Press parking at Yankee Stadium

Not different at all. Local governments wouldn't offer benefits if they didn't think there was something in it for them.

What's more important: The Yankees' winning/losing streak or a public bailout that's costing taxpayers billions?

I think it's an extremely good development for journalism that the cozy relationship between sports and the media is beginning to come to an end.

Sports, like all news, should be covered on their relative news merit and without any free lunch.

 

What planet are you from?

Cozy relationship?

Are you fucking kidding me?

It hasn't been cozy for at least 20 or 30 years -- and no "free lunch" or in this case "free parking" is going to stop any journalist, any reputable journalist from doing his or her job....

And I'll say this one more time for the cheap seats -- trying to compare sports franchises and how they are covered to run of the mill every day corporations is silly because they aren't similar in any way.

People aren't clamoring for daily recaps of the goings on at AIG. They aren't clamoring for daily statistics of the accountants of Price Waterhouse.

They ARE clamoring for day to day coverage of the actual happenings on the fields of their favorite sports teams -- and in order to do that properly you need access -- unless you think it would be a great development if press boxes were shut all together and the only way people could cover an event live is to buy a ticket and then rush back to their cars to listen to the post-game interview on the flagship station in order to get quotes.

The business of sports will be covered the same way, regardless of access. The ACTUAL SPORT itself cannot be.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say it.

 

I have but one beef, Zag...

More and more people are clamoring for info about the corporate world. Perhaps not as much as people wants sports news, but more than you seem to give them credit for.

 

I agree - but it is much, much different.

We are talking apples and oranges -- the busines side of sports is covered the same way that businesses are covered and that is not going to change -- and frankly the access to AIG's board room notes is no more or less than the access to the Yankees board room notes -- and that is why Cranberry's point is silly.

I'm talking about access in terms of covering the actual sports and the issues on the field and in the locker room -- and there is no covering that without access.

You cannot properly cover a team without daily access and the myth that there is some cozy relationship just because you get a press pass and a free parking spot is one that is perpetuated by someone who has obviously never worked in the business.

Never once, in all my years of getting "a free meal" have I ever said, I won't write about that because they let me in free. Not once.

 

Fair enough.

 

The ACTUAL SPORT is a product. Sports franchises don't need to give it away free anymore because they no longer need the distribution.

And the relationship between the news media and sports is extremely cozy and will remain that way until sports franchises decide they have absolutely no use for the news media. You probably won't figure this out until they tell you to buy a ticket, watch on television or watch on the Internet like everyone else.

As for now, there's marginal value to inviting the media in to watch. Little by little that value is shrinking, which is what you're noticing (fee for parking, Internet access, etc.) but don't seem to understand very well.

 

Really? So if there was no coverage -- no TV, no talk radio, no newspapers, no blogs, no web-sites other than official team sites -- at all of sports, they'd still thrive the way they are?

And you really think it is a good thing that media is little by little getting shut out? And you really think that being shut out is going to improve coverage?

You are joking right?

 

What makes you think sports franchises would have "no TV, no talk radio, no newspapers, no blogs, no web-sites" independent of their own if access was further restricted?

And I think it's a good thing for journalism that media is gradually being forced to cover the sports industry correctly and without being compromised.

 

The assumption -- a very wrong one based on silly stereotypes and generalizations -- being, of course, that the sports industry is not and has not been covered correctly without being compromised.

That's ridiculous.

There are plenty, the overwhelming majority in fact, of news organizations who cover the sports industry - the business side of things -- correctly.

 

You're wrong. You get a great seat to see the game every night. The GM whispers stuff to you. The manager or coach holds a daily press briefing, in some sports a couple a day, and you can walk into a clubhouse and talk to the players. You do all of this with a little laminated credential which spells out the rules in fine print on the back. You're being used to promote their product and as you begin to abuse those "privileges" they will begin to be taken away.

There are individual journalists who try to do things right under those very real compromises but they are nonetheless compromised.