NFL spokesperson: ‘It’s… a content issue’
Don Day July 1st, 2007
The Washington Post tackled the NFL’s 45 second rule in a sports cover story Saturday. Redskins spokesperson Chris Helein summed up what we all know: “There are a number of reasons for [barring videographers], but it’s basically a content issue. I won’t hide… the fact that the NFL and everything that surrounds it is valuable content.” AP Sports Editors president Jim Jenks talked about the ongoing battle over the rule. “They’re not going to get the best content” from the NFL or team Web sites, he said. “The NFL isn’t known for its objectivity or its reporting skill; it’s known for football. So fans won’t get the hard questions asked there, and newspaper sites won’t have the enriched content that we could do.”
7 Comments Add your own
1. Allen | July 1st, 2007 at 11:48 am
It’s interesting to see more coverage about this now that the policy is affecting newspapers and their web sites as well as television. Where was the outrage when the tv sideline ban went into effect last season? I was hard pressed to find many articles about it.
2. Richard | July 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
From the Post story…As the Internet becomes a premier source for video reports, teams are increasingly competing with the news media’s Web sites for viewers and advertisers.
TV and Newspaer with web outlets need to decide if Football is their partner or competitor. Football is not the only game in town and it may behoove a media outlet to say to the local Football team: “give us a call when you make the SuperBowl.”
3. Safran | July 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
We’ve been outraged by the NFL’s attitude toward websites for years. We raised the flag again last year when they enacted still more onerous regulations on coverage. But mostly what we hear back is “So what? What’s the difference if you get footage from the NFL or from your cameraman?” I’m afraid the public doesn’t care, and after thinking about that for a long time, I came up with why:
We’re to blame - too many years of rah-rah coverage and not enough critical reporting have turned the media into an extension of the NFL PR machine. So I can understand the public’s indifference.
Still, Local TV News needs to stop feeding the NFL’s ego. We have to stop following these teams like sick puppies, begging for scraps from their tables, for a TV audience of whom only 20% care about sports.
The change has already happened, and the NFL has made the call. Take those resources in your sports department and make your sports reporters journalists who cover sports news.
4. TheDetroitChannel | July 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
i’m still trying to figure what he meant by “the hard questions asked there” which kinda makes me agree with safran on this one point. (yikes! and you thought we never agreed on anything!)
5. TheDetroitChannel | July 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
and why wouldn’t/couldn’t “newspaper sites have the enriched content we could”???
last i looked newspaper’s web channels are doin a darn good job on video. many actually believe that news, sports and weather don’t take the weekends off.
6. Allen | July 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Steve,
You have been on top of this issue. I meant no slight to this fine site.
But I know last season I searched for articles about the tv ban on a daily basis and there wasn’t a lot said about the tv sideline ban. There were a few exceptions with some excellent articles, but what always got me was how NFL spokesman Greg Aiello was never really questioned by the writers because they didn’t fully understand the situation. Anyway, that issue is over and now we are on to this.
7. Steve Safran | July 1st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Allen: I didn’t take it as a slight. I’m as baffled as you by the sheep-like following that still continues.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed