly.

Sexism existed in that environment too. Women were frequently judged by their appearance, voices and perceived professional legitimacy rather than solely by their cricket knowledge. Yet the distance between journalists and audiences meant that disagreement did not automatically become a personal attack.

Social media removed that distance. A comment made during a programme can now be extracted into a short video and circulated across several platforms within minutes. The original context may disappear. Viewers can react without watching the full discussion, and a journalist's personal account can become the target of thousands of comments.

Doshi recalls receiving criticism after writing about the male gaze and sexism during the 2026 IPL. She questioned the role of presenters with limited knowledge of cricket conducting pitch-side interviews. Some responses accused her of jealousy and professional resentment. At the time, however, such reactions were relatively limited.

The contemporary environment is different. Instagram, TikTok and YouTube have transformed cricket distribution. One- or two-minute clips are extracted from longer programmes to attract impressions and encourage audiences to watch the full show. This is a legitimate promotional strategy, but it also creates an editorial vulnerability. A short clip can remove the context that made a particular observation reasonable, leaving the journalist exposed to reactions directed at an incomplete version of the argument.

The economics of digital cricket journalism

Cricket media increasingly depends on audience attention and digital engagement. Programme performance is measured through views, shares, impressions and retention. These metrics are commercially important, but they can also influence editorial decisions.

Digital platforms have created opportunities for independent analysts, regional journalists and women experts to reach international audiences. A journalist who once depended on a broadcaster's distribution network can now communicate directly with cricket followers around the world. However, greater reach has not necessarily been accompanied by stronger protection.

The paradox is clear: the same distribution system that has increased women's visibility has also exposed them to a more aggressive public environment.

Doshi uses The Scoop, a cricket programme, to discuss wider issues including politicisation, racism, colourism and sexism. Its Inside Scoop segment gives her approximately three minutes to analyse an important story. Some of her strongest online attacks followed comments made in this segment.

One controversy involved Indian-owned franchises in The Hundred and the selection of Pakistani players. Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar argued that purchasing Pakistani players such as Abrar Ahmed, who was selected by Sunrisers Leeds, could indirectly contribute to the deaths of Indian soldiers and civilians. Doshi challenged that argument, questioning the decision to connect professional player recruitment with such an extreme political conclusion.

Her disagreement became a source of online hostility. The incident illustrates a wider problem: women commenting on politically sensitive cricket issues may find that responses move away from the substance of their arguments and towards their personal identities and private lives.

Disagreement with a journalist's political position is legitimate. Questioning a franchise's recruitment policy is also legitimate. Sexual insults, threats and attacks on someone's private life are not legitimate substitutes for argument.

IPL cheerleaders and the commercial presentation of women

Doshi also faced criticism after questioning the role of cheerleaders in the IPL. Her argument concerned more than whether cheerleaders should appear during matches. She examined the cultural assumptions underlying cricket's entertainment model.

She argued that India does not have the same historical sporting cheerleading tradition as the United States. The IPL adopted a form of entertainment associated with Western sports, but its presentation raises questions about colourism and the commercial use of women's appearance. Doshi pointed to the continued predominance of Caucasian cheerleaders across 18 IPL editions as an issue requiring examination in a country with a long-standing preference for lighter skin.

Her argument connects colourism, patriarchy and the commercial presentation of female performers. The question is whether these women are treated as professionals with dignity and creative agency or primarily as attractions designed for male audiences.

Doshi cited the NFL as a comparative example, saying that eight of its 32 teams had eliminated cheerleading arrangements. This figure is attributed to her article and has not been independently verified here.

Former South African fast bowler Dale Steyn also entered the debate. According to Doshi, he misrepresented her argument as a demand to eliminate cheerleaders' jobs. She responded with a detailed explanation, but received no further reply. The episode illustrates how discussions about representation can be redirected away from the original argument and towards accusations that a journalist is opposing the employment of other women.

Alex Hartley and Melinda Farrell: evidence of a wider problem

The problem is not confined to one journalist. Former England cricketer and 2026 World Cup winner Alex Hartley also experienced extensive online abuse. She had criticised the timing of Brendon McCullum's removal as Test coach during the first women's Test at Lord's. Following her comments, she received abusive Instagram messages, including a threat of gang rape.

Hartley said the experience initially discouraged her from speaking openly. She deleted her X account and began thinking more carefully before expressing strong opinions. She now gives herself several hours to consider whether she still believes an argument is correct before publishing it. She also avoids reading comments during broadcasting assignments.

Hartley described another incident in which a current player sent her a message saying she was poor at her job after a commentary appearance. She believed a male commentator expressing similar opinions would have been less likely to receive such a personal message from a player.

Cricket presenter and journalist Melinda Farrell has described similar experiences. Early in her career, she was told that she did not belong alongside her male colleagues in cricket media. Those comments gradually diminished, but online abuse, trolling and stalking became increasingly concerning.

Farrell has observed that male journalists are also criticised, but their abuse is generally directed at their arguments. Women, by contrast, frequently face sexualised and gendered attacks. This has reduced the professional value of social media for her.

