In July, 2007 an article appeared in the Chicago Tribune describing a troublesome problem that they and other media are having with the NFL. The NFL has gone one step further in their quest for advertising space by requiring all photojournalists on the field to wear bright red vests. Doesn't sound so bad, the vests are good for security and other aspects of the game. However, these bright red vests are also an advertising scheme, with logos and sponsor names on them as well.
This move angered many people in the media. The photojournalists that are present at NFL games are not employed by the NFL. Therefore they do not feel as if they should have to wear these vests at all. Since they are independent photographers, they cannot be forced to wear a vest. However, if they or the contracted newspaper or magazine they work for choose not to wear the vests, then the newspapers and magazines will have to go without photography for their articles of the game.
The article states that most newspapers have strict ethics policies, saying that reporters and photographers cannot endorse any products. These policies seem fitting, in a world where objective journalism is valued. These newspapers do not want their reporters becoming walking advertising space.
In my mind there are two specific things that these rules could affect. First of all, Wayne Wanta states in the Handbook of Sports and Media that "Sports photographic coverage also is dominated by male athletes...photographs of male atheltes outnumbered photographs of female athletes by a 13:1 ratio". If these rules in the NFL continue to grow and the newspapers decide to go without having visuals in their reports of these games, then perhaps photographic coverage will be turned to other sports, including women's sports. The second aspect of sports that this could affect could be the entertainment factor. Young people are some of the most avid readers of the sports section, but without visuals, it can somtimes be a lot to handle. Some young people may be turned off by the lack of visuals in NFL coverage, and turn to other sources of media for coverage instead.
The article is posted here... http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=02-08-2013&FMT=7&DID=1307725151&RQT=309&cfc=1
As a young person interested in sports, how do you feel this will specifically affect the wide world of sports, especially football? Do you think that this is just the beginning and that more sports will catch on to the advertising space on the backs of photographers? Finally, do you agree with what the NFL is doing, and how do you think the ethics of it play into objective and fair journalism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I understand that these newspapers do not want their reporters becoming walking advertising space. I definitely think this will affect the wide world of sports. I mean if photographers can’t get on the field of football games because they aren’t wearing red vests, then how are they going to cover the games and get publicity? This is just the beginning and I think that more sports will see the advertising and question it.
I do not agree with the NFL forbidding the journalists to not go on the field if they do not wear red vests. I like the idea of the advertisement but I think it should be a choice, not a demand.
As a major fan of sports, I feel like its taking away from the players and the sport. NFL and advertising companies passed this new rule for the upcoming season that requires photographers at NFL games to wear red vests with Canon and Reebok logos on them. If it wasn’t required then editors and photography directors wouldn’t be up in arms about it.
It totally goes against the Code of Ethics to force photographers to advertise and become walking billboards. I think it makes the NFL look bad and I wouldn't be surprised if some newspapers get together and seriously discuss a boycott.
Until reading this article, I actually didn't notice that there was advertising on the vests. I think that it's a really smart idea for the companies that put their names on the vests. It really does not come surprising to me that there is advertising on them. The NFL to me is probably one of the most sought after sports to put advertising in, and not just because of the superbowl. It is a sport that many americans identify with and follow. I think that if the advertising proves effective that it will certainly catch on to other sports also.
I think that the NFL's requirement that photojournalists wear the vest or they cannot put photos in their newspapers is unfair and a little unethical. Photos are extremely important in sports reporting. They absolutley add to the article written, especially in the NFL. However, I also don't see what harm it can do for the journalists to wear it anyway. If they have to wear the vests anyway, what's the difference if there's a Cannon or Reebok logo on it? But I think that it should be the choice of the newspaper or magazine to wear the advertisement vest or not. And an even smarter idea would be for the newspapers and magazines to get in on the advertising and put their names on the vests.
I realize that the NFL is a "hot commodity" when it comes to advertising, but this is crossing the line. The photographers are not under contract with the NFL, nor do they work for the NFL directly. So, I do not see how the NFL can put these photographers in such a position because it blantantly compromises their journalistic entegrity to force them to wear the vests.
On the other side of the coin, this is a brilliant scheme by the NFL. They have again set new boundaries for marketing and advertising. It is common knowledge that the NFL is in high demand for advertising space, and this is another way proving that they can set new boundaries for advertising. It would not surprise me if other sports follow the NFL's lead in the near future. Since sports hold such a high regard in both the media and society people will do whatever is neccessary to reach the large population interested in sports.
As stated in Ch. 6 Sports journalism is not treated as much as entertainment news anymore, as it is top news. Sports are in high demand for both the public and advertisers reaching the public. the NFL has the journalists in a bind. Newspapers are decreasing in sales as it is, and they are struggling to bring in younger audiences. one of the things that attracts young audiences to a newspaper is the sports section. I personally don't like reading the newspaper at all, and prefer online articles or magazines, but if I see a big headline picture of my favorite team I am more inclined to pick up the paper. without pictures that papers will be harder to sell. the NFL definitely has the upper hand, but it is unfair to the photographers and journalists as a whole. I would ultimateley like to see the NFL cave in this demand, but I do not see that happening, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future.
Photography can turn the wide world of sports into an art form. By capturing single moments time which can define one game in a single instance, it is photographers that bring a new life form to sports especially football.
The photographers themselves take their jobs very seriously and for them to be exploited by companies trying to make another buck is despicable in my mind. Sporting events should not take a back seat to advertisements.
Since football has done all they can to make money off of advertising without actually putting the signs on the players themselves, I figured they would have stopped by now. It just goes to prove that when looking to make that extra dollar no extreme is too high.
This is now putting the photographers at the disadvantage. They have become walking billboards without even having a say in the matter. I believe this is very unethical and exploiting people trying to do their job as the NFL tries to gain the edge in the advertising market.
I hope no other sports try to take advantage of photographers or any other forms of media during sporting events. The media themselves are publicizing the game already and do not need something like forced advertising being pressured on them.
The fact that the NFL is making the photographers wear vests with advertising is a difficult issue to judge because there are many factors that go into whether the decision by the NFL is appropriate. The first is what type of advertising is being used on the vests. Obviously, whatever companies the photographers represent wouldn't want any advertising that isn't acceptable to their standards. Realistically, the vests would all be the same so it's not like the NFL would have one photographer having a different sponsor than another photographer. If the companies really want to make a fuss about the issue I suppose they could but outsiders aren't going to look at a photographer with a sponsored vest and say "Oh, can you believe that the Sports Illustrated photographer is sponsoring Cialis?!?!"
Regardless, both the NFL and photographers need each other. I can't imagine any photographers walking away, and if they did I believe other independents who didn't have a problem with advertising would quickly replace them. Ultimately what they could do to benefit both sides is have the NFL and the photographers company (if they aren't independent) try to share a mutual sponsor so that both sides benefit.
Ultimately, I think this would be quickly resolved if it ever became a big issue because the photographers aren't going to leave the biggest sport in the country, which likely pays the best, to go cover a less popular sport. I don't think it really has to do with a journalists ethics because their work is their photographs, not what's on their vests. I've had internships where I had to wear a vest on the field at professional sporting events and I honestly think this became an issue mostly because the photographers don't want to wear any annoying vests, and the fact that they're starting to use the vests for advertising probably just sent them over the top.
Post a Comment