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!

Wall Street Journal: Sports Leagues Impose More Rules on Coverage

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Speedway, Jul 16, 2007.

  1. Speedway

    Speedway Member

    From today's Wall Street Journal, this topic is really starting to get some mainstream, national attention...

  2. estreetband75

    estreetband75 Member

    THey must have caught Redskins hack Karl Swanson between lunches.
  3. pseudo

    pseudo Well-Known Member

    Yeah, and I'm absolutely sure people were doing just that.

    And from further down in the story - Canon logos on NFL photographers' vests. How long before they boot anyone who dares to shoot with a Nikon?

    Sliding down that slippery slope, and picking up speed...
  4. spaceman

    spaceman Active Member

    This WSJ story will have about as much impact as an ESPN ombudsman.
  5. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    The article was a thumbnail of what's going on, but the problem is much more pervasive. He failed to mention two of the most egregious incidents: The KC Royals flap and the Tennessee Vols football thing.

    Also the writer says there's no legal recourse whatsoever. Is he 100% sure about that? Have these things been challenged at all? I always mention public funding of some of these stadiums.


    I do think there will be a tipping point, and the leagues will want the coverage again. I think we're still a ways from that, though. Somebody's going to have to start losing money for it to happen. You do see it with the NHL, which is becoming more media-friendly again.
  6. ServeItUp

    ServeItUp Active Member


    This video was mentioned in the article as John McClain of the Houston Chronicle tries to cram several interviews into the 45 seconds allotted by the NFL. I sincerely hope McClain explained to the Texans players and coaches what he was trying to do. Otherwise the expressions are priceless. The rule is a load of doo, if you ask me.
  7. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    Sent with head shot, action shot and bio of former LSU football player Dave Peterson, who died in a motorcycle accident Tuesday:

    Photo is from 2004 Sugar Bowl.
    Please give courtesy to LSU Sports Information.
    This image of LSU Athletics is intended for one time use only.
    The image depicted in this picture is property of the LSU Athletics Department and Louisiana State University. The LSU Athletics Department holds the copyright of this image. Re-sale or commercial use of this picture is strictly prohibited and a violation of NCAA rules.
    Any questions or problems regarding this e-mail please call (225) 578-1887.

    Thank You,

    Jason Feirman, Publications Director
    LSU Athletics Publications Office
    P.O. Box 25095
    Baton Rouge, LA 70894
    www.LSUPix.net :: Buy Prints | Custom Framing | Gift Certificates
  8. InTheSkeller

    InTheSkeller Member

    Good thing the guy can only die once. huh?
  9. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    I'm waiting to see what we get the next time they send a mug of someone who's still alive. We've never had those disclaimers before in anything LSU sent us. They went from nothing at all to what I posted.
  10. chazp

    chazp Active Member

    Camera logos on photo vests. Un-freaking-real. What's next, "this postgame on field interview sponsored by Thursday Night Football on the NFL Network?"
  11. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Love the ads on the end of the e-mail. Nothing like a university trying to make money off a guy's death.
  12. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    Apparently that's his auto-signature, but in the context of this particular e-mail, it does come off a tad awkward, yes?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page