Press Pass Question
A question to the journalists among you:
Is there any line that is drawn between legitimate press and Op-Ed press, especially licensed defamers like Drew Sharp in terms of accessing UM press conferences? Is it like a nightclub where bouncers can be placed at the door of the press conference with unbridled discretion as to who can or cannot get in, even if they have a press pass? Or, as appears to be the case, does our athletic department have limited control over this?
Reason I ask is the ever increasing virtual competition news media like the Free Press battles for viewers/subscribers, appears to have instigated a blurring of the lines between legitimate news and Op-Ed, where shock journalists (Sharp for example) have for years written derogatory pieces meant more to generate chatter and notoriety and clicks than convey accurate news. Yet there they sit, front at center, volleying questions to the same coaches they continuously defame. Perplexing.
I’ve always wondered this and I figure since it’s a down time in the year, what best time to ask.
A press pass is a press pass — Michigan, at least, makes no designation between beat writers, Op-Ed types, bloggers, etc.
You do, however, get a general sense of who's in the university's good graces by the press box seating chart.
I was wondering why Heiko was sitting in Borges's lap being gently petted during the latest press conference. That clears up a lot of confusion for me.
Thanks Ace. That's all I was wondering. So there's an insinuated message sent to the media based upon the seating chart. Makes perfect sense.
Feel free to delete the thread if the fact that I mentioned he shall not be named (Sharp) somehow leads others to take this thread down a muddy path where it was not intended.
No need to delete — this is a perfectly valid offseason question.
I think I mentioned this on a past podcast, but Sharp was exiled to the last row hinterlands (along with, unfortunately, a post-Three and Out John U. Bacon—I actually had his old seat the last two years) for the last couple years. I'm not entirely sure he even shows up to all the home games these days; don't remember seeing him that much last year.
how is Mgoblog doing with the University?
Can't complain one bit — second row, 40-ish yard line, good view of the action. They very clearly separate the "old media" from the "new media" though — Heiko and I are near the other bloggers (Greg Dooley is a couple seats down the row) and recruiting services (WN is in front of us, GBW and The Wolverine to our left). The MSM beat reporters are almost all on the other side of the 50.
Do you foresee a point where space becomes an issue? It seems that the Michigan blogosphere and the recruiting services are continuing to expand, and potentially there could be another 25 legitimate news organizations wanting to have a staff member in the press box. Could the current press box accomdate a need like that?
Granted, this would probably also coincide with the continuing reduction of the MSM, so it may not be an issue. However, given all of the new organziations represented in the press box in just the last 10 years (although there is a new press box, I realize), it seems like it might become an issue down the road.
Also,
How hard is it to break into the 'established blogger' pool that gets the tickets? I would totally create my own Michigan website in order to get those tickets. I'm only halfway kidding...
They have certain—and strict—requirements for giving online outlets press access, and those include minimum traffic numbers that aren't particularly easy to reach. Off the top of my head, these are the blogs I know are credentialed aside from us:
- Maize n Brew
- Maize & Blue Nation
- MVictors
- UMGoBlog
Steve secured a pass for Tremendous last year before he took the 247 job, but they were pulling some pretty absurd traffic numbers.
I think Dooley belongs in a different category. I can't think of another organization that has guys like him, or Bacon, or Craig Ross who cover the program and yet are also kind of part of it.
For the record, mgovideo had higher traffic than MVictors, Maize & Blue Nation and UMGoBlog and was denied credentials the last two years. The plan was to have a videographer and more original content but they didn't want that. Then when we re-distributed unoriginal content, they attacked us with their lawyers. It's more politics than traffic.
As Ace suggested, minimum traffic numbers are only one of the criteria to securing a press pass. I'm sure the videography aspect ran afoul of one (or more) of the other criteria.
You're sure?
Doubtful. There are plenty of extra seats in the top couple rows (which don't provide a great view, but there are several TVs up there). Some outlets also send four or five reporters, so if there's a serious crunch I could see the school putting limits on the number of credentials given for one sport to the same publication. Again, though, I don't think that'll be a problem any time soon with the renovations.
Are members of the media typically seated for the whole game? Are they allowed to move around, stand by the windows, etc.?
Definitely seated while the game is going on. First of all, never get between a reporter and their MacBook during a game. Second, standing by the windows means you're almost certainly blocking someone's view.
A few people get up and walk around—usually to get food or use the bathroom—during commercial breaks, but usually there's just a mass run for the buffet table during halftime. Most everyone is pretty busy up there during game action.
No bouncers, that's true, but they do have a (very awesome) bomb-sniffing dog that checks our bags on the way in before every football game.
I suggest NOT trying to pet the dog. Just FYI.
I won't lie, I've had to resist that temptation before every game.
I have to imagine the bomb sniffing dogs are more nervous than most other dogs, and the drug sniffing ones are just paranoid all the time.
My brother in law is a police officer and has a K9 unit. One time I asked him if we could see if he would fetch a stick (he did) but when he came back I kind of made the normal grabbing motion to get the stick back, the dog looked at me with those "dont f*ck with me" eyes and needless to say we stopped playing that game.
Also, if your ever in a position where they say "we're sending in the dog" give the heck up, I've put on the "bite suit" and having a 100+ German Shepherd looking to tear your throat out is not fun even with padding on.
/coolstorybro
Should be let into games, but his designated seat should also have an eject button that Brian can push whenever Michigan turns the ball over or Jerry Kill looks like a gopher. So, whenever he wants.
Drew Sharp has published some rubbish (the latest piece being a special breed of terrible) but "defamation"? C'mon now. His job is to write pieces that generate interest, and it appears (based on this thread and the other, now disappeared one) he succeded. We should never shut out a member of the media because we don't like their editorials. The best medicine is to not give a shit.
The term can be pushed and pulled for a meaning but since the basic definition of defamation implies the communication of a false statement that harms a target's reputation, one could definitely categorize many Op Ed columns as just that. Case in point: Where a "journalist" takes a minor factoid about Coach Hoke defending the quality of Big Ten football, and then falsely extrapolates that Coach Hoke suffers from a debilitating mental illness in the title of his Op-Ed piece, many circles would certainly call that defamatory, albeit perhaps short of legally actionable defamation.
Hoke is a public figure, making the standard to prove defamation much more difficult. Further, Sharp wasn't saying that Hoke truly has a mental illness. C'mon, he's a sports editorial writer using hyperbole. I completely disagree with him, but that's what those guys are paid to do. It's not a big deal.
You're pretty much right, since Hoke is a public figure, he would have to prove malice. New York Times v Sullivan is the major case here.
Most of the guys in the journalism field will tell you that banning a writer who is unfriendly to your program is the wrong way to deal with negative journalism. It's better to allow them equal access and have your media team spin the story and try and manage the narrative. Banning a reporter would just result in an endless stream of bad press.
For dealing with hacks like Sharpe, the best way to hurt him is to not read his stuff. Don't click on the article. I realize it's not as satisfying and cathartic as going into the comments and giving him a piece of your mind, but clicks on his story means he wins. If his stuff garners no clicks, he'll be gone in a flash.
Drew who?