NFL now banning postgame video online
Cory Bergman October 3rd, 2006
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, the NFL is now restricting local news sites from posting video of postgame press conferences or locker room interviews. “Video from our stadiums on game day is one of our most valuable assets, including video of our people, players, coaches talking about the game,” said Greg Aiello, the NFL’s vice president for public relations. “The policy is designed to ensure that our rights holders, who have paid for access to that asset, receive the value they’ve paid for.” The new rule applies to game day, not to press conferences during the week. Of course, journalists are livid. “There is a smell here,” said the Poynter Institute’s Bob Steele, “and it gives the impression that the NFL and the teams are more interested in their own financial protection than they are helping the public understand what goes on in the field with the players in the games.” Well, I think it’s obviously the case, isn’t it? Meanwhile, the Washington Post and the Associated Press — with their lawyers — plan to ask new NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to reverse the new restriction. But as we’ve seen with all the controversy surrounding the restriction of sideline cameras, the odds that anything will change are slim. Rant away…
73 Comments Add your own
1. Safran | October 3rd, 2006 at 8:48 pm
No surprise, and they can go to hell.
All the more reason to cover the great local sports stories in our communities and stop enabling these rich, selfish, greedy crybabies. Every time we show them on the news we underwrite their efforts to undermine us.
Would any news organization cover a news event that would issue these kinds of restrictions?
An industry appeal will fall on deaf ears. Want to make some noise? Stop covering these idiots. Just stop. Under no other circumstances would we report news on terms dictated to us - so what makes football any different? Let them see how quickly getting ignored in a city where a team is playing lousy hurts their ticket prices. Let them see how a lack of PR hurts their chances at getting funding for a stadium out of taxpayer wallets.
We are co-dependent, and we have to break this cycle now. They want us to shut up, report the scores, rah-rah the teams, be unquestioning, and nothing more. They can bite it. Find actual, wonderful sports stories in our towns and cities and then go investigate these pro-sports bullies instead of blindly abiding by their wishes.
2. Robert Kraft | October 3rd, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Okay, Steve, go for it! I want to see a Bob Ley “Outside The Lines” type of series on the number of NFL players who have been arrested, the graduation rates of all the Division I-A college football teams, and maybe the best of all — how many people leave the home of the Patriots drunk off their ass, driving at the wheel of their car on the way home, presumably passing your house on occasion.
Steve, I agree with you, but the best story might be the last one offered. How about working with the MA State Police and have a stadium-wide blanket to catch, what, maybe 10,000 people who are DWI……..
3. Allen | October 3rd, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Well said, Steve.
4. Cory | October 3rd, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I agree to a point. The problem is, not all the media organizations will stop. And fans will gravitate toward the ones that don’t. And you’ll end up burning your credibility in sports coverage by trying to make a stand.
Now if all the news orgs in a city can agree together to stop, then we have something.
5. Allen | October 3rd, 2006 at 10:42 pm
You are right. Many media organizations won’t stop. In my city one stations pays the team for the rights to be the “official station”. So if the rest of us don’t cover them the fans wanting that coverage will only have one place to turn to as far as local tv coverage is concerned.
6. Sports sanctioners clippi&hellip | October 4th, 2006 at 4:32 am
[...] Lost Remote points to a Kansas City Star story describing new limits the National Football League places on post-game coverage, including even coaches’ news conferences: “The latest flap involves restrictions on what newspapers can put on their Web sites from game-day coverage. An increasing number of newspapers, including The Kansas City Star, are posting game stories and still photographs from games on their sites during and immediately after games. [...]
7. thedetroitchannel | October 4th, 2006 at 4:50 am
the lions are currently 0-4.
no press coverage would actually be a positive!
8. Lost Remote TV Blog&hellip | October 4th, 2006 at 6:54 am
[...] Unsportsmanlike conduct. 15 yards. On the NFL. Unfortunately, it’s journalism that doesn’t get the first down. Instead, the NFL has made its latest control freak intentions clear by banning news websites from showing so much as a postgame interview. First they banned the game highlights, then the cameras from the sidelines, now the interviews. Enough. The web is an integral part of our mission of journalism - to tell a story. In no other case would we allow a subject to dictate the terms under which we tell a story. But for some reason we’re doing that in sports. [...]
