Louisville Courier-Journal v. NCAA

[donaugust]

I see that column has a digg on it. I haven't registered for that site yet but I'm about to. We should try to use our combined forces for good here to raise as much stink as possible.

[The Rules of Golf]

Further bullshit:

The "credential agreement" (which no one signed or was asked to, but it was circulated with the credential package at the certain Super Regional I staffed) was vague in its wording and allowed for a liberal interpretation therein.

The memo circulated to Louisville reporters, of which Bennett posted an excerpt, was much more black-and-white. It said you couldn't blog, no ifs, no ands, no buts.

Looks like Indianapolis stiffened its own rules in the middle of the game...

[TheSportsPredictor]

Love the comment from the reader on Bennett's blog about how the paper might want to consider just dropping this whole thing "so the baseball team gets the attention it deserves."

Jesus, we're doomed.

Exactly my thought reading the comments. I also enjoyed the ones that said "Why didn't you just go across the street to the bar and watch on TV and continue your reporting?"

People have no idea what we do.

The person who said that had a great idea of what Bennett was doing. He was posting play-by-play results of Saturday's game on the blog. There was absolutely no reporting being done for which he needed to be in the press box. So the fact that he was thrown out of the press box should not have prevented him from providing the same quality of reporting. Everything in the blog could have been written from watching the game on TV. So if Bennett went across the street to the bar and continued posting (provided they had wireless), he would have provided the exact same info. Hell, in THREE different posts he is commenting about what ESPN is showing! He also could have found a spot in the stands and maybe found a wireless connection and posted. Or he could even have phoned into the paper and had someone post his comments for him.

All of this is a separate issue from whether the NCAA should be allowed to throw him out of the press box. But he certainly could have posted every single word that he did post if he were only watching the game on TV at a bar with a wireless connection.

[Ace]

Love the comment from the reader on Bennett's blog about how the paper might want to consider just dropping this whole thing "so the baseball team gets the attention it deserves."

Jesus, we're doomed.

Exactly my thought reading the comments. I also enjoyed the ones that said "Why didn't you just go across the street to the bar and watch on TV and continue your reporting?"

People have no idea what we do.

Truthfully, you could still blog that way, if you were only a blogger. So there is no way the NCAA can stop this kind of thing from happening.

But of course newspaper reporters would be blogging as just part of their duties so being banished to the bar across the street might be nice, it's not going to improve your game story.

[donaugust]

I see that column has a digg on it. I haven't registered for that site yet but I'm about to. We should try to use our combined forces for good here to raise as much stink as possible.

OK, I was digg No. 2. Let's try to make a concerted effort to push that higher.

[TheSportsPredictor]

Truthfully, you could still blog that way, if you were only a blogger. So there is no way the NCAA can stop this kind of thing from happening.

But of course newspaper reporters would be blogging as just part of their duties so being banished to the bar across the street might be nice, it's not going to improve your game story.

If being in the press box is adding absolutely nothing to your story or your blog, as in this case, then there's really no reason to be in the press box. So being kicked out of the press box should not matter. And if the blog was an important enough product, then you should find an alternate way of producing it. You can take up the fight with the NCAA later.

As far as the game story, reporters will leave the press box to interview the people involved in the game. If in this case, Bennett had found an alternate way to watch the game while continuing his blog, then returned to the locker room and interviewed people, he could have wrote the same game story he wrote had he watched the entire game from the press box.

[The Rules of Golf]

Truthfully, you could still blog that way, if you were only a blogger. So there is no way the NCAA can stop this kind of thing from happening.

But of course newspaper reporters would be blogging as just part of their duties so being banished to the bar across the street might be nice, it's not going to improve your game story.

If being in the press box is adding absolutely nothing to your story or your blog, as in this case, then there's really no reason to be in the press box. So being kicked out of the press box should not matter. And if the blog was an important enough product, then you should find an alternate way of producing it. You can take up the fight with the NCAA later.

As far as the game story, reporters will leave the press box to interview the people involved in the game. If in this case, Bennett had found an alternate way to watch the game while continuing his blog, then returned to the locker room and interviewed people, he could have wrote the same game story he wrote had he watched the entire game from the press box.

I doubt the NCAA folk would have let him back in to the media interview area.

Or are you suggesting he interview players/coaches outside of that area, by their cars? I'm not clear...

[Ace]

Truthfully, you could still blog that way, if you were only a blogger. So there is no way the NCAA can stop this kind of thing from happening.

But of course newspaper reporters would be blogging as just part of their duties so being banished to the bar across the street might be nice, it's not going to improve your game story.

If being in the press box is adding absolutely nothing to your story or your blog, as in this case, then there's really no reason to be in the press box. So being kicked out of the press box should not matter. And if the blog was an important enough product, then you should find an alternate way of producing it. You can take up the fight with the NCAA later.

As far as the game story, reporters will leave the press box to interview the people involved in the game. If in this case, Bennett had found an alternate way to watch the game while continuing his blog, then returned to the locker room and interviewed people, he could have wrote the same game story he wrote had he watched the entire game from the press box.

