« Pat Tillman Field | Main | On The Ice With The Bruins »

On the topic of bending the guidelines for NHL Draft, Stanley Cup Playoffs, or other event-specific blogs, maybe a way to find a happy medium for those would be to ensure that the people behind those temporary, specialty blogs have verifiable track records with other blogs. For example, if you were to make a blog chronicling the Stanley Cup Playoffs, you also have Off Wing as a way to show legitimacy and a history of blogging. You're not just some guy looking to score some primo backstage passes under the guise of "I made a blog to follow the playoffs!"

Yeah, that could ruffle feathers over new bloggers who make their first blog ever for a very specific event, but there does have to be a line drawn so that someone doesn't just take advantage of the exceptions allowed for such blogs. Hopefully that made some sense.

I like what you've got, Eric... And after everything I tried from last year, I do hope teams take up the idea of bloggers covering the team.

Regarding access to the pressbox, it probably wouldn't hurt to include some kind of a dress code for bloggers to follow. I realize a lot of us probably have a pretty good idea what that code would be (i.e. button up shirt, slacks, shoes, and a belt for men, blouse and slacks or professional-looking skirt for women/No jeans, tennis shoes, flip flops, sandals,)

Oh, and if you go by a pseudonym of a former Flyer, you're automatically declined.

Good call, Brandon. You cannot go by a false name or false identification -- either on your site or within the building.

"objectionable content" is a pretty vague term. Do newspapers print "objectionable content" when they complain about coaching decisions?

Although, if bloggers are assumed to be untrustworthy, perhaps we should have to build trust from scratch...

Other than that, it sounds pretty solid to me.

"Objectionable content" IS very vague and would have to be better defined. I can understand organizations being unwilling to reward undue criticism by handing out press passes but I'd hate to give up my right to publish an honest opinion in exchange for such access. Granting access to bloggers ought to be more about creating a certain level of transparency, not treating them the same as professional journalists.

I'm definitely in agreeance with Tommy and Matt about the "objectionable content" issue. Just because some of us follow a specific team, for example, does not mean that we are going to not criticize them at times, and on occasion do some backseat General Managing. One of the whole benefits of being a blogger and not a suit at the Chicago Sun-Times or wherever else, is being able to do a lot of our writing without as many hang-ups over content censoring.

But I can understand the desire for teams to pick bloggers who have a more tempered tone. They obviously don't want to go and pick some brash, irrational, cussing person who just rants and raves whenever they have the opportunity to bemoan issues with the team.

... I think I just went in a circle with what I said. :-/

Nicely done! I like the "final" version.

I have a few suggestions.

First, I think there should be some sort of catch-all stating that, in terms of decorum or other strictures, that the standards for bloggers are similar to those of any other media. Or, maybe something along the lines that bloggers are expected to comport themselves consistent with the rules established for TV, radio and print. I bet some of the stuff you have in here is already covered by those guidelines.

Also, I object to the idea that a blogger must send a copy of what he or she produces to the team's media relations director. NO ONE of any other media is required to do that. It's just that for years franchises and major colleges have used clipping or video services to check on coverage, or have just looked in the local paper or flipped on the local TV or radio station. If the team issuing the credential has checked out the site beforehand, there should be no reason for the site to have to prove itself again afterward. That's the team's responsibility to police. An assistant can check out the sites after each game to see what they're doing. However, it should be clear that a blog will not be ejected for merely not toeing the company line. Or else why does the Washington Post get credentials? "Objectionable content" should definintely be defined. Or better yet, just cut that sentence out.

Also, it should be clear that seating assignments, as well as credentials, are handled by the media relations director. That's just so some blogger doesn't get his nose out of joint when he realizes his seats are in the boonies with Podunk Press.

Hope this helps.

Providing a link to any coverage is not an onerous task. Why should the team to spend money tracking down that information when it can easily be provided by the blogger?

A blogger is not the Washington Post. The Capitals want to generate positive coverage. It is unlikely that credentials will provided to a constant critic of the organization. A blogger may one day reach the point where his failure to mention the team is more of a negative than his criticism of the team would be. Until then, bloggers should rein in expectations of being treated equally with the mainstream media.

This is an experiment. The Capitals don't have to do this. Bloggers are entitled to nothing more than what the team offers them.

Don, a team or organization could set up its own RSS feed, or merely look at the site for which it issued credentials. Small newspapers or radio stations don't have to submit coverage after the fact. Like what Eric proposes, they might send some copies of past coverage of the team or event or otherwise justify why they should get a seat. The issue here is, first, is the team going to get more publicity, and second, is there room in the press box for everybody. (In fact, many bloggers need to understand that they should provide numbers or something to show that they indeed have a readership the team or organization wishes to reach.)

As for your statement: "A blogger is not the Washington Post. The Capitals want to generate positive coverage. It is unlikely that credentials will provided to a constant critic of the organization." About five-six years ago, Indianapolis Motor Speedway president Tony George pulled the credentials of then-Sports Illustrated writer Ed Hinton because he had written a series of stories critical of the IRL's work on safety. There was a huge outcry from other sportswriters about getting credentials pulled for "objectionable content," and after months of bad PR, George relented.

Now, newspaper types are not ready write now to go to bat for Capsfans.com or whatever. But it would (or should) send a chill down any reporter's spine if anyone from any organization was removed for "objectionable" content. The teams could get around this by claiming, legitimately, there's not enough space in the press box, although that becomes problematic if a blogger has been on site for a while.

This was another case around the same time, taken from a report by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:

"In western Massachusetts, a web-based high school sports report followed the teams of the Pioneer Valley Conference all the way to the state basketball tournament in March. On the eve of the tournament, the governing organization of high school sports in the state prohibited a MassLive.com reporter from covering the game from the press area. The reporter attempted to cover the game from a seat in the arena, but organizing officials again thwarted the reporter's effort.

"Undeterred, the reporter returned the next day, only to find a representative of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association at the door refusing to let the reporter inside. Albano, who represented MassLive.com when they won a court order permitting the reporter to cover the games, said the MIAA had retaliated against the web-based reporter [/b]because it found some of the posting on the website objectionable. [b] (emphasis mine)

"Unlike the privately owned speedway (referring to the Hinton case), the arena hosting the high school games did not object to MassLive.com's content. And unlike a well-known auto racing writer, MassLive.com did not have clout of its own, so they turned to the court.

"The legal status of the MIAA, considered a state actor since a 1979 Supreme Judicial Court decision, made the preliminary injunction stick, Albano said."

Sorry to go long here, but one more thing -- rules need to be laid out regarding liveblogging. There have been a lot of fights over video or audio of events as they go on (because of exclusivity of broadcast rights), and even who gets to send out scores. The Caps' legal department needs to find out what it can and can't restrict, then make that clear to any blogger.

In fact, the credentials policy should spell out use of video, audio and photos, at least in terms of during-the-game and post-game.

Don, I agree that the Capitals don't have to do this. But if they are, they need to be as fair to bloggers as they are to other media.

Something that hasn't been mentioned, more of a nitpick than something conceptual about bloggers and press access: I'm not a fan of "third party traffic data". Mostly because I have no desire to have anything like that on my site.

One of the benefits of having your own servers is installing whatever statistics program you like to read your logs and having no buttons and such displayed.

It's not that I'm opposed to sharing traffic numbers (although I don't think that's the measure of importance - and I get good traffic); I'm just suggesting to broaden the scope of what can be used for measurement.

Thanks for signing in, .

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)