We are familiar with the presence of photographers at various events. This week’s article is about a conflict - some call it a feud – between journalists and the International Rugby Board over the use of online photographs. Go to the link below and read the article. Write a reflective comment that addresses the conflict and the questions that I ask below.
Why do you think that the restrictions are being imposed on the news groups? Why would the journalists object to the restrictions? Are the journalists right in what they are doing? Is the International Rugby Board right in what it is doing? How would you solve the problem? What should happen if the restrictions expand to other sports and events? Are the restrictions the same as censorship or is there a difference?
Photo Feud Article
11 comments:
Restrictions have been imposed on news groups to limit the amount of online pictures that are posted on websites during rugby matches. Such restrictions I believe will help maintain a balance of profit for the International Rugby Federation and the public press. I do not believe, as the article suggests, that the restrictions will harm news groups in anyway. However, I do believe that the restrictions embody a broader complaint that sport federations are trying to make more money by giving exclusive privileges to sponsors. I also consider it appropriate for journalists to boycott the rugby federation until they remove the restrictions, only because the restrictions imposed will only influence further restrictions that could possibly harm the public press financially or rating wise.
I believe that restrictions are being imposed on the news groups in order to limit the amount of information, whether textual, visual, etc., that can circulate during a game since I assume that certain companies and teams earn money from ticket sales and broadcasting their games on television. If people were given too much “free information,” then the income of these companies would decline along with the number of participants at a game. It is reasonable to assume that journalists would rebel in some way since they are actually paid to provide information to the public and it is therefore their job, however, they should also understand why such restrictions are placed and should rebel in a positive manner rather than boycott events in order to create an agreement between journalists and the IRB. The IRB definitely has more of a right in what it is doing since they are not banning journalists from providing online images, they are simply restricting the number of images they provide, whereas journalists are acting impulsively by boycotting a major part of the IRB’s publicity. In order to solve this problem, I would create some sort of consensus between the journalists and IRB so that restrictions are still placed on the number of online images allowed but are set to a number that journalists could render practical, even though I believe 20 images during each half for every news group is already offering too much. If these restrictions expand to other sports and events, then people and journalists would just have to accept that companies that organize games are simply trying to maintain their level of income. Restrictions definitely differ from censorship since restrictions allow the action to continue but under certain circumstances or standards, whereas censorship would completely forbid the action from taking place.
The main restrictions that have been imposed on the new groups in to reduce the amount of online photographs, and information that is posted during rugby, football etc... Matches. Journalists might oppose to these restrictions because it would reduce the amount of business that they get online. I do not however believe that what the journalists are doing is right because to have all this information should not be for every one to view but should be in stores etc... Which would make people be more a part of it and have hard copies and would have to pay which would generate a better income for the journalists. I think that the International Rugby Board is right in what it is doing. However I think that the journalists do have some rights. I my self do not appreciate any press coverage. If the restrictions would move to other events then the press may be forced to make major decisions.
In my opinion the restrictions were imposed on the news groups because they were posting their photos on the internet since they weren’t getting profit by selling the photos on newspapers. I’m not sure why the journalists objected to the restrictions. Maybe they just liked posting the photos on the internet. I don’t believe that the journalists have the right to post photos on the internet since the subject of the photo probably only allowed the photo taken for the newspaper. I’d make all the journalists give the photos to the editor and then once the editor has the photos he could destroy the rest so there would be no copies. Nothing should really happen if the restrictions were expanded to other sports and events since the restriction is just. You could say that they are the same as a censorship since they both don’t want information given out without permission.
By
Sasha Smith-Sreen
In my opinion, I think the restrictions are being imposed on the news groups to lessen the amount of online photographs on the internet during a match. If they just let the photographers put it online, there wouldn’t be any profit to other new groups like magazines, articles, newspapers, and even TV programs, which depend on the amounts of people watching that program in order to get profit. If there is full and detailed explanation of the match even before it comes up in the TV or newspaper, no one would buy newspapers or watch the program. Journalists would object to this limitation because they earn money buy taking these pictures and selling it to online news groups. I don’t think the journalists are doing anything wrong, but they must also understand the other news groups such as newspapers, magazines, etc. because they have to earn money too. The International Rugby Board is right in doing what they are doing since they have the right over rugby and can decide whether or not there should be a limitation. I would have done the same like the board; I would have limited the amounts of the online photographs on the internet also. If this spreads to other sports, they might also put limit to online photo on their sports also. It would be a bit difficult for journalists to earn money, but there would be a balance between journalists and other news groups. Restriction is not the same as censorship. Censorship is cutting something objectionable permanently while restriction is just stopping something for some time being. The restriction can be opened again while censorship can’t.
