Louisville Courier-Journal v. NCAA

The best post in the fewest words on this thread. If a lawyer can argue this concisely, it's a strong point.

 

In what way, Ace?

 

Just got my CWS credential. Along with the credential comes a memo reminding media members that if you blog, you'll get the hook.

Awesome.

 

I was playing off Mary Had a Little Lamb, but too many (one would be too many) journalists would quickly follow whatever rules the NCAA or MLB or whomever, decide to throw out there rather than get messy and fight for rights guaranteed in the constitution.

 

Be sure to find the guy about the guy who you can interview on why you can't blog -- other than "Why?" "Because..'

 

I gotcha. Guess it was late when I read that. The fleece part went totally over my head.

 

Someone posted a comment below the Q&A on ESPN.com and suggested the paper blog from the radio's play-by-play. The day someone at my place tells me to report second-hand information is the day I tell them just to fire me. If we reach the point where we're reporting from the radio account of the game, I want no part of it. I had to sit in the radio booth for a game this year, and I counted more errors of fact in nine innings than I ever could have thought possible. I cannot imagine using that as a source for reporting the kinds of things one should put in a blog anyway.

The same person who made the comment about blogging off the radio said the Oregonian does it that way. Does anyone know if this is true? How could any news organization in good conscience blog or report something off a radio account? Isn't the whole point to be there, to see and here, and report as an eyewitness?

That would be like covering a hostage situation by listening to a radio station's live report and gleaning all of your information from the radio station.

 

If you're actually assigning the type of authority of a police officer to an NCAA hack, then you're probably never going to have to worry about offending the NCAA. So, congratulations on that.

 

No kidding, what kind of logic is that? The main point is, the NCAA should not be able to tell us how we do our jobs. If we don't fight this battle, who knows what else is next.

Jesus, people, why are some of you fighting this issue? Even if you never cover an NCAA tournament, you should appreciate the seriousness of this issue on the ability for us to operate and compete in the 24-7 news cycle age.

 

Agreed. However, if the blog presents nothing other than what you can from the broadcast even while you're doing it live from the press box, then why not do it that way?

 

And as much as I try to avoid the old "slippery slope" argument, it absolutely applies here. The fact that the NCAA was so vague is what allowed them to ban the guy in the first place, and other than saying "no blogs," they ain't gettin' much more specific. Next they'll try to pull the LPGA "all our photos are belong to us" gambit.

 

I don't know why you're asking me that. Did you read the last sentence of my post?