Media accreditation fee — a tricky issue

by Clare Forrester

QUARRIE… to be commended for securing some big-name, last-minute replacement athletes

Based on comments posted on the Association of Caribbean Media  (ACM) Workers e-mail network by a journalist in Grenada, the issue of  accreditation fee for coverage of track and field meets has again  resurfaced.

Taking direct aim at the organisers of the Cayman Invitational  Meet scheduled for today, this Grenadian journalist denounces the requirement of  a one-time fee of $250, claiming that “this is a restriction of trade for our  profession”.

In recent years the issue of media accreditation fees, especially  relating to sports journalists, has generated some heat from both sides. On one  occasion this required the intervention of the Press Association of Jamaica  (PAJ), although to the best of my knowledge no permanent resolution was reached.  Given existing realities, one wonders if both sides can ever reach a  satisfactory agreement.

As one who has operated on different occasions as a journalist and  a meet organiser, I must concede that there are two sides of the coin. I find  no problem with an accreditation fee in principle. But there are challenges for  media managers especially.

Promoters of events want the media to publicise their events. This  includes coverage before the event, on the day of the event, and/or especially  in these days of ‘instant’ media, during the event; also finally, after the  event. Few, if any event organisers, are willing to pay for this media promotion  by way of supplements, features or other paid advertisements. For one, this is a  costly undertaking, especially for track and field meets, many of which do not  operate at a profit.

In very recent years Jamaica has been fortunate to have been  benefiting from an increase in developmental track and field meets. Thankfully,  the sport is growing as a public attraction at the local as well as  international levels. The media are partly responsible for this growth.

However, it goes both ways. Media interest has also waxed in  response to the increased interest of the public which they are committed to  serving and on whose audience growth they depend for attracting advertising  support. Unquestionably, the cost of mounting meets and of providing live  coverage is exorbitant. This is particularly strenuous for financially strapped  media houses.

However, it is equally challenging to meet organisers who are  dependent on sponsors and volunteer workers. It may be useful to conclude here  that the motive of one side is profit and the other is primarily sport  development.

Notwithstanding the profit agenda, the media, on principle, ensure  that their publics are best served by the quality and credibility of the  information they produce and that every attempt is made to ensure that these are  not compromised. For years, media houses have been wary about providing  promotional coverage free of charge for fear of conflict of interest  accusations.

It is not a secret that today’s sport and entertainment  journalists often double in producing stories, especially inclusive of  photographic material, for more than one media channel — overseas as well as  local. In this scenario, the public is often well served in terms of access to  information.

However, while for national events there is a clear demand and  need for the public to be kept informed, there is an inherent danger in serving  the interest of the public while simultaneously serving that of a profit-seeking  entity. There is definitely a line between providing information to the public  and acting as a publicist for a promoter, which can lead to a blurring of  factual information.

On the other hand, promoters spend large sums to stage their  events and certainly have a right to determine who gains access, free of charge,  and what this access allows. In these days of blogging, virtually anyone can  claim to be a journalist. It is the prerogative of the promoter to determine who  is of value to his/her event and which journalists and/or media houses should  have free access.

Occasionally, promotional agreements are made which give access or  some access to only the ‘sponsorship media’.  This is a tricky game for the  promoter to play as it might deny his/her event publicity in large areas of the  media. However, if it is determined that adequate coverage can be had from one  media house or from one entity — newspaper, television and/or radio — then that,  too, is their decision to make.

There is no easy answer. Access to specially designated media  areas must be controlled and monitored, and some promoters feel the easiest way  to do this is to charge a registration fee. When they do, they take the risk of  alienating the media, but in the end it is their event and their  prerogative.

I certainly do not believe that any media house or individual  practitioner should blacklist an event, especially one of national import,  because an accreditation fee is required. The media cannot have it both ways;  press freedom does not only mean freedom to publish or broadcast information as  selected by media gatekeepers; but also, and perhaps more important, to provide  information about which the public has a right to know and on which they have  come to depend on the media.

The promoters in Cayman may regard the imposition of an  accreditation fee of $250 as one way of defraying costs. This, on the surface,  seems excessive, but some journalists, photo-journalists in particular,  especially those with the facility of posting on the Internet via YouTube, can  make back this money from one posting or sale of a single photograph.

I recall that following one heated debate on the right of media  practitioners to unrestricted entry to a meet at which Usain Bolt was a star  attraction, a video of Bolt’s race was posted within minutes on YouTube.

In addition, meet promoters usually feel compelled to make  budgetary provisions for suitably accommodating journalists at their events.  Hence promoters tend to feel an accreditation fee is fair game. For some media,  recouping a fee in excess of US$200, while covering other costs, especially when  a team is involved, might prove a challenge.

That said, I think the promoters might be best served to look at  each accreditation application on an individual basis, and where fees are  charged they should be reasonable. In the end, journalists and media houses must  decide if it is worth the cost required in terms of the needs of their audience,  and if it does, thoughts about a counter campaign are misguided.

Kingston/IAAF World Challenge Meet

 Congratulations to the athletes and organisers of last Saturday’s  Jamaica International Invitational track and field meet. Don Quarrie is to be  especially commended for managing to secure some big-name, last-minute  replacements. Quarrie obviously retains influence and connections on the global  circuit as he has done since the first staging of the Manley Meet.

