Blogger Removed From NCAA Game for Blogging

CNet is reporting that a blogger from the Courier-Journal of Louisville, KY was recently ejected from an NCAA game for live-blogging. "According to the Courier-Journal, staff blogger Brian Bennett was approached by NCAA officials in the fifth inning of a game between the University of Lousville and Oklahoma State, told that blogging 'from an NCAA championship event "is against NCAA policies (and) we're revoking the (press) credential and need to ask you to leave the stadium."'"

"In Soviet America"? Please.

What a doozy of a sensationalistic story. The "See any serious problems with this story?" link took on a whole new meaning.

First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.

Second, let's go to TFA:

The Courier-Journal said that the University of Louisville sent out a memo from NCAA manager of broadcasting Jeramy Michiaels, prior to Friday's game. The memo said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game.

Check.

But Bennett had not been approached after live-blogging previous games in the playoffs.

Oh, so then it must be okay? Talk about a non-story. The guy just got caught violating a policy that he knew about and probably even agreed to as a person with press credentials.

This was a person who wasn't removed for "blogging", but a person with press credentials who was providing live coverage of the event.

The NCAA naturally wants to control access to live (and recorded) broadcasts of games (and currently has the legal right to do so), whether they be video, audio, or even text. How or why is "blogging" magically different or protected?

Could someone set up a radio broadcast station from within an NCAA event without arranging the necessary licensing with the teams and the NCAA? Could someone do the same with a cell phone and broadcast it to a pirate radio station? Sure. The answer is you can do it if you don't get caught. Conspiracy theorists will wail about how it's all about money and control, just another example of censorship in our corporate/government-controlled police state society, ignoring any and all other aspects to order and law in a civil society, and the fact that, believe it or not, economic factors actually do come into play when a lot of money is involved in producing something.

Do you think ESPN, CNNSI, CBS and other sports news aggregators get the content for their live play-by-play event services on web sites and mobile devices for free? Hell no. The "information wants to be free" and "everything is okay when it's done using technology, but only when it's the people and not corporations or government" arguments can be saved for elsewhere.

What if I want to set up a network of personnel across the country who live-blog every NCAA sporting event, and broadcast it on a web site. Maybe one with ads. And then I pay people to live blog for me. At every event. And maybe all of those people can have computers with cameras, and stream video as well. Well, why not? I should be able to do that, right? No? Where do you draw the line?

If everyone wants to have bloggers be considered legitimate "journalists" no matter who they are, they're going to have to play by the same rules everyone else does, too. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Sure, sure, he's just "reporting on the event" with "newer technology" than the old antiquated dinosaurs, right? Wrong. He's providing some semblance of live coverage of the event, and that's something other content providers have to license and pay for.

If you're live-broadcasting an event, the NCAA is likely to get its feathers ruffled, and not allow you to do it. This is not the government, and if you think it's "censorship" or inhibiting free speech or that bloggers are just "journalists", except in more real time, then why don't you get all up in arms about not being able to broadcast the video or audio from the events live or in near realtime, either?

This isn't about "blogging". It's about live/near-live coverage of an event by a person with press credentials - that is another critical point - without having paid to do so, like everyone else who provides such coverage has.

Sigh

And here I was hoping that the Great Blogger Purge had begun.

A man can dream, though. A man can dream...

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please.

I think you may have just started and ended the entirety of the possible (intelligent) debate on this topic single-handedly in the first post.

Bravo. My hat is off to you.

Re:

I think you may have just started and ended the entirety of the possible (intelligent) debate on this topic single-handedly in the first post

I disagree. While the FP is articulate and comprehensive, there is stll the debate about whether or not scuttlemonkey is incompetent for posting such a pointless and easily-refuted article.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please.

there is stll the debate about whether or not scuttlemonkey is incompetent for posting such a pointless and easily-refuted article.

Is that really debatable?

Re:

I think we can debate on whether or not that is debatable, I'm sure there are reasons it would be debatable and maybe reasons it wouldn't be debatable.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please.

What will happen when technology allows any attendee at any function to transmit information (multimedia, for example) to anywhere s/he wants to?
I think our business models are in for a tough shakeout. Sidenote: the lawyers will make money either way...

Re:

FP was rather thorough, but you bring up an extremely valid point. What happens when there's 10,000 fans trying to blog from their phones.

Re:

It's not any different than those places, it's a different device. A dr. (or anyone for that matter) at a hockey game, movie or whatever has a very valid purpose for carrying a cell phone with them. These cell phones are slowly turning into catch all devic

Re:

Extending the question: what would happen if we discover how we can manipulate time and space as we see fit? if reality can be shaped up as we wish?

