PDA

View Full Version : Bartle & Callahan sponsor legislation affecting Chiefs coverage


Phobia
02-06-2007, 10:27 PM
I don't if this is available on the web yet. I just got it via email.

Jefferson City Sens. Matt Bartle, R-Lee's Summit, and Victor Callahan, D-Independence, today introduced legislation prohibiting Missouri sports teams that utilize public funds from prohibiting members of the media from covering their games from the sidelines.

"Stadiums that are financed with taxpayer dollars should not be off limits to the media outlets on which the public relies," Bartle said. "When teams trying to increase their bottom line try to keep local media out of the stadium, they are keeping us all out."

Under Senate Bill 452, any team that owns, operates or leases a stadium that has been partially funded with taxes cannot prohibit coverage of their games. Members of the media who are denied access may file for damages in the local circuit court. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Michigan Legislature.

"Every legitimate member of the print and broadcast media should have access to the sidelines," Callahan said. "Tax dollars should not be used for businesses trying to exert a monopoly on coverage."

Recently enacted National Football League (NFL) policy prohibits local television stations from shooting their own video from the sidelines during NFL games. Under the plan, stations must take a network pool feed for use in their news programs.

The NFL says it is trying protect ownership rights of game content. However, high-profile groups such as the National Association of Broadcasters and Society of Professional Journalists oppose the rule change as a subversion of the First Amendment right of a free press.

Phobia
02-06-2007, 10:28 PM
I support this action. You wouldn't believe the restrictions placed upon local media.

FAX
02-06-2007, 10:31 PM
This is great news. They're right. It is a matter of fairness.

Go get 'em, you wacky Senators!!

FAX

Count Zarth
02-06-2007, 10:31 PM
You wouldn't believe the restrictions placed upon local media.

How did you find out about those restrictions?

Sam Hall
02-06-2007, 10:31 PM
Agreed. As someone who is majoring in journalism, I'm against this type of silly media censorship.

Phobia
02-06-2007, 10:32 PM
How did you find out about those restrictions?
I used to volunteer for a POS magazine.

|Zach|
02-06-2007, 10:34 PM
Awesome

Phobia
02-06-2007, 10:35 PM
Matt is actually a friend of mine so if you guys want any laws passed in Missouri you just let me know - okay?

FAX
02-06-2007, 10:36 PM
Awesome

Have you encountered such problems, Mr. (Zach)? I mean, you have had press access to the sideline, have you not?

FAX

Extra Point
02-06-2007, 10:39 PM
Who was it that was basically banned from the press conferences and/or locker room? Is their ban still in effect?

|Zach|
02-06-2007, 10:40 PM
Have you encountered such problems, Mr. (Zach)? I mean, you have had press access to the sideline, have you not?

FAX
It was my understanding that it was a huge struggle to get me that access from week to week. As you can tell from conversations in the past...the integrity of that source was questionable at best. It applies to photo but really focuses on video...which is where the bottleneck seems to be.

FAX
02-06-2007, 10:44 PM
It was my understanding that it was a huge struggle to get me that access from week to week. As you can tell from conversations in the past...the integrity of that source was questionable at best. It applies to photo but really focuses on video...which is where the bottleneck seems to be.

Interesting. Thanks for the information. I really support these guys in their effort. Frankly, I would probably support almost anything that holds the NFL's obvious efforts to control every aspect of the game in check.

They're out of control.

FAX

Sam Hall
02-06-2007, 10:47 PM
Who was it that was basically banned from the press conferences and/or locker room? Is their ban still in effect?

I think you're talking about Bob Fescoe. The Royals tossed his press credentials after he asked David Glass some tough questions during Dayton's Moore's introductory press conference. Fescoe is now in St. Louis.

ChiefsCountry
02-06-2007, 10:50 PM
Well from the NFL and the network side, I can see their angle. Networks are shelling out billions of dollars so people can watch their video. Heck I dont blame them, dont try to cut off the hand that is paying you.

big nasty kcnut
02-06-2007, 10:54 PM
well i was told not to call the chiefs for interviews.

Count Zarth
02-06-2007, 10:57 PM
well i was told not to call the chiefs for interviews.

The first time?

FAX
02-06-2007, 11:01 PM
Well from the NFL and the network side, I can see their angle. Networks are shelling out billions of dollars so people can watch their video. Heck I dont blame them, dont try to cut off the hand that is paying you.

