Now hear this, Tennessee sports fans and taxpayers:
The two biggest college football games in the state next season -- the Sept. 18 game between the Tennessee Volunteers and Florida and the Oct. 23 game between the Vols and Alabama -- are not, repeat not, public events.
Never mind that UT is a state-funded institution. Forget that these games are being played at state-owned Neyland Stadium in Knoxville. These are not public events.
Says who?
The honorable Robert Cooper, the state attorney general, that's who.
He says it in Opinion No. 10-60 released by his office April 29. It's ridiculous, of course, but the opinion basically gives sports programs at public universities control over how the news media cover their teams and their games.
It allows these sports programs and their conferences to tell the media what they can and cannot do with news photographs and video they take during games and postgame press conferences.
And it gives the teams and the conferences complete access to use those media-generated photographs any way they want.
"A Tennessee public institution of higher education," Cooper's advisory opinion says, "may take any legal measures that are intended to protect its rights under copyright law to photographs or other visual representations arising from athletic events involving its athletic teams. These events are not 'public events.'"
Presumably the opinion also applies to University of Memphis games at taxpayer-funded Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium or FedExForum.
But, honestly, this issue has little to do with U of M athletics. This is clearly about the insatiable desire of the Southeastern Conference and its member schools to exercise control over their sporting events and to make more money -- lots and lots of money.
All this may not appear to be a big deal to the average person, but followers of college sports and all Tennessee taxpayers should be alarmed.
The SEC and many other college conferences in recent years have tried to impose tighter restrictions on media coverage of their sporting events.
For example, for media representatives to get credentials to cover games, some conferences want to limit how media outlets, particularly newspapers, use game photos on their websites.
Conferences have also tried to prevent reporters from blogging about a game while it's in progress.
Last fall, the SEC sought to impose a new credential policy that many media organizations considered far too restrictive. After strong protests, the conference modified the policy slightly.
But it's obvious that the SEC and its schools want more control and less press scrutiny.
"The SEC and some other big college conferences want to become publishing and broadcasting businesses now," David Tomlin, associate general counsel for The Associated Press, said when the credential issue arose last fall. "(The policy) is constructed so the leagues can run their own publicity machines, make money and control their message, control their brand.
"What that means for the fans is less opportunity to see independent, objective (coverage). The leagues will cover themselves."
What a scary thought.
And it's being supported by opinions such as the one Cooper made last month.
State Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, requested the opinion. He asked Cooper if state-supported universities could legally restrict the press from using material gathered at games and whether the media could be compelled to give schools and conferences access to that material.
Cooper's unequivocal answer: Yes, they can.
Now it's up to media outlets and national journalism organizations, such as the Associated Press Managing Editors (of which I am president this year) to fight back against these restrictions.
In most cases, state dollars support these athletic programs and build the arenas. But with so much money at stake, conferences like the SEC and state schools like UT see themselves as sports empires. And the media have two choices -- either abide by tighter restrictions or we can't get inside the gate.
What's next? Will politicians take a cue from this and demand that the press stop showing their photos on media websites? Will elected officials demand unlimited access to news photos so they can use them on campaign brochures and yard signs?
Will City Hall become off limits to reporters who refuse to go along with new restrictions for covering City Council meetings?
Mr. Attorney General, what have you wrought?
Otis L. Sanford is editor/opinion and editorials for The Commercial Appeal. Contact him at 901-529-2447 or at sanford@commercialappeal.com.
Tennessee's signing class for 2012
Tennessee 60, Connecticut 57 men's…
Tennessee 69, South Carolina 57 men's…
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 2
nola_vol writes:
As a sports fan, I initially found Mr. Sanford's points informative, but not terribly alarming ... until I considered their implications elsewhere.
When you consider the role universities play in our society and politics, we really need MORE media scrutiny on these public institutions.
Aside from documented accusations of politically imbalanced FACULTIES who, with tenure, increasingly indoctrinate rather than educate, and further documented accusations of receiving government RESEARCH grants in exchange for policy-promoting outcomes, there is the basic issue of COST.
In many years the average tuition & fees at public four-year schools increases at TWICE the rate as private schools. Between 1994 and 2004, these costs increased an average of 47%. Meanwhile, the placement rate for state universities (graduates finding jobs in or related to their major) was typically LESS than 50% -- BEFORE the economy went in the toilet!
By comparison, to maintain accreditation in the state of Tennessee, those cheaper, not nearly so well funded, 1-2 year "career schools" MUST produce a minimum placement rate of 80% for each graduating class.
Few public institutions have more public influence than our state universities... and few have less accountability. Mr. Sanford is right: whatever powers the athletic departments gain to decrease public scrutiny where money is being made, will become precedents for keeping the public blind to where (our) money is being spent behind ivory-covered walls.
pomp_and_circumstance writes:
Too bad for Otis. I, and all other posters, on these pages haven't lost a thing. And we are "media" as surely as the Memphis Commercial Appeal is.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.