Reuters, AP Refuse To Cover Cricket Matches Over Restrictive Press Accreditation Rules

from the but-football?-baseball? dept

Tue, Nov 24th 2009 4:56pm — Mike Masnick

Sports leagues around the world have been trying to put more and more restrictive rules on various journalists and news organizations when it comes to reporting on their events. In the US, both the NFL and the MLB have put ridiculous restrictions on what reporters can write about or post on their websites. While, technically, these leagues cannot stop news organizations from covering their events, they can restrict what kind of access they have. Of course, for basic coverage, when the events are televised, reporters could just as easily cover the event while watching it on TV. Still, it's been disappointing that the major news organizations have refused to stand up to the football and baseball leagues over this attempt to restrict their reporting.

Apparently, they only do that on sports that don't get as much attention (in the US, at least).

Last year, we wrote how the press was planning to boycott various cricket matches over similar attempts to limit reporting. And, once again, major news organizations like Reuters are proudly announcing that they will not be covering certain cricket matches due to the press policies. The Associated Press has announced similar plans, and says that the AFP is also refusing to cover the matches. At what point do these sports leagues realize that they're better off with press coverage than without?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: australia, cricket, reporting, restrictions, sports

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jon Bane, 24 Nov 2009 @ 4:47pm

AP Hypocracy
Hypocracy: The AP is upset because an organization is placing restrictions on their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Ring (profile), 24 Nov 2009 @ 5:28pm

Translation: "You advertise our sport on our terms or not at all." I can see the MLB and NFL being able to throw a little weight around, but it's funny that this cricket league thought they could do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vyvyan, 24 Nov 2009 @ 6:03pm

(Un)fortunately America != world
Apparently, they only do that on sports that don't get as much attention

Ouch! You're totally undermining that how much money is involved in this game and how big is the crowd that watches/plays/cares about this game. My underestimated wild guess would be that ten times the number of people care about baseball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2009 @ 10:31pm
  
  Re: (Un)fortunately America != world
  Do you have parenthetical blindness or something?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Nov 2009 @ 11:10pm
  
  Re: (Un)fortunately America != world
  Ouch! You're totally undermining that how much money is involved in this game and how big is the crowd that watches/plays/cares about this game. My underestimated wild guess would be that ten times the number of people care about baseball.
  
  I did say "in the US".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kriner, j (profile), 24 Nov 2009 @ 6:16pm

How do you kidnap somebody
Hey I need help to kidnap a SEXY LITTLE GIRL in my high school.

Kriner, J
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheStupidOne, 24 Nov 2009 @ 6:24pm
  
  Re: How do you kidnap somebody
  Step 1: Procure some chloroform
  Step 2: Put it on a rag
  Step 3: Cover your face with the rag
  Step 4: Inhale deeply
  Step 5: Kick file sharers off the internet
  Step 6: ...?
  Step 7: Profit!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Coghlan, 24 Nov 2009 @ 6:26pm

What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
Cricket is the equivalent of baseball in Australia (i.e. the way you guys respect and glorify baseballers in the media, we do the same for cricketers, although the national side matters a lot more than the domestic sides, since there is a much more viable international competition in cricket). Channel 9 dedicates a lot of its summer programming time to showing various international cricket matches.

However, AP/Reuters aren't part of the major cricket news sources. So most people couldn't care less if AP/Reuters stopped covering cricket, since nobody really uses those for their cricket news.

Now, if ESPNCricinfo, Fox, Channel 9, the ABC or News/Fairfax were to refuse to cover the games, then Cricket Australia might start to take notice. But a boycott by AP/Reuters really isn't going to bother them all that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 24 Nov 2009 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re: What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
  Nick. I suggest you look at the sources where most of the print media get their reports from? Look at the bottom of the News aritcles? It often states the source as AAP or Reuters. Which is why the News Ltd and Fairfax press often have the same stories word for word.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vyvyan, 24 Nov 2009 @ 7:42pm
    
    Re: Re: What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
    Oh! not in cricket, You've no idea how much coverage channels give to cricket. If you think that AP or Reuters is the link which will derange the world from cricket news, you're mistaken.
    