Agreed. With the one exception of the taxpayer angle, Mr. ChiefsCountry. Restricting media access to a taxpayer funded venue is like eminent domain in reverse.

FAX

ENDelt260
02-06-2007, 11:09 PM
Matt is actually a friend of mine so if you guys want any laws passed in Missouri you just let me know - okay?
Tell him to stay the f*ck out of the titty bars.

FAX
02-06-2007, 11:40 PM
Zombie titties are very unattractive.

FAX

HMc
02-07-2007, 01:58 AM
Is this really that big of a social problem? It's not like CBS is spinning reality to make you elect Carl Peterson to congress

Anyong Bluth
02-07-2007, 02:10 AM
Screw the nfl on this one- they get subsidized money and we're talking about 5-10 seconds of video that is used in local broadcast before they cut to the sideline reporters w/ game takes.

Does this mean that metro sports is going to have to stop? Its been a long while since I have watched the postgame show, but they used to use their own video shot from the sidelines at times when doing game breakdown.


Between this and the indy church SB parties- NFL is talking a fine line towards MLB cornholio

HMc
02-07-2007, 02:12 AM
uh, did you read the OP?

dave0320
02-07-2007, 04:52 AM
NFL needs to keep this up so they get Congress to finally step in and clean all of this up.

BigRedChief
02-07-2007, 06:52 AM
Just like every business in America the Chiefs and the NFL are trying to control their message and deciding what the public needs to know.

They are a private business. They can refuse service to anyone. But when they accept tax $'s you no longer have the same rights to deny service and you lose full control over your product. Don't accept the money run your business as you see fit. Accept it and guess what you are a public entity as far as the first amendment is applied.

steelyeyed57
02-07-2007, 07:47 AM
I believe the chiefs lease the facility -- so they can establish rules for the use of it. It's not like they are taking taxpayer dollars directly. So, my guess is unless they're is a provision in the lease, the Chiefs will get to restrict whoever they want.

Phobia
02-07-2007, 07:56 AM
I believe the chiefs lease the facility -- so they can establish rules for the use of it. It's not like they are taking taxpayer dollars directly. So, my guess is unless they're is a provision in the lease, the Chiefs will get to restrict whoever they want.

"they're" - are you kidding me?

This is pending legislation. It doesn't matter what the lease says if LAWMAKERS pass a new law governing the use of public financed venues.

Bowser
02-07-2007, 08:20 AM
Good.

And doesn't Frank Boal and Fox 4 usually have their own footage of games? Seems like he always has some type of clip that was shot from an angle other than what the network provides.

Phobia
02-07-2007, 08:23 AM
Tell him to stay the f*ck out of the titty bars.
Heh. I kinda doubt that's a problem for him.

Phobia
02-07-2007, 08:28 AM
Good.

And doesn't Frank Boal and Fox 4 usually have their own footage of games? Seems like he always has some type of clip that was shot from an angle other than what the network provides.

I doubt it. The Chiefs really cracked down on it last year. If they did have their own gameday footage they probably weren't supposed to broadcast it until the day after the game.

Kerberos
02-07-2007, 09:07 AM
How did you find out about those restrictions?


He's a Premium subscriber.

.

HonestChieffan
02-07-2007, 09:49 AM
Is Bartle going after this life altering issue befor or after he turns back the clock and gets stem cell reseach banned?

And we wonder why the country has gone to hell in a hand basket?

alpha_omega
02-07-2007, 09:55 AM
"Every legitimate member of the print and broadcast media should have access to the sidelines

Agreed, but who and what would determine legitimacy?

Phobia
02-07-2007, 09:59 AM
Is Bartle going after this life altering issue befor or after he turns back the clock and gets stem cell reseach banned?

And we wonder why the country has gone to hell in a hand basket?

I'm sure stem cell is a different topic for a different forum. I think that Bartle would have fewer issues with stem cell research if the language were more tightly defined. As it stands (and as I understand it) the current legislation leaves loopholes for cloning.

But I'd rather discuss this issue elsewhere.

I'm equally sure that the media lobby has asked these state Senators to assist them with the quandry.

StcChief
02-07-2007, 11:23 AM
I like it, they should be allowed on the sidelines as long as they are not in the way.

tyton75
02-07-2007, 12:26 PM
While I tend to agree that the restrictions aren't fair..

Arent' there bigger issues that these Senators could be tackling ??