O's deny press credentials to radio station

[RichJohnson]

A few updates. According to DCRTV, the site covering DC and Baltimore radio stuff, quotes the O's as saying they had season credential snags, and will issue 7 season passes and two parking passes to WNST.

WNST is one of the very rare ones in this country: A locally-owned station with local hosts covering local sports. It has decent daytime but awful nighttime coverage around Baltimore.
Its owner and GM, Nestor Aparicio, is an unrepetant homer, and has certainly made some enemies over the years. But give him credit for creating an alternative to the usual second sports station in a market that's little more than a network dumping ground. WNST certainly makes that 'five percent' of stations with reporters who actually do show up in the locker room and roll tape.

(Full disclosure: I did a few shows on WNST back in '01, and have plugged the station a few times on Sportspages.

More news about the O's and their attempt to clamp down on non-rights coverage: WTOP, Washington reporter Craig Heist will no longer be allowed to report live on the DC station from the O's press box during games. As DCRTV puts it:
"There have been reports that the team has issued "more stringent rules concerning broadcasts and interviews the ballpark if you're not part of flagship CBS. It makes it nearly impossible, without written permission from the Orioles, to do much of anything," a Baltimore sports broadcast source tells DCRTV. WTOP is owned by Bonneville. The radio rights holder is CBS, which carries the games on WHFS."
That's one of the dumbest moves yet by the O's, who have, indeed, raised the bar on media stupidity in the last decade (see Miller, Jon). In effect, they're turning their backs on a free one-minute commercial twice an hour on the top-rated station in the 8th market.

 

[Moderator1]

Hey, if this is THE Rich Johnson, take yer ass over to the thread about your site and clue us in - your message yesterday on the site left many possibilities.

 

[Moderator1]

Reminder: Check the rest of the board first. Because I see now you already did that.
But the announcement does NOT speak for itself. It says, "We're gonna do something, we gots no clue what."
Well, I guess it does speak for itself but it offers no real information.

 

[Moderator1]

The Pipeline delivers, a first-hand account from someone at the O's game:

First off Craig Heist, the hardest working man in radio, can do live updates for ESPN and XM, since they are rights holders. He can not do them for WTOP, though between you and me I see that changing later on.

Second off, WNST did have credentials today. Their beat reporter was there and had full access. A number of their employees will still have access, should they choose to use it. Nestor, who doesn't have a show and isn't really working media anymore, was denied a season pass. One of their morning guys was denied a season pass too, since last year he never once in 81 games picked his up. He can get one on a game-by-game basis though if he calls ahead of time. He was there today, wearing an Orioles jersey with his initials on the back, which would I guess mean it was his first game since at least 2005. Didn't see him there for post-game though. Go figure.

If you take Nestor out of the equation he's got himself a heck of a good station. But he made it out to be much, much worse than it was. Nestor is a lttle drama queen though so it's to be expected. And anyone who knows the way things work knew that Nestor never gives the full side of the story, and that things would resolve themselves.

BTW, he is related to Luis Apparicio, but they aren't father-son. They're either 2nd or 3rd cousins, or maybe he's his nephew.

 

[MacDaddy]

As I said with the Royals thing, this is a slippery slope, and it won't be so funny when it happens to a writer.

And it's only a matter of time.

If a stadium is built with public funds, I believe there's potentially a legal argument to be made... though, I don't think a test case in which the plaintiff is someone named Nasty would be ideal.

Interesting point. If the building is "publically funded" doesn't the public have a right to enter it? I'm worried if he sues and wins, based on that, couldn't the average joe who can't afford tickets do the same, citing "well I paid for the building!"?

I'm no legal expert, so opinions?

Fortunately there's a lot of legal precedent on these sorts of issues (not that I can remember anything specific from com law classes years ago when I was usually hung over attending them), otherwise Joe Public could take over the mayor's office, insist he be allowed into the library at 3 in the morning, etc.

 

[Lugnuts]

If the local library denied one person access but allowed others in at 3 a.m., your comparison might be legit.

Everytime this comes up, a few people pipe up with, "There's no legal argument. MLB and the teams control everything." It's as if you like it that way. It's not that simple.

There's a legal argument for almost everything. Fortunately, in this case, just the threat of legal action seems to have cleared up the problem.

 

[Bubbler]

If the local library denied one person access but allowed others in at 3 a.m., your comparison might be legit.

Everytime this comes up, a few people pipe up with, "There's no legal argument. MLB and the teams control everything." It's as if you like it that way. It's not that simple.

There's a legal argument for almost everything. Fortunately, in this case, just the threat of legal action seems to have cleared up the problem.

By that logic, Luggie, everyone should be allowed into publicly-funded dugouts, bullpens, locker rooms, owner's boxes, etc. If a player/owner can go in those places, why can't the fans/media whenever we want? That's the path you're treading with your argument.

There is no obligation that press room/press row should be open to everyone. It's for the working press only. Period. End of story. I'm all for teams cutting the credential fat when it comes to "media members" who don't do any discernable work while at the game on a press pass. Sports talk radio people are far and away the worst violators of this and it sounds like Aparicio is the poster child.

Why should a team credential "media" whose primary mission is to wear the jersey of the home team, scarf down free food like they just spent two weeks in the Nambian desert, invite loudmouth buddies to the press box on the station's other credential and violate no cheering in the press box at every turn? I've seen all of the above, MOST of us have.

Your worst case scenario is a red herring for one reason -- the "traditional" forms of media can present evidence of work on their credential.

I'd venture to guess that 90 percent of sports talk radio people, if asked to present evidence of their work on their credential, couldn't do it other than providing clips from their show spewing out opinion they didn't need a press pass to formulate. Very, VERY few sports talk guys go in the locker room to get sound.

Whereas even someone from a sub-10,000 circulation paper or small-market TV station can produce evidence that they "worked" the game via a story or video they shot from the game. heck, even bloggers are in better shape, assuming they got a quote or two.

This is not an access issue, anyone who works on their pass should get access if space is available. This is a work issue.

 

[Lugnuts]

I don't think the general public belongs in the press box.

I'm not one of those who thinks, "media shouldn't have any more privileges than the average joe." I happen to think we're "special"-- -- and I believe there's a Constitutional basis for that.

Some people here often argue that we in the press are no different than the average joe.

Some people here like to shoot themselves in the feet.

 

[leo1]

bubbler is right. it's an access issue. not a legal issue.

but lugnuts, on the other hand, i think you have a point that there is a legal argument for anything. i think that's the one thing i picked up in my nearly three years of law school.

in this case, the general rule when it comes to these things is that it serves the public interest to allow reasonable restrictions, even on access to public property. lawsuits happen when parties differ on the word "reasonable." a good lawyer might be able to come up with an argument (if camden yards had sufficient public funding) but it would be a tough sell because there are dozens - maybe hundreds - of public facilities in which the public is not allowed. also the argument could be taken to absurd extremes - many privately owned facilities have public funds in the form of tax credits or infrastructure improvements. so should all people be allowed everywhere? no.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

I'm not one of those who thinks, "media shouldn't have any more privileges than the average joe."

Who are "those?" I don't think I've ever heard anyone in this business say that...

 

[Bubbler]

To more succinctly make my point, I just don't think this is a slippery slope issue which is what I think is at the heart of Luggie's original point. Sometimes pulling the slippery slope card is valid, just not here.

 

[buckweaver]

Probably the best place for this question:

I'm looking for a (non-restricted) e-mail address for Bill Stetka. PM me if you can help me out. Thanks in advance.