1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Colorado: No press passes for sites that allow anonymous comments

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Cadet, Sep 26, 2009.

  1. On on hand, I agree with you.

    On the other hand, it gives sports departments a convenient "out" when it comes to this crap. I'd almost want to ask SID's to institute this policy, so that you can turn off the comments while not worrying that you are ceding that marketplace to others.
     
  2. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    Has nothing to do with sports departments. Unless I read Cadet's quoted part wrong, this doesn't affect newspapers in the least.

    TV stations and newspapers can still allow anonymous comments and get credentials.
     
  3. J-School Blue

    J-School Blue Member

    Interesting. I'd missed that the first time reading this thing, but it really doesn't appear to apply to TV stations and newspapers.

    On the one hand...Christ, I hate unmoderated, anonymous comments. Oh sweet Almighty God, how I hate them. A little piece of my faith in humanity dies, and I get a little dumber, every time I read the racist, ignorant, poorly-spelled, unwashed mongoloid keyboard mashing that passes for most "comments" of this sort. I hate these things with a deep, irrational passion and I wish they would just go away. And that I could reach through the Internet, somehow, and physically slap their authors.

    I really hate them.

    On the other hand, it does set a terrible precedent if an organization is allowed to dictate how media, any media, can cover it, so long as its coverage is within the bounds of libel law.** So I can't really be happy about this.

    **I await the day an organization is successfully sued for something assinine its "commentors" post with such anticipation that I cannot properly describe it. It will be one of the happiest days of my life. I will mark it on my calendar so I commemorate it every year with a little celebration. I hate those fucking things. Hate them. So much.

    Edited, because 'liable' and 'libel' are diffrent. D'uh.
     
  4. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    It won't happen under current law. If a move to eliminate "safe harbor" protections ever gains steam, the big Internet companies would have a fit.
     
  5. J-School Blue

    J-School Blue Member

    Let them have a fit.

    Google and all the BLOGS! want to babble on about how it's a new world, man, it's all moving online, so we all better get with the brave new scene in which we're now living, man?

    OK, then.

    The only reason nobody's legislated a lot of the crap that goes on online is that, a few years ago, a lot of the crap that went on online was irrelevent.

    Not true anymore.

    Time for these guys to join the society they claim to be having such an impact on.
     
  6. zebracoy

    zebracoy Guest

    You guys are treating this like it's a new thing.

    I can name, maybe, six schools off the top of my head that don't allow credentials to Web sites.
     
  7. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    The point of the matter is that CU is holding Internet-only organizations to a higher standard than newspaper Web sites. That's a wrong attitude to take.

    As for credentials, CU could always have a policy that a Web site either needs to bring in a certain amount of ad revenue in or have a certain amount of page views to be able to get a credential. That would separate the wannabe sportswriters rather quickly from those who make their living in the biz.
     
  8. KJIM

    KJIM Well-Known Member

    But that's not the issue here. It's specificially Web sites that do not allow anonymous comments.

    I agree with the ruling BUT think it should be extended to all media. Otherwise it's discriminatory. If a specific blogger pissed off the AD, yank the "organizations" credentials. But you're going to apply rules, apply them fairly to all.
     
  9. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    I didn't look to see if the Denver Post allows anonymous comments or not, but it doesn't matter: They are not going to be treated the same as some individual blogger.

    I thought this was a bigger deal until I re-read it. Since it doesn't apply to print or broadcast, it's in most ways a non-stand in terms of it's effect on our business.

    Plus, at least football wise, Colorado sucks.
     
  10. zebracoy

    zebracoy Guest

    That's what I meant. Is there any Web site with a large enough following that doesn't have message boards attached to it?

    ESPN.com, FoxSports.com, etc. all have the backing of a news-gathering organization like ESPN and Fox to gain credentials. Others don't.

    St. John's, Baylor, Nebraska, Virginia Tech, off the top of my head, also don't allow access to these types of Web sites.
     
  11. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    How many print outlets are still using a comments model that is truly anonymous? Most I've seen now allow screen names but still require login and registration with a working e-mail address. If something went truly wrong (say, repeated threats of violence against a specific player) they could track the user to an ISP by e-mail address or IP address.

    I don't know about broadcast outlets, don't spend enough time on their websites, but it could be the same setup.
     
  12. TheMethod

    TheMethod Member

    I just wanted to say this is the funniest thing I've read this week. Nice work.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page