Ryan Glasspiegel · @sportsrapport
4th May 2015 from TwitLonger
Response from @jmverlin about media credentials:
Ryan--
I think you make some good points in your article, but the conclusion you draw isn't the one that needs to be drawn.
Journalism is changing, that's true, and it has become tougher to tell who's an objective sports journalist and who's just a fan with a place to write. I cover primarily high school & college basketball around Philadelphia, and there are certainly folks at those games who wind up with credentials they don't really deserve and won't do anything useful with. I can't even imagine what it's like at, say, the Super Bowl, or the Pacquaio/Mayweather fight.
But that doesn't mean we can just get rid of press at events altogether. For a few reasons:
1) The best way for writers to write great stories is by developing relationships with their subjects and get material that they wouldn't otherwise get if they don't have some sort of familiarity with their interviewees. Sitting courtside at a game allows the reporter to take in the emotions of the crowd, the players, see little interactions that happens between them. While you can get some of this on television, you can't get all of it. It also robs reporters of the ability to ask a question in a post-game press conference if they're doing so from home, and they certainly can't grab a player in the hallway outside the locker room.
2) Most media wouldn't be able to afford paying for credentials. What this would do, ultimately, is eliminate all but the richest from being able to participate. There are so many local/regional sites covering all sorts of different sports who would be put out of business because their choice would either be to spend money covering the team or attempt to write from home, with basically no original content they can provide. And while the general theme has been that smaller providers get snapped up by one of the big names anyways, there's no reason to accelerate that process and slam the door shut on the little guys.
3) From a larger standpoint, the concept of shutting out the journalist is a dangerous precedent to set. Yes, we're "only" talking about sports here, so it's not the same as the White House telling journalists they can't cover the President anymore, but there are some parallels. Journalism is changing, but that only means we need to change with it, not alter the definition entirely. We become journalists to cover a story, and the best way to do that is up close and personal, not from afar. And I don't think that just because a few players and a manger don't understand the role of the media, we need to re-think if they're meant to be there or not.
Ultimately, I think the push needs to be for a more selective media process, one that values those who will actually produce content dependent upon their being there. As journalism is changing, so too must the credentialing process--but that doesn't mean eliminate it entirely.