The restrictions that are being forced upon the journalists are for protection of people involved in the event. Whether pictures or a report, events are made for live audiences who pay money, which isn’t fair to the payers if people watch the game front row for free on television. With all the free television programs available to people at home, companies who work off of live productions such as sports games and productions will go out of business if people gain the ability to do everything from home. It is understandable that journalists would not want to put up with the restrictions because without the ability to do these things, they have nothing to do; they are paid to give home viewers a look at what’s going on outside their homes. As a reporter, they should know their limits and not get angry at restrictions when people are just doing their job. Boycotting IRB events is not the right way to get what they want. The IRB is correct in what they are doing, at least more correct than the reporters. To solve the problem I would make some sort of association that contains representatives for both the journalists and the companies, this way a compromise can be made and both parties are equally happy. I do not think these restrictions are like censorship because they are still allowed to post pictures online. If the restrictions prevented the journalists from posting any pictures online, I would consider it censorship.
Restrictions are being imposed on the news groups to limit the amount of news about sports events, because if they do give too much information the sports associations wouldn't get enough people coming to games, therefor less money. Journalists would object to the reasons because they would be getting more money because it's their job. Journalists' jobs and lives depends on taking these photos at the games so it's their right to take the pictures. The International Rugby Board is also right in what it is doing because they also need their money, in a way the journalists and news agencies are stealing from the IRB by posting online pictures. I would solve the problem by allowing the Journalists to take pictures, post some text, or just post scores with some pictures, but i would not allow them to do play by play descriptions. If the restrictions expanded to other sports the news agencies wouldn't be getting enough money from that section and would have to shut down, so effectively, the sports agencies such as FIFA and the NBA or Major League Baseball would be stealing from the news agencies and journalists. I think the restrictions are just about the same thing as censorship except just minimizing the amount not blocking it.
Rules have been made on news groups to limit the amount of pictures that are posted online about Rugby matches. The pictures that go online by news groups decreases profit for Rugby teams slightly, that is why they don’t what them. I don’t believe that the restrictions will harm the news groups, but it is not fair for News groups if they can’t post a lot of pictures because that is what they live on, therefore it is appropriate for journalists to boycott Rugby matches. If the restrictions move on to other sports then there will be a huge rally to get rid of all the restrictions, not only by the press, but also by the people who read the press, they want to see pictures of Rugby matches and other sports too, it would also harm the press greatly if a lot of these rules where imposed.
As I read this article, in my opinion, I think that the restrictions are being imposed on the news groups to decrease the amount of information and the amount of photos taken online. Too much photo's would make less people coming to games and not lots of currency would be made. I do believe that journalists will do any damage by just posting photos on the internet but they should have a boundary on when there doing it. I believe that the International Rugby Board is right in doing what they are doing because they need there money too. Boycotting IRB events is not the right way to obtain what they require. If the restrictions expand to other sports and events they wouldn’t be receiving a right amount of money. To solve this problem I would make a connection for journalists. I would recommend censorship.
By: Ousmane Yonis
The restrictions are being imposed on the news groups to limit the number of photos shown on websites from rugby matches. Because, journalist want to know about the games also they want to get as many photos as they can, because this is how they increase the number of fans who reads and watch their websites. On the other hand, IRB wants to give the sponsors a better chance of making money and controlling the games income, because very important to the IRB income. I think the media is very important, because the fans need to know about rugby and the matches. Otherwise, with time the rugby sport will get less popular. The Rugby International Board is wrong because people will stop following the news about rugby after a couple years, if the journalist do not get photos and information about the rugby matches. The best way is to sit down and negotiate the situation and try to reach a reasonable solution to both parties.
I'm not entirely sure why these restrictions are being put on journalists, I mean, it's their job to take pictures of such events. I'm guessing that organizations that are in charge of the games want to possess some exclusive pictures that no one else could see. They probably think that there is such thing as too much publicity and that takes away some of the game's spectator value. I could see where the journalists are coming from though, sports journalists depend on taking such photos in order to make money; that's what their job is all about. If I was in their place I would object too, I wouldn't let them stand in the way of me doing my job. It's not like I'd be doing something immoral. I'm guessing those organizations must have a very subjective reason as to why they're doing this, which is not a reason good enough to put a halt on the journalists' jobs. I think the journalists are right in what they're doing because they're defending their right to take pictures because it's what their job is. I don't think the Board has the right to do what it's doing because they're just being unfair. It's completely legal for the journalists to take publicize the game as much as they want, it's freedom of the press. There shouldn't be restrictions on how many photos they take. I would solve the problem by taking the Board to court, because the journalists would totally win the case. If the restrictions were to be put on all sports, that would be fair since there wouldn't be more coverage on one sport than the other. But singling rugby out alone isn't right and doesn't make sense. Restrictions aren't the same as censorship because censorship means hiding something that shouldn't be viewed by the audience for a reason. Restrictions is just putting a limit on how much people see.
Post a Comment