9. Larry Crittenden | October 4th, 2006 at 7:19 am
A Michigan legislator, Representative Leon Drolet, is supporting local broadcasters with a bill thet would prohibit unreasonable restrictions on sideline coverage of sporting events in publicly funded stadiums.
The Michigan Association of Broadcasters is supporting this bill. Visit http://www.michmab.com for details and a link to an email you can send to the legislative committee that is considering this bill.
10. thedetroitchannel | October 4th, 2006 at 7:54 am
the question will come down to “what is unreasonable?”
the nfl will argue that each and every word uttered is an asset and worth compesation. the nfl will simply put a price on everything. lousy teams from a city like drolet’s will command a far lower figure than, say , “da’bears”.
11. Larry Crittenden | October 4th, 2006 at 8:31 am
I won’t quote the full text of the Michigan bill, but the “unreasonable” test applies to restrictions based on public health and safety, not the relative value of broadcast rights or copyrighted content.
The central argument in support of the legislation is public ownership of stadiums and the public’s expectation that legitimate news events should be covered by objective media.
A sporting event that draws thousands of people to a public facility is news, regardless of the teams, the game or the outcome.
12. thedetroitchannel | October 4th, 2006 at 9:12 am
true, and we’ve had this discussion before right here at the fabulous LR.
i’ve always said that if it’s a publicly-owned stadium and you want to film the stadium, go right ahead.
the contention that ANY sporting event is a legitimate news event falls flat with alot of folks. it’s really just entertainment with a little bit of the luck-of-the-draw.
might you be from michigan?
would the mab also argue that any tom-d-h could webcast the art van thanksgiving day parade and sell ads since it is held on woodward ave?
might tdh also webcast the marshall fields fireworks freedom festival as they are shot off over the detroit river?
both draw thousands of people to a public place, btw.
it’s not the venue that has value, it is the event.
i am very open to opposing points of view as i see this entire enchilada as furtile ground.
13. Larry Crittenden | October 4th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Okay, one more comment. Yes, I’m from Michigan. I work for the MAB. No secret there.
With our support of the bill we are not arguing that a local broadcaster should be able to interfere with legitimate broadcast rights to any event. Local broadcasters have no intention of shooting and then airing or streaming an entire game.
They just want a couple of highlights, an isolation shot of a player with local connections, and some fans-in-the-stands cover they can use when they produce their stories.
We do believe that local media provides coverage that you would not otherwise get from the network broadcast. Even the NFL has acknowledged this reality by borrowing footage from local television stations for the past 40 years or so to supplement their own programs and archives.
Is a football game a legitimate news event? I’ll leave that one to the news directors, reporters and viewers. But as we noted in our testimony before the legislative committee, anytime that you draw 50,000 people to the same spot, there’s bound to be some sort of news.
So, I don’t think our views are opposing; we’re just shooting from different angles.
14. thedetroitchannel | October 4th, 2006 at 10:34 am
fair enough.
i’m simply posing the type of questions the nfl might field front, center and linebacker in their own defense…
not to mention any number of new media outlets who will no doubt use whatever legislation comes out of that bill to their advantage.
cheers!
15. rickymedia | October 4th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
First of all, we’re not talking total restrictions. Local media can still cover games (on game day) and report on them during their live telecasts. They simply cannot post locker room video online. What’s the harm in the NFL wanting to protect is product and keep interview postings from the net. Let us all not forget that the NFL is a for-profit organization just like the media company’s covering them. If the NFL wants to potentially utilze “game day locker room” footage on their own site or their own corporate approved sites, so be it. Seriously, we are talking professional football here and not the restriction of coverage/online video postings of (insert your favorite NFL city here)’s city council.
16. acdcfanbill | October 4th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
well then the NFL should front the money to build their stadiums.
