Summary: Seattle
Post-Intelligencer columnist Ted Miller says teams like the Royals are trying to
dictate coverage by the media. Why? Because they aren't winners.
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/miller/274882_miller22.html
Who's at mercy: Teams or media?
Thursday, June 22, 2006
By TED MILLER
P-I COLUMNIST
Todd Turner is a smooth communicator, so it's hard to tell if Washington's
athletic director was trying to talk a reporter away from the edge of a cliff or
provide a final push.
"It's an interesting time in the news media business," he said. "All of us are
trying to figure this out."
What Turner's "us" -- Division I-A athletic departments and professional sports
teams -- are trying to figure out is this: Do we want to kill the messengers or
merely cut off their legs?
News about the media is rarely front-and-center. Mostly because it's boring.
There's also the feeling in the business that because we frequently roll our
eyes at a sports industry laden with perpetual, disingenuous whiners, we should
suck it up when we feel wronged.
That said, news consumers -- that's you -- might want to know about how your
right to receive unvarnished sports news is being threatened.
Increasingly, college sports programs and pro franchises are taking steps to
manage -- read: homogenize, filter and censor -- information on how they go
about their business.
That means restricting independent media access while granting special
privileges to providers who are beholden to the team.
Consider:
The Kansas City Royals yank the
credentials of radio reporters Bob Fescoe and Rhonda Moss. The offense? Fescoe
and Moss peppered Royals owner David Glass, whose seven-year tenure has featured
an average of 97 losses per season, with tough questions during a news
conference introducing Dayton Moore as the team's new general manager.
The Portland Trail Blazers announce that all interviews must be approved by the
media relations department, which reserves the right to demand in advance a
written list of questions. Also, all interviews will be recorded, and the
franchise reserves the right to post a transcript or audio file on the team's
Web site.
Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, in a snit with The Washington Post,
tries to dominate the coverage of his team by purchasing radio stations, a fan
magazine, a fan Web site and producing a television show.
For $40 a year, Virginia Tech fans can access football coach Frank Beamer's Web
site, where they can get "the best, most up-to-date and accurate information."
The Web site is known to "break" stories and provide information Beamer
withholds from reporters. Virginia Tech, by the way, pays Beamer $2 million
annually.
Gnawing on these items this week prompted the call to Turner. Full of renewed
outrage inspired by the slings and arrows suffered by my comrades, I wanted to
challenge him on an April 3 passage from his "Top Dawg Blog" on the athletic
department's Web site concerning Huskies coach Tyrone Willingham's decision to
close practices to the media.
"Closed practices," he wrote, "are the result of irresponsible behavior by some
that have been given access in the past. Information from practice, if not
handled responsibly, can impact team morale and provide confidential information
to our opponents, which could put us at a competitive disadvantage."
That felt like a shot at the local media's integrity, one that cannot be
supported by specific examples. Turner admitted as much, quickly pointing a
finger at the Internet, though again without providing any specifics.
Ah, the Internet, the bane and salvation of sports teams.
The Huskies, like many college and pro teams, are jazzing up content on their
Web site, offering "exclusive" stories and interviews. For a small fee, of
course.
That's fine. The content has value, and some fans only want to read reports
delivered with a smiley face. Even if that message doesn't jibe with reality.
Notice a common denominator among the teams -- Royals, Trail Blazers, Redskins
and Huskies -- that are publicly struggling with their local media?
While obsessing about controlling the message, they forgot to win, though the
Redskins did make the playoffs for the first time since 1999 last season.
Instead of acknowledging that negative coverage is entirely due to losing and
administrative incompetence, officials want to cry about -- and punish --
newspapers and talk radio.
Which is ludicrous.
So what sort of news would a team provide on itself?
Here's another "exclusive," this one from Blazers general manager John Nash's
blog:
"Despite what some media types are writing, let me assure you that we are all on
the same page in that we want the Trail Blazers to succeed and that we want each
other to succeed as well," Nash wrote. "In many cases, the fans are saying,
'Stay the course.' And disregard the negativity and divisiveness being generated
by several desperate for readers/listeners media outlets."
Nash, of course, was fired two weeks after writing that, and his blog was
removed from the team's Web site -- the entry is courtesy of Oregonian columnist
John Canzano's blog.
Canzano also noted that an interview with team owner Paul Allen was posted on
the Blazers Web site only after portions that might have been controversial were
deleted.
Do you think the Blazers would have tackled the story of team president Steve
Patterson using former FBI investigators to interrogate employees about media
leaks, like The Oregonian did?
Imagine a future in which objective local coverage has been marginalized. There
will be team and league Web sites. There will be fan sites and blogs. There will
be ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
And there will be no day-to-day accountability provided by real journalists.
Many fans enjoy ranting about the media. It's like a hobby. But most, in the
end, want uncompromised coverage, even if they fully intend to complain about
it.
P-I columnist Ted Miller can be reached at 206-448-8017 or
[email protected].
© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer