Canzano Skewers ESPN's BCS "relationship"

There are a lot of different issues raised by Canzano's story. As someone who started in print (all I ever wanted to be was a sportswriter) and then moved into broadcast media for the last 17 years, I can say that there is one major fundamental difference between the two media that everyone forgets.

What happens when you don't have the rights to them.

People who work for non-broadcast organizations really have no concept of what this means. (I don't intend to sound like an asshole about it; just want to explain.) If you work in print, or you're an online writer, not having "the rights" to an event doesn't really mean anything. You still get a credential, you still have the ability to report and do your work as you normally would. If you write a story the team/league hates, you still get your credential and your seat. (Of course, there are some extreme examples otherwise -- Scott Raab/Heat, the clownish Redskins -- but those events are the minority.)

We pay $110 million a year for the NHL. That is -- by far -- the largest rights fee for any television property in this country. There are certain things we ask for in exchange: short, private meetings coaches before each game; extra consideration for interview/behind-the-scenes access. And you know what, we shouldn't apologize for that. If we're paying that much, plus all of our production costs (which are substantial -- viewers demand a great watching experience), there should be something extra. I would tell you though, we don't get as much as we'd like. As fantastic as HBO's 24/7 is, it personally infuriates me that we don't get the same access.

For radio and television, those rights can be the lifeblood of your existence. For example, where I work, if we ever lost the NHL rights, it would be massively devastating. In Canada, hockey is king. And, if you don't have the radio/TV rights, it can be a major disadvantage. Unlike newspapers/online writing, our access does change. Greatly.

Take the Olympics, for example. If you don't have media rights for that, you might get one reporter and one camera credential. But, you can't take that camera into ANY venue except the Main Press Centre. Or, you might not get a credential at all. That happened to me in 2002, when I covered the Salt Lake City Olympics from parking lots. All interviews came through the generosity of various athletes and media people. But you simply cannot do as good a job. That doesn't happen to print reporters, who get access in the mixed zone (however crazy it is).

Of course, that leads to an awkward dance.

I'm a reporter. And I'm no different from any of you -- even though I work in TV. I want to tell great stories. I want to learn. I love the games. I try to be honest and fair, but tough on people when the situation calls for it. I've been at HNIC for eight years now, and I see the challenge between wanting to be independent and needing the partnership. Luckily, at our place, it tends to be subtle. Very rarely have I been steered away from anything. Our anchor, Ron MacLean, is harder on the NHL than anyone and our bosses deserve a lot of credit for that.

But I've seen other guys hit with sledgehammers by their bosses. Not as badly as Feldman was hit by ESPN, but close. (And I do think ESPN was in the wrong there, because its management clearly backed the wrong horse.) There are some stations who depend on those rightsholders relationships, and the honest truth is that you can't blame them. The alternative can be devastating.

ESPN is a monster, and probably could push back a little. But I'm sure it looks at the developing Comcast/NBC monster with some worry. Maybe that's why it's so defensive. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

The problem is that the leagues tend to get really tense. And they use the rights as leverage. What gets the ratings? The games. ESPN can't do Outside the Lines or E:60, both of which contain some of the best reporting we'll see anywhere, without the games. It's a vicious cycle, I know, but you've got to understand that.

As for people like Herbstreit and Erin Andrews, I just think people have to stop applying their standards to others. I work with a lot of former players. Most of them are great analysts. They've taught me so much about how to watch games and practices. What to look for, what to notice. My coverage is so much better because of that, and their willingness to help. I'll ask them about something they see in a game and they're more than happy to explain. (Working at HNIC actually made me realize how little I knew about hockey.)

But, like Herbstreit, they're not journalists. They just aren't. And there's nothing wrong with it. That's my role, not theirs. They help me, but they don't do what I do. I'll give you an example: Craig Simpson helps me with anything I need. But he gets angry when he hears what players say to me. I never tell him who said it, but I'll talk about what I heard. As a former player who believes in the sanctity of the dressing room, it bothers him certain things get said to a reporter. But there's never an issue between us.

Do I wish it was a perfect world, where you could report without consequences? Sure. But it's not perfect. There are still a lot of people who do great work, walking a pretty fine line. (And, I can assure you, it's much, much worse at the regional level. One play-by-play guy I know was ordered to stop talking about the other team, "because it's our broadcast." When he complained, he was asked if he wanted to continue the job.)

I've read on here about some publishers/editors being the same. I empathize. I really do. But it's not at the same level. I'm very lucky that our bosses allow us to push the line a little. Others aren't so fortunate. At the end of the day, though, the consequences are enormous.