17. Tyler Hurst | October 4th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Can anyone name the stadiums in the NFL that were privately financed?
I believe there are two, BoA Stadium (Panthers) and Gillette Field in New England. These are the ONLY two stadiums the NFL’s new rule should apply to.
Damn you money-hungry, regular-joe hatin’, pieces of shit!
18. atomic1fire | October 4th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
show more community sports instead then
or make your own publicly funded sport leauges
when the advertisers start complaining the nfl will start respecting the public
why let them get those million dollars that they make with beers sport drinks and tv time slots
if they want to attack the community
infact stop airing the games if you want to fight back
what do you think labor unions do that people hate so much
19. FreakShow | October 4th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
I was under the impression that the NFL was a non-profit organization and each team was a for profits arm, under the umbrella of the non profit NFL. Guess I stand corrected.
20. Spankallama - The NFL can&hellip | October 4th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
[...] The NFL is now restricting local news sites from posting video of postgame press conferences or locker room interviews. “Video from our stadiums on game day is one of our most valuable assets, including video of our people, players, coaches talking about the game,” said Greg Aiello, the NFL’s vice president for public relations. “The policy is designed to ensure that our rights holders, who have paid for access to that asset, receive the value they’ve paid for.” (Source–”LostRemote”) [...]
21. Robert B. | October 4th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Are they doing this so they can push their new TV station? I’ve been hearing commercials for that station for weeks.
22. Chris Weaver | October 4th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Back in 2001 when Fox and NBC took over the NASCAR Coverage they began a rule disallowing NASCAR Footage to be used within a Racing Magazine show except on Fox, NBC, Speed and any related network that might be associated with those nets.
That essentially locked out ESPN2s RPM2night racing highlights show. They tried for a while to cover the races by using photos and interviewing drivers OUTSIDE of the tracks. They succeeded for a while eventually folded because they couldn’t compete with the shows taped inside the track.
Of course now ABC and ESPN have paid for the rights to broadcast the races again bringing them back into the fray.
23. Harry | October 4th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
So you can’t have streaming video online; the ruling doesn’t seem to stop a video broadcast as “news/sports” reporting. How many people really depend on webcasts for their source?
24. rickymedia | October 4th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
No, FreakShow you are actually correct.
The National Football League (the NFL) itself is an unincorporated not for profit association pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. It is comprised for limited partners and a general partner. The limited partners are the thirty-one member teams of the National Football League and the general partner is NFL Enterprises Inc., a Delaware Corporation.
In my post, I was speaking realities, so to be clear, the NFL itself in a legal sense is “non-profit,” but it reality it is for-profit organization as it is comprised up of 32 for profit entities.
Nonetheless, the NFL typically seeks to make certain that its 31 limited partners are happy and making as much moolah as possible (i.e. unprecedented revenue sharing). The notion of restricting content distribution makes sense especially when the “league” knows that local journalistic outfits will NEVER have the chutzpah to stop covering the most popular sport in America. Again, the NFL is not attempting to restrict access, they are simply trying to control dissemination of pre-and-post game content. The NASCAR example is totally apropos as the NFL has its high paying media partners (Disney, News Corp, GE) who they’d gladly grant great access to and they have their local media outlets who pay nothing. It’s not hard, but let’s do the math. Who would you work closely with?
There is absolutely NOTHING like pro football, so at the very least in a monopolistic sense the NFL knows how precious its content is and they know the financial premium they can receive. Let’s be real, whether the Cincinnati or Jacksonville press can stream or post video online is not going to stop ANY Bengal or Jaguar fan from watching, going to or supporting the team they love. The NFL knows this and they could care less if a local affiliate (and their campy sportscaster or webmaster) gets pissed.
It’s big business at work baby!
25. johnhenryfaulk | October 4th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Good news. Now maybe you news guys can cover the real stories affecting the “sporting” world.