Re:

First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.

No, it's not the NCAA. It's the University of Louisville [louisville.edu]:

The University of Louisville is a state supported research university located in Kentucky's largest metropolitan area. [louisville.edu]

Re:

Just a few comments:

1. Federal or state does not matter when it comes to First Amendment issues. The First Amendment applies to the states via the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is a quasi-governmental agency (NCAA) and a stat

Re:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Federal or state does not matter when it comes to First Amendment issues. The First Amendment applies to the states via the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The first amendment applies manifestly to th

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please.

Thanks for your thoughtful response as well. I always enjoy reading your posts.

The first amendment applies manifestly to the federal government, even if it can be extended to states.

The Constitutional issue of whether the 1st Amendment applies to the states, and state universities in particular, is absolutely black-and-white under current jurisprudence. It does.

But this isn't really a first amendment issue; under this person's press credentials and terms, he is allowed to relate the events of the game, just not live, from the event, because live or near-live coverage is covered by other licensing and costs. Other journalistic entities do essentially live textual coverage of games, and they have a license to do so.

If he is a valid member of the press, whose primary purpose is reporting on (rather than retransmitting) the event, then it becomes a First Amendment issue. You cannot license the terms by which the press utilizes their First Amendment prerogative. The issue becomes whether, by "live blogging" the event, he was engaged in an impermissible rebroadcast rather than, for lack of a better word, "journalism." As with most legal issues, it is open to interpretation, which was my overriding point: the blogger may well have a case.

The NCAA isn't even a quasi-governmental agency. It's a private association.

While the Supreme Court held that the NCAA was not a state actor in NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988), that holding is limited to the facts of that case, which are manifestly different than here. I submit that it is an open question. You may indeed be right, but I tend to fall on the other side of the argument.

The NCAA's right to control and license the live/near-live and recorded contents of its events has been tested and confirmed in the courts.

I have no doubt that it has, although I would be interested in the line of cases. This is not a retransmission, however, which carries particular legal significance. I submit it is an open question whether or not his "journalistic transformation" of the events creates a First Amendment issue. Would your analysis be different if he had purchased a ticket and sat down to watch the game with the public, laptop in hand?

Re:

Greetings new member of my friend's list. Well said! I think any further commenting on this has now been rendered redundant.

Re:

Solution: next time, talk into your cell phone to your buddy, who's blogging it for you. I'd like to see 'em try to ban all cell phones at games. Or to monitor every cell phone conversation in the place.

The point is: it's stupid to try to say these peo

Re:

Solution: next time, talk into your cell phone to your buddy, who's blogging it for you. I'd like to see 'em try to ban all cell phones at games. Or to monitor every cell phone conversation in the place.

And if you were caught, you'd be warned and then ejec

Re:

This was not "live-broadcasting" of an event - this was reporting, that's why he has credentials as a journalist. Your equating of live streaming video with text interpreted by a human is laughable. Sometimes I watch sporting events on the television AND r

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please.

First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.

True, but according to free market economics, I have the ability and right to boycott private organizations who participate in such behavior.

Getting this information out and the opening and decrying it helps others to do the same and to know the truth about this behavior.

Even though it is legal, it doesn't make it right in my views and I can voice my opinion by not supporting their private organization.

Re:-5 Strawman

Wrong.

NCAA policy expressly prohibits live-blogging/coverage of the game by press, he was informed of it in advance, he had press credentials; he violated the policy anyway, got caught, and got removed.

End of story.

And no, there is no first amendment question here at all, government or no. And if there is, it's the same for any other live coverage of an event by any mechanism. I know the whole "Congress shall pass no law" thing is pesky, but yet there it is. I guess that's why your argument is always best served by trying to link government and corporate interests, making corporate "censorship" a de facto first amendment issue.

This isn't some journalist innocently trying to report the game with new technology that bucks a business model, or a guy who might want to tell his buddies about the game via computer. It's someone who wants to be considered a journalist, with journalist credentials, violating the policy set forth by the issuer of said credentials.

Not much more to say about it.

Re:

No. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming FIRST AMENDMENT over and over again in hopes that it will suddenly become true. He can exercise his first amendment rights elsewhere all he wants. If blogging is journalism, then it operates

Re:

The question "does blogging equal broadcast" has not been answered. Until then, it's a 1st Amendment question.

The question of ANY kind of live coverage of an NCAA event requiring licensing to cover said event, by any mechanism, including "blogging", has al

Re:

No, that's not true at all. There's nothing that the NCAA can do to prevent him from writing about the game on his blog AFTER the game is over, but they can certainly restrict him from writing about it while he's AT the actual game. This isn't a first amen

Re:-5 Strawman

Does/can the NCAA stop you from blogging about a game, as it happens, based purely on what you see being broadcast on TV? (i.e., from home) Not trying to make a point, just curious.

Re:

And what exactly is it that *gives* them that insane level of control over something that they do not and can not legitimately own?
Oh, that would be the government.
I'm not saying it absolutely is a first amendment issue, but you have failed to demonstrate

Re:

The government cannot bestow rights upon an individual or a corporation. Rights either exist or they don't. Governments can choose whether or not to enforce rights, however.

You went from an incomplete but possibly correct argument to something that is abso

ObParis

Heck, we got more live updates from the Paris Hilton court hearing on tmz.com than we can get on an NCAA game.

First Amendment my ass

In its article, the Courier-Journal quoted its executive editor, Bennie Ivory, as saying, "It's clearly a First Amendment issue. This is part of the evolution of how we present the news to our readers. It's what we did during the Orange Bowl. It's what we did during the NCAA basketball tournament. It's what we do."

This isn't a First Amendment issue in any way, shape, or form. This is an organization not letting an individual participate because he will not abide by their rules. You can kick people out of private events basically at whim, as long as it's not on the grounds of race, religion, sex, etc. This guy was given a press pass (ie he didn't even pay to get in!), and he got kicked out for doing something they didn't like.

That said, it's tough to say whether this was a bad move or not. In one way, this blogger is competing with the radio/tv broadcasts. On the other hand, it's some no-name newspaper that probably takes very little attention away, and kicking him out is only going to generate bad press.

Re:

The simple issue is that the NCAA has to do this to protect their lucrative TV contracts.

In essence, it is not a problem to write down the notes on paper, go home, and post them to a blog. Allowing you to post live to a blog may violate the NCAA's tv cont

Re:

Actually, you can kick people out of private events based on the grounds or race, religion, sex, etc. You get in trouble if you are an employer and discriminate on those grounds. That's why the Boy Scouts can discriminate against homosexuals; they are a

NCAA likes money.

The NCAA has a lot to gain by keeping a monopoly on live reporting. Who cares anyway? Besides, anyone with a Blackberry at game can blog live.

Fair enough - tax refunds?

Given that a large percentage of NCAA schools are publicly funded, and the NCAA harps ad nauseam about their role in developing successful students, it would seem to follow that it's mostly a taxpayer-funded educational institution. I can understand them saying "you can't redistribute our coverage without our consent", but I see no way they can justify saying "you can't distribute your own take on the events you're watching that you funded out of your own wallet".

Want to retain all rights to an event's coverage? Well, good luck with that, but don't spend my tax dollars enforcing it.

Re:

After the fine first post, parent seems to have raised the only issue worth discussing.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds?

I'm pretty sure the primary source of NCAA funding isn't taxes, but in fact from licensing, which is why they enforce this sort of thing. News agencies PAY to provide live coverage of events.

Re:

I'm pretty sure the primary source of NCAA funding isn't taxes, but in fact from licensing,

That is, licensing the trademarks of the schools comprising it. As a not-for-profit entity (educational institution status), it funnels most of that money back to

Re:

The NCAA schools are publicly funded, but the NCAA is a private organization.

Regardless, the NCAA owns the copyright to the "performance" of the game, and that has been tested in court. You can't distribute your take on the events live without NCAA consen

Re:

I think this regresses to the whole issue of tax status of educational institutions. Even if they are supported by tax dollars and even spend tax dollars on athletes, they also make a profit from these revenues. Huge profits. Why should these be exempt

The Why?

First of all, NCAA specifically disallows blogging, so I guess it has as much freedom to impose such restriction as that blogger to not attend the event.

it's hard to see how they can expect news organizations to keep from reporting the news as it happens.

I

next thing you know....

EULA 's at sporting events, music concerts and even your state fair!

seriously.. if he or anyone else wanted to keep live bloggin, and risk their journalistic cred, how hard would it be to get people to sms/mms/phone in updates of the game?

these enterprises

Re:

and so the powers that be get upitty about lost revenue and arrest him...loosing even more revenue! :|

They would have to be making revenue from his activities to lose revenue by disallowing them.

Re:

true, im more talking about a lost op to make more revenue

it all how you look at a situation

they could have handled it better

Re:

EULA 's at sporting events, music concerts and even your state fair!

There is a EULA. You are a licensee. Your continued presence at the event is conditional on the event not throwing you out for whatever reason they want or at least put in the "contract"

Re:

He didn't get arrested, he was ejected from the game.