I am guessing the intent wasn't to get around the ban on blogging from the press box. I bet the intent was that the C-J wasn't going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to.

[ondeadline]

Obviously schools can blog all they want:

http://tarheelblue.cstv.com/blog/

[Ace]

Obviously schools can blog all they want:

http://tarheelblue.cstv.com/blog/

That looks like a cstv production. I think they and ESPN have the rights.

[TheSportsPredictor]

I am guessing the intent wasn't to get around the ban on blogging from the press box. I bet the intent was that the C-J wasn't going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to.

Seems to me the intent was to publish a blog. The blog could still be published without being in the press box and include the exact same content, which would show that the C-J was not going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to. And then the C-J could further the battle afterwards.

And if Bennett needed to just try to walk back into the locker rooms/press conference area; work his way onto the field after the game; interview players after the game in the parking lot, in the stands, in their hotel rooms, by cell phone, however, after his credentials were revoked, then he could have done what he needed to do.

Whatever happened to the days when reporters went all out to get the story rather than meekly submit to whatever the PR guys decide? Sure, make a big deal about the credential revokation afterwards. But stick it to them in the meantime by still getting your story.

[Ace]

I am guessing the intent wasn't to get around the ban on blogging from the press box. I bet the intent was that the C-J wasn't going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to.

Seems to me the intent was to publish a blog. The blog could still be published without being in the press box and include the exact same content, which would show that the C-J was not going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to. And then the C-J could further the battle afterwards.

And if Bennett needed to just try to walk back into the locker rooms/press conference area; work his way onto the field after the game; interview players after the game in the parking lot, in the stands, in their hotel rooms, by cell phone, however, after his credentials were revoked, then he could have done what he needed to do.

Whatever happened to the days when reporters went all out to get the story rather than meekly submit to whatever the PR guys decide? Sure, make a big deal about the credential revokation afterwards. But stick it to them in the meantime by still getting your story.

So continuing to blog after being told not to is "meekly submitting?"

Interesting.

[The Rules of Golf]

I am guessing the intent wasn't to get around the ban on blogging from the press box. I bet the intent was that the C-J wasn't going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to.

Seems to me the intent was to publish a blog. The blog could still be published without being in the press box and include the exact same content, which would show that the C-J was not going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to. And then the C-J could further the battle afterwards.

And if Bennett needed to just try to walk back into the locker rooms/press conference area; work his way onto the field after the game; interview players after the game in the parking lot, in the stands, in their hotel rooms, by cell phone, however, after his credentials were revoked, then he could have done what he needed to do.

Whatever happened to the days when reporters went all out to get the story rather than meekly submit to whatever the PR guys decide? Sure, make a big deal about the credential revokation afterwards. But stick it to them in the meantime by still getting your story.

So continuing to blog after being told not to is "meekly submitting?"

Interesting.

Agree.

[TheSportsPredictor]

I am guessing the intent wasn't to get around the ban on blogging from the press box. I bet the intent was that the C-J wasn't going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to.

Seems to me the intent was to publish a blog. The blog could still be published without being in the press box and include the exact same content, which would show that the C-J was not going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to. And then the C-J could further the battle afterwards.

And if Bennett needed to just try to walk back into the locker rooms/press conference area; work his way onto the field after the game; interview players after the game in the parking lot, in the stands, in their hotel rooms, by cell phone, however, after his credentials were revoked, then he could have done what he needed to do.

Whatever happened to the days when reporters went all out to get the story rather than meekly submit to whatever the PR guys decide? Sure, make a big deal about the credential revokation afterwards. But stick it to them in the meantime by still getting your story.

So continuing to blog after being told not to is "meekly submitting?"

Interesting.

Not finding other ways available to blog, such as going to a place across the street with wireless and blogging off the TV broadcast since all that was being written was play by play anyway, going into the stands and trying to leach a wireless signal, or calling into your paper and dictating blog entries, is meekly submitting.

[Ace]

TSP,

Maybe Rosa Parks should have kept her head down while riding in the front of the bus, that way no one may have noticed she was black and everything would have been cool.

[TheSportsPredictor]

TSP,

Maybe Rosa Parks should have kept her head down while riding in the front of the bus, that way no one may have noticed she was black and everything would have been cool.

Huh? Makes no sense.

The guy could have gone about blogging and the story of being kicked out of the press box and having credentials revoked remains the same. The paper could have run with the exact same story about it. They could fight it the exact same way.

[Bob Slydell]

One question.

were blogs prohibited in the press box or the whole place? If so, couldn't they find Bennett anywhere in the stadium and kick him out? I would seriously doubt he would go the bar across the street or whatever and blog.

And sportspredicitor, you;re assuming every place "across the street" would have wirelss internet. I would love to see a place neat Jim Patterson Stadium where Bennett could have gone, watched the game and blogged.

Meely submitting? Come on. He didn't submit, he got kicked out.

[Ace]

TSP,

Maybe Rosa Parks should have kept her head down while riding in the front of the bus, that way no one may have noticed she was black and everything would have been cool.

Huh? Makes no sense.

The guy could have gone about blogging and the story of being kicked out of the press box and having credentials revoked remains the same. The paper could have run with the exact same story about it. They could fight it the exact same way.