Our fourth estate asleep (comatose) at the wheel…
Our rapidly emerging dictatorship…
Hackable electronic voting systems with no audit trail…
Our torture and enemy combatant legislation that can be used against American citizens…
Removal of the legal tenet of habeas corpus, an 800 year-old “neat idea” originating with the Magna Carta…
The slippery slope of neocon fascism…
And the glaring reality that 911 was an inside job!
Hey the Bears are 4 and 0 woo hoo!
Back to work automatrons without a conscience.
Nice and comfy with your crackberry?
jhf
26. Terry Butcher | October 4th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Who cares about the NFL, They are a Bunch of Monkeys making way to much money.
27. Bill Boston | October 5th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
You may be surprised what local affiliates will do on pro coverage. Many college town affiliates are already reducing sports to fullscreens. The trend is on its way.
Bill Boston
WCAU
28. Quantae | October 8th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
I dont beleive this until I see thaa it happens this news is a joke for now and if happens is still a joke come on what are reporters working for come on the public should see the conferences if the media gets a hold to it.
29. f, the nfl | October 15th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
The NFL can kiss my ass. I’ve had enough of their bullshit TV restrictions. We need to pay more attention to Hockey!
30. girl a orgasm&hellip | January 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
index of erotic pics…
adult netflix…
31. sexy glamoure pictures&hellip | January 24th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
sex stoires post…
virgins get fucked…
32. batman gay drawing&hellip | January 27th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
asian porn videos for quicktime…
nude mature women photos free…
33. kira reed nude&hellip | January 29th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
tidy girls, the annual…
straponsissies free pics…
34. pretty girls russian&hellip | February 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
rss gay porn channels…
black fisting free pics…
35. nerd mature woman&hellip | February 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
free teen flicks…
reality bbq nude…
36. find all websites with bl&hellip | February 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
free rose mcgowan sex…
reality anal porn…
37. danielle fishel sex&hellip | February 24th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
older men fucking girls…
sex world cup 2006…
38. parjitta.com&hellip | March 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am
arnifa.com…
bisena.com…
39. look at pictures of gay p&hellip | May 3rd, 2007 at 8:28 am
love msn display pics…
big tits porn free…
40. Ivan | May 16th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Nice
41. Arion | May 17th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Interesting…
42. Leontios | May 17th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Cool…
43. Panos | May 18th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Cool…
44. Efthimios | May 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Cool!
45. Constandinos | May 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Nice…
46. Kleanthe | May 19th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Cool!
47. Sotiris | May 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Interesting…
48. Doxiadis | May 21st, 2007 at 5:45 am
Nice!
49. Spiro | May 21st, 2007 at 9:37 am
Nice!
50. Marinos | May 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 am
Nice
51. Yiannis | June 5th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Cool.
52. Antonios | June 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Nice!
53. Simos | June 8th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Interesting…
54. Zaharias | June 9th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Cool…
55. Anaklets | June 10th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Cool.
56. Vangelis | June 11th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Cool!
57. Petros | June 13th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Sorry
58. Kyriacos | June 14th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
interesting
59. Lambros | July 9th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Nice
60. Xenophon | July 9th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Sorry
61. Ioannes | July 9th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Nice!
62. Gregorios | July 9th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Interesting…
63. Constantine | July 10th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Cool…
64. Aniketos | July 10th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Cool!
65. Odysseas | July 19th, 2007 at 4:23 am
Nice…
66. Iason | July 19th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Nice
67. Dionyssios | July 20th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Nice
68. Sophocles | August 17th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Sorry
69. Alexios | August 31st, 2007 at 11:59 am
Cool.
70. free downloads music | September 26th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Hi boys!94ab9ff14bcf8d1ba40744aeb6e793ad
71. NFL now banning postgame &hellip | October 5th, 2007 at 5:58 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]
72. Crist | January 19th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Nice
73. The Culture of Ownership &hellip | January 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
[...] The Culture of Ownership is the National Football League telling attendees of football games and sports reporters what they can report about a game, how much video they can and cannot post online, and censoring “accounts” of games because they own the rights to the television broadcasts of those games. [...]
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed