Howdy. No email today – I got spammed, big-time, via the International Tennis Writer’s Association, a group I belong to, and some members of which I've been dueling with over the general issue of media access and privilege. I’m now in the midst of deleting 4,000 copies of the same inscrutable, virally-driven message, while getting on and off Speakerphone with our IT guys. But here's a peek behind the curtain of pro tennis that some of you might find interesting.
What the heck, I work in the media, not for the media. Actually, I like to think I work for you. And I vowed when I started writing TW that I would try my best to be transparent, avoiding as much of the filtering that journalists often need or want to practice, whether my subject was players or the supporting cast.
Turns out that a significant portion of ITWA members want to fight plans by the ATP (and, presumably, tournaments) to provide fans with live video feeds to websites (and other sources) from, among other places, the press interview rooms.
This goes hand-in-hand with ITWA’s support for the policy of keeping press conference transcripts from being posted at tournament websites, or even at the ASAP archives, for at least 24 hours. This is an attempt by the dead-tree media to keep a proprietary stake in the information dissemination business.
I feel a little torn about airing the dirty laundry of an organization to which I belong in public forum, but I think this is very much a public issue - at least for tennis fans.
I am adamantly and deeply opposed to these protectionist practices, and to the underlying premise that the news media can or should be in the business of controlling the flow of information or news in order to mollify a part or all of its constituency. There is a huge ethical issue at the root of this, and I think it makes the press in general and the ITWA in this case look deeply conflicted. It’s too bad, because ITWA does a great job in many other ways that I may no longer experience if I get kicked out for being a whistle-blower.
The bottom line is that nothing should impede the flow of information to the public in any way whatsoever (at least in this broad context of sports journalism). Sure, I’m an internet guy now (actually I also write for Tennis, a monthly, which is a pretty schizoid combo). But I'm new to the web, and I like to think I know print, inside and out.
I like and respect print. But I don’t think I’ve ever read anything because I know the reporter had access to embargoed information. I read for one or both of two reasons: I want the news (facts) of a specific story, and/or I really like the voice, style, point-of-view, or opinions of the writer.
Print guys (back then it really was just guys) freaked out when television came along. I’m sure the monks gifted in calligraphy freaked out when the printing press came along. And those stone tablets! The world’s been going to hell in a hand basket ever since!
Am I right in assuming that most of you would like to see press conference telecasts?