Local cameras on NFL sidelines..

[adam & doctor drew]

here we go again. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2756630)

good to see that all other problems in Missouri have been solved.

[Signature on File]

Yea, that NBC station in St Louis got that crap stirred up again.

[What the ?]

Good for them.

If the NFL wants to keep local reporters off the sidelines, let them pay for local stadiums. Period.

I think lawmakers in every state should follow suit.

[photog78]

I concur. They want the public to help pay for their stadiums, but then they restrict the media in a very harsh way.

Were there really too many cameras roaming the sidelines? Were people getting hurt because of it?

[ February 07, 2007, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: photog78 ]

[amp]

Good for them!!

Question to those who still cover the NFL, does this ban cover still photogs too? If it is only tv cameras restricted, that's just crap. The last time I shot a Redskins game, we were outnumbered 10 to 1 by still shooters. Just looking at their gear, you could tell at least half of them weren't real news still photogs. After talking with a few, most were management or relatives of people at small, weekly papers from the fringes of the Redskins fan base. They weren't even shooting for publication!!! Stop treating us tv crews like lepers!

[Spike]

Originally posted by amp:
Stop treating us tv crews like lepers!They're not treating you like lepers. They're treating you like competition.

They're protecting the value of their own television product by restricting your ability to compete with it. Or at least they think they are. Suppose the NFL controlled the concessions at the games as well and made money doing it. Do you think they would just let other people into the stadium to set up food stands in competition with them? Of course not. Would they let in T-shirt vendors selling unlicensed team merchandise in competition with their own brands? Of course not.

So why should they just let you compete with them?

[ February 07, 2007, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Spike ]

[sportzchick]

Then why don't they also ban the still photographers and have their NFL staff take pix and give them to the papers?

[Spike]

Originally posted by sportzchick:
Then why don't they also ban the still photographers and have their NFL staff take pix and give them to the papers?Probably because there isn't anywhere near as much money in stills as there is in a television product.

[Run's House]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by amp:
Stop treating us tv crews like lepers!They're not treating you like lepers. They're treating you like competition.

They're protecting the value of their own television product by restricting your ability to compete with it. Or at least they think they are. Suppose the NFL controlled the concessions at the games as well and made money doing it. Do you think they would just let other people into the stadium to set up food stands in competition with them? Of course not. Would they let in T-shirt vendors selling unlicensed team merchandise in competition with their own brands? Of course not.

So why should they just let you compete with them?</font>[/QUOTE]I respect this side of the argument Spike, however, it may be a bit misguided. There is NO conceivable way that local stations could compete with the NFL Network/NFL Films. The product is far superior and given the option of watching an NFL Films story on Tony Dungy or some 2-years out of school schmoe...I think the choice is clear. The NFL is too protective of their product, plain and simple, to the point that my interest dropped this year. Not because, the pimply faced local couldn't do a 1:05 pkg on the Redskins new cover 2 defense, but because there was no ESPN Primetime. Keep in mind, this was the same league that tried to copyright its stats so it could make money on fantasy football.

Unfortunately for the legislators in Missouri, any lawyer worth his salt will plow through that bill in about 5 seconds.

[Another side]

I watch a lot of football, and I guess I learned in this thread that local photogs have been banned from the NFL sidelines.

I guess I didn't miss them. I KNOW I didn't notice.

Maybe that's because I'm part of the 90 percent of households with TVs on that don't watch local sportscasts.

[photog78]

So somehow 90 percent consciously decide to shut off local news before the sportscast???

[Another side]

I just grabbed a figure out of the air ... but it's an extremely high percentage, yes.

[JoinUsForCake]

Ah, it was so long ago that I was on a Redskins sideline... yes folks, I am hidden in this picture somewhere. Find me and win a surprise:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/LionHalo/BengalsAtRedskins.jpg

[ February 07, 2007, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: JoinUsForCake ]

[Lazlo Toth]

I see you. Blue sweat suit. Yellow vest. Holding the downs marker.

[ February 07, 2007, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Lazlo Toth ]

[Lazlo Toth]

Originally posted by photog78:
Were people getting hurt because of it?Well, there was that unFORTUNatE incident when Harry Hinkle got his COOKIEs crumbled.

http://members.aol.com/tiedgame/fortunecookie.jpg

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2001/06/28/lemmon31.jpg

[thebrain]

It sounds good in theory, but why is it only publicly funded stadiums? The state paid for a jail, I want to get shots of the prisoners. The school was paid for by taxpayer money so I should be able to get video inside of the school.

[Lazlo Toth]

In California, journalists have a legal right to be on public school campuses.

[ February 08, 2007, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Lazlo Toth ]

[JoinUsForCake]

Originally posted by Lazlo Toth:
I see you. Blue sweat suit. Yellow vest. Holding the downs marker.Hahahaa, ye- I mean.. NO! You silly goose.

[thebrain]

Originally posted by Lazlo Toth:
In California, journalists have a legal right to be on public school campuses.Can you go into a classroom and get video of students(like elementary, middle or high school)?

[Lazlo Toth]

Originally posted by thebrain:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lazlo Toth:
In California, journalists have a legal right to be on public school campuses.Can you go into a classroom and get video of students(like elementary, middle or high school)?</font>[/QUOTE]No, we have a right to go on campus, but not a right to go in the classroom without permission. But as a parent, I have a right enter and remain in my own child's classroom as long as I am not disruptive.

[ February 08, 2007, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Lazlo Toth ]

[Lazlo Toth]

This is from The Reporter's Handbook put out by the California Newspaper Publishers' Association.

