Guidelines For Issuing Press Credentials To Bloggers

Then I would give it to the blogger - sure.

The problem comes in when bloggers get preferential access because they don't report the negative or controversial. Then they become arms of the teams.

 

Cran -

I'm not so sure that a lot of leagues and franchises don't pine for more control over their public portrayal - even at the expense of a certain amount of free publicity. I overstated the case, certainly, to try to make a point, but I think the truth lies somewhere between no desire to control content and a very real appetite to limit what gets out to the public. Witness, for example, this year's rider at most NFL camps, where no photo or video was to be allowed of injured players; or NASCAR's crackdown on hot passes for the garages and pits. And as more leagues and more teams form their own affiliations with content providers, they'll be getting the same volume of publicity without having to worry about any awkward truths intruding on their message of affordable family fun on game night.

And Evil Chris, I understand the idea that the blogger with the bigger audience might get the credential, but certainly not without that mid-size paper putting up a hell of a fight. A) Which team flack do you really trust to make that judgment? and B) After two months of catfighting over who gets a seat at the table night in and night out and who doesn't, what trustworthy but overworked flack doesn't just throw up his/her hands and say "screw it"?

 

I agree with your revised observations. Overall, I think you're going to see a trend toward fewer rather than more credentials. But I think it will be market driven in that the biggest audiences -- regardless of whether they are print, electronic, or, God forbid, BLOGS! -- will get those credentials.

Lugs, I don't think only BLOGGERS! have the potential to become "arms" of the team. I've seen plenty of sycophants in all forms of media. Some of them are called rightsholders. And please don't take this personally, but local TV stations are usually among the worst offenders, in my experience.

 

And that proves...what, exactly? That we should allow levels of access to journalists based on audience? Because in that case we'd all mull around in the hallway while AP, USA Today and ESPN get their quotes.

Something completely lost in this debate between old and new media is the fact that the proposal above deals with game-by-game credentials and not season creds. I have zero problem with a blogger going to a few games here and there and offering exclusive content to his or her readers, so long as the blog is a legit media source for a team, league or sport. Season credentials demand a higher standard than a link count on Technorati.

Teams know what kind of press box real estate they have. Weeklies don't have the access dailies have because of lack of space every season. There's no way a professional club is going to keep issuing crededntials to a blogger if it senses it's just some guy trying to scam a free ticket (and worse -- sometimes a free meal) to the game.

 

That should be one big factor, yes. Another factor should be: Is the person requesting credentials a journalist?

That's already happened to me.

Last year during the MLB playoffs, a team my station regularly covers closed the postgame clubhouse to a lot of media, including me.

I had to beg and go through quite a bit of trouble, but I eventually got in there, got my interviews, then took quick stock of these "heavy hitters" that were let in.

Sure, it was SI, the major metro in town, USA Today, ESPN... and MLB.TV.

MLB.TV

Oh, and some other tape-recorder wielding 21-year-old-looking kids I'd never seen.

So yeah, I think I have a legitimate beef when I ask why blogger boy would get into the postgame clubhouse during the playoffs and I (almost) didn't. And one of my arguments is gonna be audience.

----------------

Cran: I take no offense. When you're right, you're right. I've been fortunate to work in some very good markets where we don't have that problem so much. It exists, though.

 

Personally, I believe it is time for the entire credentialling process to be overhauled. SIDs and media relations people should be looking at everyone who enters the arena/stadium claiming they deserve a seat in the press box. And if I was in charge, which I am not, I would make the priority those who cover the team on a regular basis.

That includes newspapers, television stations, radio stations and internet media.

For example, radio and television stations that are cutting back on local sports coverage to the point they only show/air highlights ripped off of whatever cable outlet is showing the game should not be given full-season credentials. Hey, if you need to come for a feature or a major press conference, you can get by on a daily pass. But if you aren't going to regularly attend, goodbye, you don't deserve to be there.

Therefore, if a big game is coming up, you don't suddenly have two guys from WFCK taking up seats in the box. You earn your right to be there.

Newspapers also need to be monitored better. Do you send people on the road? If not, maybe you lose seats to those outlets that do. Or, are you part of a chain that has six people at home games and only one on the road? If I was assigning, I might take away seats based on that. Why should you get priority over a more loyal outlet? (And, I'm not talking about positive or negative coverage, just sheer volume.) How many people are coming for an average game? If you have one beat writer and the occasional columnist all year, and six guys want to come for a huge game late in the season, should that be allowed to happen? Not at the expense of those who've been there all year.

When it comes to blogs, I'm a bit more open-minded than many on this board. I can see a situation in a few years when many of us in the mainstream media are writing for internet companies. Remember that this media is still in its infancy. Yes, there are weaknesses now, but as good journalists migrate toward it, it will improve.

I think the credential gatekeepers have to do their research. You get a request, you look at the blog/site yourself. Is this professional? Do they discuss our team/league? If yes to both, maybe you give them a one-game/homestand pass. See how they do. Ultimately, that person will determine whether or not they get to stay.

If that person's website was credible, I'd give them a chance.

 

although new to the blogging game, i just took a look at chris l's blog ... that's pretty impressive. been around awhile, and 13,000 page views daily is impressive as well.

I just don't see the hard-on by bloggers to want to attend games and talk to players and sit in a press box. For what?

Question i dont know the answer to: Does Pro Football talk go to games? Because they are the first pit stop for any serious NFL fan every morning. Have you seen how they're destroying a certain ESPN NFL writer this week?

 

Who reads the blogs of 21 year olds? Seriously. If that's where more sports fans are getting their info, this whole business is a crock of shit.

 

And your point is... ?

 

You sure about this? Never?

The same Jim Rice, who complained about every-fucking-thing through his entire career, never bitched about a scoring call?

 

If the blogs of 21 year olds bear more weight with the sporting public than established media institutions, it's time to find something more meaningful to do. I'm a little surprised that anyone would prefer that type of blog over established media but then this nation has elected GWB president twice.

 

Here you go

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:XH5XGmEFlOIJ:www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1299423/posts+chaz+scoggins+interview+official+scorers&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a