It was especially pleasing to see America’s Tyson Gay at or near  his best. Not for the first time Gay demonstrated that he is fearless and always  prepared to enter the ‘lion’s den’. It is only a pity that he could not have  matched strides with either or both of our two top sprinters. Overall, our  athletes put on a good show and the future continues to look bright.

In recent years the issue of media accreditation fees, especially  relating to sports journalists, has generated some heat from both sides. On one  occasion this required the intervention of the Press Association of Jamaica  (PAJ), although to the best of my knowledge no permanent resolution was reached.  Given existing realities, one wonders if both sides can ever reach a  satisfactory agreement.

As one who has operated on different occasions as a journalist and  a meet organiser, I must concede that there are two sides of the coin. I find  no problem with an accreditation fee in principle. But there are challenges for  media managers especially.

Promoters of events want the media to publicise their events. This  includes coverage before the event, on the day of the event, and/or especially  in these days of ‘instant’ media, during the event; also finally, after the  event. Few, if any event organisers, are willing to pay for this media promotion  by way of supplements, features or other paid advertisements. For one, this is a  costly undertaking, especially for track and field meets, many of which do not  operate at a profit.

In very recent years Jamaica has been fortunate to have been  benefiting from an increase in developmental track and field meets. Thankfully,  the sport is growing as a public attraction at the local as well as  international levels. The media are partly responsible for this growth.

However, it goes both ways. Media interest has also waxed in  response to the increased interest of the public which they are committed to  serving and on whose audience growth they depend for attracting advertising  support. Unquestionably, the cost of mounting meets and of providing live  coverage is exorbitant. This is particularly strenuous for financially strapped  media houses.

However, it is equally challenging to meet organisers who are  dependent on sponsors and volunteer workers. It may be useful to conclude here  that the motive of one side is profit and the other is primarily sport  development.

Notwithstanding the profit agenda, the media, on principle, ensure  that their publics are best served by the quality and credibility of the  information they produce and that every attempt is made to ensure that these are  not compromised. For years, media houses have been wary about providing  promotional coverage free of charge for fear of conflict of interest  accusations.

It is not a secret that today’s sport and entertainment  journalists often double in producing stories, especially inclusive of  photographic material, for more than one media channel — overseas as well as  local. In this scenario, the public is often well served in terms of access to  information.

However, while for national events there is a clear demand and  need for the public to be kept informed, there is an inherent danger in serving  the interest of the public while simultaneously serving that of a profit-seeking  entity. There is definitely a line between providing information to the public  and acting as a publicist for a promoter, which can lead to a blurring of  factual information.

On the other hand, promoters spend large sums to stage their  events and certainly have a right to determine who gains access, free of charge,  and what this access allows. In these days of blogging, virtually anyone can  claim to be a journalist. It is the prerogative of the promoter to determine who  is of value to his/her event and which journalists and/or media houses should  have free access.

Occasionally, promotional agreements are made which give access or  some access to only the ‘sponsorship media’.  This is a tricky game for the  promoter to play as it might deny his/her event publicity in large areas of the  media. However, if it is determined that adequate coverage can be had from one  media house or from one entity — newspaper, television and/or radio — then that,  too, is their decision to make.

There is no easy answer. Access to specially designated media  areas must be controlled and monitored, and some promoters feel the easiest way  to do this is to charge a registration fee. When they do, they take the risk of  alienating the media, but in the end it is their event and their  prerogative.

I certainly do not believe that any media house or individual  practitioner should blacklist an event, especially one of national import,  because an accreditation fee is required. The media cannot have it both ways;  press freedom does not only mean freedom to publish or broadcast information as  selected by media gatekeepers; but also, and perhaps more important, to provide  information about which the public has a right to know and on which they have  come to depend on the media.

The promoters in Cayman may regard the imposition of an  accreditation fee of $250 as one way of defraying costs. This, on the surface,  seems excessive, but some journalists, photo-journalists in particular,  especially those with the facility of posting on the Internet via YouTube, can  make back this money from one posting or sale of a single photograph.

I recall that following one heated debate on the right of media  practitioners to unrestricted entry to a meet at which Usain Bolt was a star  attraction, a video of Bolt’s race was posted within minutes on YouTube.

In addition, meet promoters usually feel compelled to make  budgetary provisions for suitably accommodating journalists at their events.  Hence promoters tend to feel an accreditation fee is fair game. For some media,  recouping a fee in excess of US$200, while covering other costs, especially when  a team is involved, might prove a challenge.

That said, I think the promoters might be best served to look at  each accreditation application on an individual basis, and where fees are  charged they should be reasonable. In the end, journalists and media houses must  decide if it is worth the cost required in terms of the needs of their audience,  and if it does, thoughts about a counter campaign are misguided.

Kingston/IAAF World Challenge Meet

Congratulations to the athletes and organisers of last Saturday’s  Jamaica International Invitational track and field meet. Don Quarrie is to be  especially commended for managing to secure some big-name, last-minute  replacements. Quarrie obviously retains influence and connections on the global  circuit as he has done since the first staging of the Manley Meet.

It was especially pleasing to see America’s Tyson Gay at or near  his best. Not for the first time Gay demonstrated that he is fearless and always  prepared to enter the ‘lion’s den’. It is only a pity that he could not have  matched strides with either or both of our two top sprinters. Overall, our  athletes put on a good show and the future continues to look bright.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/Media-accreditation-fee—a-tricky-issue_14223771#ixzz2SjSkmK00