My point is that there is a big difference between getting around a rule and forcing an issue. If the writer did what you say, no one would know anything about it.

As it stands, perhaps the result will be that the NCAA will realize it can't prevent writers from blogging and it will benefit everyone.

[VJ]

Did someone actually invoke Rosa Parks' name in this thread? Just making sure I wasn't hallucinating.

[TheSportsPredictor]

One question.

were blogs prohibited in the press box or the whole place? If so, couldn't they find Bennett anywhere in the stadium and kick him out? I would seriously doubt he would go the bar across the street or whatever and blog.

And sportspredicitor, you;re assuming every place "across the street" would have wirelss internet. I would love to see a place neat Jim Patterson Stadium where Bennett could have gone, watched the game and blogged.

Meely submitting? Come on. He didn't submit, he got kicked out.

I know nothing about the area. I don't know where he could have gone. It's merely an option ton consider. However, if he could not have gone anywhere, he could have tried going into the stadium as a fan and, it unable to get wireless access in there, phoned in his blog entries. This is ONLY if the blog was important enough for the C-J to continue with despite not having pressbox access. They may have determined it was not important enough, since it was indeed merely a presentation of play-by-play available through many other sources.

[RedCanuck]

Seems to me the intent was to publish a blog. The blog could still be published without being in the press box and include the exact same content, which would show that the C-J was not going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to. And then the C-J could further the battle afterwards.

What if, instead of a "blog," something happened in the game that the C-J decided it was about to report in a hard news format?  Say some kid streaked across the field and delayed the fifth inning for 5 minutes before police caught him. Is breaking news allowed, or is that property of ESPN too? I see an interesting grey area there.

And if blogging was really the issue, couldn't the NCAA go after the originator of the web site with litigation regardless of whether the blogger was a credential-carrying reporter or some hack miles away?

[The Rules of Golf]

One question.

were blogs prohibited in the press box or the whole place? If so, couldn't they find Bennett anywhere in the stadium and kick him out? I would seriously doubt he would go the bar across the street or whatever and blog.

And sportspredicitor, you;re assuming every place "across the street" would have wirelss internet. I would love to see a place neat Jim Patterson Stadium where Bennett could have gone, watched the game and blogged.

Meely submitting? Come on. He didn't submit, he got kicked out.

I know nothing about the area. I don't know where he could have gone. It's merely an option ton consider. However, if he could not have gone anywhere, he could have tried going into the stadium as a fan and, it unable to get wireless access in there, phoned in his blog entries. This is ONLY if the blog was important enough for the C-J to continue with despite not having pressbox access. They may have determined it was not important enough, since it was indeed merely a presentation of play-by-play available through many other sources.

Phoning in blog entries is not feasible as, at least in my blog's situation, it's a user-controlled password entry. My boss, for instance, couldn't get on there and blog in my stead.

But I digress...I think we're getting away from the point here.

[TheSportsPredictor]

TSP,

Maybe Rosa Parks should have kept her head down while riding in the front of the bus, that way no one may have noticed she was black and everything would have been cool.

Huh? Makes no sense.

The guy could have gone about blogging and the story of being kicked out of the press box and having credentials revoked remains the same. The paper could have run with the exact same story about it. They could fight it the exact same way.

My point is that there is a big difference between getting around a rule and forcing an issue. If the writer did what you say, no one would know anything about it.

As it stands, perhaps the result will be that the NCAA will realize it can't prevent writers from blogging and it will benefit everyone.

Sure people would have known. People would have known because the paper would have printed that their writer was kicked out of the press box and his pass was revoked.

However, if they paper were to continue to publish the blog WITHOUT press box access with its quality remaining the same (which it would have, if it were published through either watching the game from the stands or a television screen), then people would have said, well, you did just fine without press box access anyway, you printed the same stuff as when you were in the press box, so who cares? Why do you need to be in there anyway?

So maybe next time the C-J should have a person back at the paper blog the game by watching it on TV and have the person actually on site write something up that only the person on site could get.

Not saying the NCAA is right or wrong for kicking him out. Just that the paper could use its resources better.

[The Rules of Golf]

Seems to me the intent was to publish a blog. The blog could still be published without being in the press box and include the exact same content, which would show that the C-J was not going to allow the NCAA to restrict its right to publish when it wants to. And then the C-J could further the battle afterwards.

What if, instead of a "blog," something happened in the game that the C-J decided it was about to report in a hard news format?  Say some kid streaked across the field and delayed the fifth inning for 5 minutes before police caught him. Is breaking news allowed, or is that property of ESPN too? I see an interesting grey area there.

Red, this was my point from the get-go. In its postseason run, my team has had two legitimate news stories happen during games that we ran as online breaking news updates to our Web site. Under the NCAA's strict interpretation -- the Louisville Rule, we'll call it -- what we were doing was wrong.

Bush.

[TheSportsPredictor]

Phoning in blog entries is not feasible as, at least in my blog's situation, it's a user-controlled password entry. My boss, for instance, couldn't get on there and blog in my stead.

Give me a break. What you do in that case is give the guy typing it up your password.