Her experience with Hampshire's temporary signing of New Zealand cricketer Scott Kuggeleijn illustrates the difficulty of discussing sensitive subjects. Kuggeleijn had faced allegations of rape and indecent assault in 2026 and was acquitted following a retrial in 2026. Hampshire withdrew from the signing after significant criticism from supporters, staff and members of the women's team.

Farrell discussed the issue on a podcast, explaining why the decision was particularly sensitive for women. She feared becoming a target herself. She believed that the absence of short promotional clips from the podcast helped limit the scale of the reaction. Subsequently, she reduced her social-media activity because of abuse and stalking, particularly through direct messages.

The editorial lesson is important. The format used to distribute a discussion can influence both its reach and the nature of the response. A long programme preserves context; a short clip can leave viewers reacting to a provocative sentence without understanding the reasoning behind it.

When experienced women journalists begin assessing the risk of harassment before expressing an opinion, the damage extends beyond their individual freedom. Cricket journalism itself loses independence and expertise.

Public language and the normalisation of digital hostility

Doshi also discusses the influence of political leaders, including US president Donald Trump, whose public treatment of female journalists can contribute to a wider climate of hostility. Her argument is that aggressive public language from influential figures may embolden others, particularly those who use social-media anonymity to avoid accountability.

The responsibility extends beyond politicians. Former players, current cricketers, broadcasters and administrators have substantial audiences. Their comments can shape public debate. Their influence therefore carries an obligation to distinguish robust criticism from personal humiliation.

Doshi acknowledges that male journalists are also targeted online. The difference lies in the nature of the abuse. Men are generally attacked for their predictions or cricket analysis. Women are frequently targeted for their appearance, voices, clothing and private relationships. They may be accused of obtaining employment through powerful men or told to return to the kitchen. Some receive threats of sexual or physical violence.

Doshi describes receiving racist and politically motivated insults, including a threat expressing the hope that she would be stabbed in London. Such comments go beyond aggressive disagreement and enter the territory of violent intimidation.

Checking every comment across Instagram, X, YouTube and Facebook can become psychologically exhausting. Calling out abuse may even trigger another wave of attacks. This creates an additional burden for the journalists expected to maintain a visible professional presence online.

Why journalist safety cannot remain an individual responsibility

Women journalists are often advised to avoid reading comments, ignore trolls and concentrate on their work. Such advice may provide temporary relief, but it does not address the underlying problem. A professional should not have to withdraw from public discussion to remain safe.

Doshi cites an International Federation of Journalists global survey which found that nearly two-thirds of female journalists experience online abuse and harassment. Her article also refers to the claim that a female journalist is harassed online every 30 seconds. These are figures attributed to the cited survey, not a separate measurement of cricket journalism across individual countries or organisations.

The implications are substantial. Women may avoid controversial subjects, restrict their social-media accounts or withdraw from public-facing roles. Some experienced professionals may eventually leave the industry. The result could be a narrower pool of expertise and a less diverse cricket-media environment.

Cricket boards, broadcasters, publishers and social-media companies must therefore establish clearer responsibilities. Publishers should provide accessible reporting systems, threat assessments and legal assistance when necessary. Credible threats should not be dismissed as ordinary online disputes.

Social-media platforms must move beyond nominal content-reporting mechanisms. Threats of sexual violence, racist abuse and the misuse of personal information require prompt investigation and transparent enforcement. Journalists should be able to understand what action has followed their complaints.

Publishers also need to examine their own distribution practices. When short videos are extracted from programmes to increase reach, editorial teams should preserve the original context and consider the potential consequences for contributors. Audience growth cannot become an excuse for exposing journalists to avoidable hostility.

The next test for cricket

Cricket has expanded commercially and culturally over the past two decades. The IPL, The Hundred and women's competitions have attracted new audiences. Digital broadcasting has created opportunities for players, experts and journalists to communicate directly with supporters. Yet this expansion also increases the responsibility of media institutions.

Increasing the number of women in cricket broadcasting is important, but appointments alone cannot establish equality. Women also need editorial authority, professional respect, safe working environments and the freedom to express informed opinions without gendered abuse.

Alex Hartley's hesitation before publishing, Melinda Farrell's reduced social-media activity and Anjali Doshi's reluctance to examine every online comment are different experiences with a shared consequence: additional pressure on women's public participation.

Doshi concludes by referring to the #MorethanMean campaign involving American sports journalists Sarah Spain and Julie DiCaro. In the campaign video, men were asked to read abusive comments directed at the journalists while sitting opposite them. The exercise exposed the discomfort of saying face-to-face what people readily type online. Its message was simple: if you would not say it to someone's face, do not type it.

The message should become an institutional principle. Digital platforms must create environments in which journalists can express professional opinions without risking their personal safety. Cricket organisations must measure inclusion through the quality of their workplaces and public discourse, not merely through promotional commitments.

The next major test for cricket will not be limited to a World Cup final or a franchise's commercial success. It will also be measured by whether the sport can give women journalists a safe, independent and respected voice.

The journey from a press box containing two women to today's global digital cricket environment demonstrates that increased visibility does not automatically eliminate discrimination. Sometimes it simply changes the medium through which discrimination operates. The industry's next responsibility is to ensure that its growing digital popularity is matched by stronger accountability. Otherwise, the loss will extend beyond individual journalists to the audiences who depend on their expertise, diversity and independent analysis.