Media Bowl Gifts

Yep, aka de minimis.

 

Or a nice jacket or a book bag with laptop capability or ...

And are you using a golf writer who accepted free clubs from Callaway or a racing writer who was flown to events by sponsors to SUPPORT your argument?

You're getting further and further away from me on this, Mizzou...

 

Boy, I've waded into it here and I really didn't mean to. I absolutely do not mean to relegate sports journalists to the "toy department." But these gifts we're talking about them receiving, maybe I see those as largely harmless in the sense that they're trivial both in relative value and any value that could possibly be gained. The access to the event itself is substantially of value. I mean, on the open market, that press badge to the Masters could command several thousand dollars. The same is true for those parking passes and press box/row seats at football or basketball games. Why are they given? Because the "owners" of those events perceive that their bottom-line is enhanced by doing so. So we have a clear "gift" of substantial value in which the payoff is fairly obvious. It doesn't really bother anyone, because everybody's pretty much clued in to what is happening. Now, relative to the access, that free lunch (or those free computer totes, golf shirts, rounds of golf, etc.) pale in comparison. With a few notable exceptions (the once-in-a-lifetime round at Augusta, the spin around CMS in the Petty Driving Experience), these are largely trinkets. And what, possibly, could be gained? Does anyone out there really think that AdvoCare is going to get extra coverage IN SPORTS SECTIONS because it popped for cheesy golf shirts for the media? Heck, I doubt that anybody at AdvoCare thinks it's going to get extra coverage.

Now, if we are dealing with the news side, I am a little more squeamish with regard to the gifts not because the news side is more serious, or important, or whatever. This is because there's no comparable value being conveyed in the granting of access, so any gift is relatively larger. Further, the gift-giver has, I would assume, more mercenary motives.

And, for the record, I’m not giving up those nice binoculars with the Winston Cup neckstrap the nice folks at RJR gave us in Talladega in 1987.

 

Do the ethical hardliners decline the media rate at hotels? Don't use the rental car (and Brooks Brothers) discounts that come with FWAA membership?

 

Thank you...

 

You hit it on the head. There's absolutely no doubt that access, in the way of seating, parking, whatever, is granted with the idea that it will generate media coverage (aka publicity) of the bowl, team, etc. If that wasn't a consideration, the organizers would simply convert the press box into 3-4 revenue-generating luxury suites and force the writers to pay their own way, just like everybody else. As a season-ticket holder in SEC country, I can assure you most fans would kill for a parking space in the shadow of the stadium, covered seating at midfield (or close to it) and a free lunch. If we're going to get all up in arms about "perks" -- there's no doubt access is the biggest perk of all.

 

I'm saying there's a big difference between getting a pen or a beach towel and taking free clubs or a free trip.

I covered sports for 15 years and can count on one hand how many times I've seen a reporter brown bag it. I don't buy this holier than thou bullshit.

 

Has anyone even brought up the question of credentials? You get a free front-row (in some basketball cases, at least) seat to the game. Does anyone pay for a ticket just to say they did?

 

As someone who has covered sports and news ... I think this IS a good discussion and an interesting issue.

Free parking, media meals, notebooks, pens ... that's part of doing the job, and I don't see a problem with accepting those. The bowl games and the newspapers/broadcast stations both want the same thing: quality, timely coverage of an event that's important to fans. These types of small "perks" help journalists perform this job.

Open bars? Free rounds of golf? Rides in a race car? I think that might cross the ethical line a bit.

And Mizzou is right that the news side isn't immune to ethical minefields. I've seen a few heads turn the other way at key times to keep access to a crucial source. Is it right? NO. But it happens.

And then there's the whole "this individual is a big player in town/key advertiser" problem ...

 

But see, I'm NOT even an ethical hardliner. Media rates, food, even a round of golf now and then, those don't bug me much. And things like hotel media rates are about access as much as anything. The writer's going to stay in that hotel anyway, and the hotel that's giving the rate is doing so because it's a group, not because it's a sportswriter. The do that for large groups all the time, from all businesses.

What struck me as odd about this thread, again, was the number of people who don't even consider the remote possibility that taking a gift bag from a bowl game with $100 worth of stuff in it might be questionable -- and get pretty pissy if you even suggest it.

I'll also say this: Ethics were a lot easier, apparently, when papers were flush with cash and ruled the world. I don't see quite so much hand-wringing and holier-than-thou stances about things like media rates as I did 15 years ago.

 

Brooks Brothers? Damn.

 

To borrow from another thread:

"We've already established what you are, ma'am. Now we're just haggling over the price."