====================================

PUBLIC SCHOOL GROUNDS

A. ABSOLUTE RIGHT NOT TO REGISTER

The media's special right of access to public school grounds
is one of the most often violated media rights. CNPA legal
counsel regularly receive telephone calls from reporters
• who have been denied entrance to a campus. The rule is
simple. All "outsiders," e.g. those who do not attend or
work at the school, are required to register with the
administration before entering a public school campus.
This provision is contained in Penal Code Section 627 and
following. However, under Penal Code Section 627.1 (a)(7),
"outsider" is defined to exclude journalists. This means
that school administrators are prohibited in all cases from
requiring members of the media to receive permission or
register prior to entering a public school campus. Members
of the media may enter and stay on school grounds at their
own discretion, subject only to the limitations described
below. The fact that a particular principal or other
administrator believes that it is in the best interests of the
students or school to bar press access is legally irrelevant.

B. LIMITS OF RIGHT TO REMAIN

Although members of the media may enter school
buildings or grounds without registering. Education Code
Sections 32211 and 44810 limit the right of the mediate
remain on school grounds. These sections give school
officials authority to order persons to leave the campus —
including the media — if their presence can be shown to
be disruptive or threatens to result in the destruction of
school property. Refusal to comply with a lawful order to
leave is a misdemeanor criminal offense. Under Section
32211 (a), "A request that a person depart from a school
building or public school grounds shall be made by the
principal or by the designee exclusively on the basis that it
appears reasonable ... to conclude that the continued
presence of the person requested to depart would be
disruptive or would interfere with classes or other activities
of the public school program." This is a question of fact
and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Members of the media should distinguish between covering
the news and creating the news by their presence. For
example, students at a local high school may decide to
hold a protest during school hours, perhaps taking issue
with United States foreign policy. The students decide to
leave their classes and march through the school grounds.
Local reporters and photographers are notified of the protest
and arrive at the school to cover the event. When the media
arrives and begins taking pictures and talking to the
protesters, the principal comes out and orders the media
to leave. Does the media have a right to stay? The mere
fact that a disruption of normal school functions is
occurring does not provide discretion to bar the media from
the school. To eject reporters, it must reasonably appear
that the media is causing the disruption. As a general
rule, however, the sole fact that a disruption is occurring ^
does not provide legal cause for the principal or other school :

administrator to bar the media from the school grounds or '
buildings; the reporter himself must be responsible for the |
disruption to justify ordering that reporter to leave. |

PART IV:

STATE PRISONS, JAILS AND PAROLE
BOARD HEARINGS

A. GENERAL RULES OF ACCESS

•^
Because of overriding security concerns, authorities have
broad discretion to control public access to state prisons
and county jails. In general, the press has no special rights
to access these facilities.

In the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case Pell v. Procunier.
the court held that the press does not have a greater right
to access jails or prisons than the public at large, holding
that "the Constitution does not require government to
accord the press special access to information not shared
by members of the public generally."

The same principal was applied by the court in a California
case involving access to a restricted portion of a county
jail (Houchms v. KQED. 1978). These two cases create a
maxim for newsgathering in California: In the absence of
a statute to the contrary, the press has no greater rights of
access to people, places or records than the public in
general. In Houchms, the court upheld the constitutionality
of a prison tour offered to the press and members of the
public on a first-come, first-served basis. The court rej ected
a claim for greater media access, saying it was sufficient
that the media and the general public were given equal
access.

As a matter of practice, however, most local and state
authorities will allow special access to members of the
media who make a request. The California Department of
Corrections and the Board of Prison Terms (parole board)
have policies allowing journalists to obtain access to
facilities or proceedings not open to the general public.
The policy of the Department of Corrections leaves
regulation of access to the discretion of the various
institutions. Normally, unless the prison is under a
lockdown, a visit or tour can be arranged by calling the
warden of the particular facility involved.

[WalMartNation]

Originally posted by Another side:
I just grabbed a figure out of the air ... but it's an extremely high percentage, yes.Nothing says having your facts straight like grabbing figures out of the air! I know, I know my job is getting cancelled soon because nobody watches me.

[WalMartNation]

Originally posted by photog78:
Were there really too many cameras roaming the sidelines? Were people getting hurt because of it?No, but if it was a playoff game for example at Lambeau.. it was so crowded that you would miss shots if you shot from the sideline because there was no seperation between photogs.. the endzone was the only safe place and that's if the still shooter from the weekly in Rice Lake who was kneeling in front of me didn't stand up or hold up his hands to cheer when the Pack would score.
In my new market it wasn't that bad in 2005... even during a playoff game. Taking all the vid from the air isn't the worst thing in the world.. but our local Fox affiliate pasting their own logo on the screen during the game is BS.. all the vid we record has their fcking logo on it!

[Another side]

I'm confused. If you can't get a clear shot from the sideline, why do you want to be on them?

[Clever Login Name]

Good point, AS. But I think most videographers would tell you there are way too many other hangers-on crowding up the sidelines ... people in street clothes and a sidelines pass just standing there taking up space because their best friend's brother's cousin is dating some backup lineman. Start weeding out THOSE people first before you get rid of the ones who are actually helping you promote your product with their presence.

[The Thrill]

Originally posted by WalMartNation:
In my new market it wasn't that bad in 2005... even during a playoff game. Taking all the vid from the air isn't the worst thing in the world.. but our local Fox affiliate pasting their own logo on the screen during the game is BS.. all the vid we record has their fcking logo on it!You can get around that if your station gets DirecTV and NFL Sunday Ticket, and roll off of that...no local affiliate IDs. (Yes, you can get permission to do so.)

[ February 15, 2007, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: The Thrill ]