In other news:

A website funded mostly by advertisements that is therefore immune to the temptation to sensationalize stories is reporting that a sports talk show host from WSHT was recently ejected from a meaningless sports event for calling the game with a HAM radio.

According to WSHT, host Johnson Jones was approached by NCAA officials right before they stop selling beer and all the fun is gone in a game between the University of Lousville and Oklahoma State, and was told that calling the game 'from an NCAA championship event "is against NCAA policies (and) we're revoking the (press) credential and need to ask you to leave the stadium, before we employ more (parenthesis) and 'nested "quo't'es" at you in a "vicious"' (manner)."'

Clearly, this is a sign our democratic meritocracy has finally collapsed under the weight of the jack booted thugs from college sporting events. The arguments from the N[azi]CAA that they have a right to revoke the press pass they gave him because he's competing with their services are obviously thinly veiled lies. The end of the world will follow shortly.

i think the NCAA is being conterproductive

i'm sure they're legally well within their rights, but that doesn't mean it's smart. a) blogging in No Way Shape Or Form is going to realistically compete with the more lucrative, more important broadcast media. so, assuming they had their own official

Related issue with WSOP

There's a more interesting issue going on right now with live coverage of the World Series of Poker. Harrah's made an exclusive deal with Pokernews.com to cover the event and provide live chip counts, etc. Cardplayer.com has been updating their site with

New doesn't exclude

Just because blogging is a new thing doesn't mean it isn't the press. They don't let the news outlets show it live and they have lots of crazy rules. Just because blogging is a new thing doesn't mean he is excluded. It's still the press and it's still reporting and live reporting is typically not allowed. If you make up "zlogging" and say it's the live reporting of scores and cool stuff that happens at a game doesn't make it any more "allowed" because it's "too new" to have rules against it.

Whatever

They've got about as much right to liveblog the game as I do to create my own radio broadcast of an NCAA playoff. This isn't censorship, it's a licensor protecting the exclusivity of its licensees.

The Real Scoop

I'm a devout /. reader and also a sports information director at a major university (you've heard of it). My job puts me between the press and the teams - I run our web site, keep statistics, run press conferences, etc. That means I deal with this crap, and the NCAA's retarded rights issues, every day. I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened, and it won't be the last.

But here's the thing with this story.

Whether or not someone can blog an event depends on some things. If it's an NCAA event (as this game was), it's the NCAA's call. As far as I know, the NCAA prohibits blogging at all of its championship events, including the College World Series and the Superregionals. It sucks, because even I as an institutional representative can't blog about my team, but as several other posters have said, there are a lot of rights and a lot of cash floating out there, between TV and radio, as well as livestats on the web and the ad revenues it generates. Monetarily, the NCAA is doing itself a favor, as well as the institutions, by restricting this.

Louisville WAS NOT restricting the blogging - the NCAA was. The blogger may have gotten away with it at the basketball, probably because that event is so huge and unwieldy from a media standpoint they couldn't track him down/know he was doing it, and the Orange Bowl isn't an NCAA event.

Most institutions don't care. I don't care. Hell, I WANT people blogging my school because it means we're getting that much more exposure. 17 year-olds aren't reading about us in the newspaper - they're reading blogs, and they're going to hear about us that way. I blog my own events during the regular season, but unfortunately, once its NCAA time, it goes out the window.

And don't do the whole "it's a state-funded school" thing - 90% of these schools don't see a dime of state money for athletics. Their athletic depts. are set up as corporations that generate their own revenue and are mostly driven by student tuition activities fees, football, men's basketball and corporate and private donors.

So, in conclusion, the NCAA is perfectly within their rights to restrict this, even though it's Evil and all that.

Also, to the earlier poster who said that ESPN, CBS, etc. pay to get their live statistic game feeds - not true. Most all of the scores and stats you see on ESPN and CBS come directly from the institutions themselves. For example, if I'm the statistician for a football game, we send a live stat XML feed to our web provider, and it also gets FTP'd straight to ESPN. For schools that use the CSTV service, it goes to CBS Sportsline (which owns CSTV). For games not feeding stats like that, there are a few companies that will actually call the press row line (or, if they feel like being a pain in my ass, my cell phone) and ask for the score, high scorers, etc. ESPN owns the largest of these, SportsTicker.

Re:

So if I bought a ticket and then sat in the stands reporting on the game using a small radio transmitter, that would be okay? No, obviously it wouldn't. If you want to report on a game, you get a press pass and you abide by their rules. Failing to do eithe