    ESPN, Star Sports, Channel 9, are the ones which can make such a call for and I would say that even if they call off. Others will be willing to take their place because of the money involved. They have dedicated channel to cricket only. AP/Reuters can do whatever they want, it won't change anything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greg, 24 Nov 2009 @ 11:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
      yvyvan - Notice I said print media. You just mentioned TV media. And in Australia there is no channel dedicated to cricket. It's AAP and Reuters in Australia doing the boycott, not in any other cricket playing country, as it's only Cricket Australia that has the new media rules. It will damage the coverage in print media substantially.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nick Coghlan (profile), 25 Nov 2009 @ 3:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
        It hasn't seemed too so far... given the number of columns written by current and former Australian players at least in News Ltd papers, methinks they're quite cosy with Cricket Australia and won't really care what AAP and Reuters do.
        
        Sure, AAP and Reuters are big newswires, but print media journalists are perfectly capable of finding alternate sources if those two aren't covering things a paper wants to include.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Big Al, 24 Nov 2009 @ 8:38pm
    
    Re: Re: What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
    From TFA:
    "This decision follows notification from Cricket Australia that they do not intend to change terms and conditions for accreditation which resulted in a suspension of coverage by Reuters and other international agencies last season."
    
    Funny - I don't remember any impact on game reporting last year. All the Australian newspapers, TV channels and radio stations had the latest scores and match reports, ABC still broadcast live, as did channel 9.
    
    Just goes to show how relevant AP & Reuters are in this regard...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greg, 24 Nov 2009 @ 11:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
      Last season means last season, not last year. Cricket is a summer sport which means the season goes from around September-March/April. The suspension was in January. And of course they'd still have match reports. That's just stupid to suggest they wouldn't. And why would they stop broadcasting the event? AP or Reuters don't broadcast amy event anywhere in the world. If you recall in January this year was the lowest number of cricket articles in 17 years in News Ltd papers (not sure about Fairfax as there are no Fairfax papers in my city). I think that should tell you something. A substantial impact. And it would never hurt the TV stations or radio stations in Australia because they always use their own reporters for Aussie events. However you would have found there would have been less coverage outside Australia in the electronic media.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Nov 2009 @ 11:11pm
  
  Re: What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
  What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
  
  I know. That's why I had the parenthetical explanation in the post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Call me Al, 25 Nov 2009 @ 3:13am
    
    Re: Re: What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
    I think most assume that what you put in the parentheses is a tag onto the main comment. If you take it as a whole (as you are then indicating we should) then it could be seen you are suggesting that AP and Reuters are purely US based news sources which is clearly not the case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nick Coghlan (profile), 25 Nov 2009 @ 3:31am
    
    Re: Re: What's big in the US isn't always big worldwide and vice-versa
    Somehow I completely missed that until you pointed it out... parenthetical blindness indeed :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2009 @ 6:44pm

In India, cricket is practically a relegion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
signalsnatcher, 24 Nov 2009 @ 8:29pm

Cricket is MUCh bigger than any US sport.
Let's see...population of the USA = 350 million

Population of India = 1100 million
plus UK, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Australia, South Africa, West Indies, New Zealand that adds up to about 2 billion. One-third of Earth's population plays and watches cricket. Baseball and American football are the quaint pastimes of an ethnic minority.

The amount of money bet on cricket is in the US$ billions and broadcasting rights are huge. The rights to carry the Test Matches can be enough to guarantee a network's profits for the year.

Cricket players at the international level achieve world wide fame, are knighted (Sir Ian...), get medals and are set for life after retirement.

[Note to self - is there any support group for geograhically challenged Yanks?]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Nov 2009 @ 11:13pm
  
  Re: Cricket is MUCh bigger than any US sport.
  Cricket is MUCh bigger than any US sport.
  
  Again, how hard is it to read the post? I clearly said sports that don't get as much attention IN THE US.
  
  [Note to self - is there any support group for geograhically challenged Yanks?]
  
  Same place as the support group for those who start acting holier than thou without first reading what I actually wrote. :) I'll meet you there?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bradley, 25 Nov 2009 @ 7:50am

I have an honest question for you, Mike. Often, you talk about how one company refusing to do something just opens doors for someone else to step in. Even with the bad terms for reporting, wouldn't the same apply here?

IE, a company could step in to report where Reuters/AP don't, and gain the readers they would otherwise have had?

I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a good thing (if it's supporting backwards reporting agreements and such) but just wondering if the same principle wouldn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]