kingarthur65 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Did anyone see this show last night? They did a great segment on Redskins.com and interviewed Larry Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Animal Trainer Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I missed it. When does it reair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelerSkins Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 didn't see it - re-air time would be appreciated . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingarthur65 Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 Here is the information from espn.com Consider the Source Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:40 a.m. ET (9:40 p.m. PT) on ESPN2 There was a time, of course, when most Americans got their news, about sports and everything else, from newspapers. In 1927, no one outside Soldier Field saw Gene Tunney rise from the canvas after the Long Count to defeat Jack Dempsey. In 1932, no one outside Wrigley Field saw Babe Ruth call his shot against Charlie Root in the World Series. Writers painted the pictures. Then came the advent of radio and television and everything changed. Now, in the age of the worldwide web, journalism is evolving again. With their own websites, athletes, teams and leagues can communicate directly with fans, bypassing the traditional media. Tonight on OUTSIDE THE LINES, we examine how this trend is likely to affect the quality and quantity of the information available to sports fans. Jeremy Schaap hosts. If they do re air this episode, it will probably be at 12:40am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I saw the tail end of it - they were discussing how the Redskins decided to do their own site and incorporate Redskins TV. - One person said it was bad because the team only tells you what they want to tell, but one of the guys that "investigated" the story said that a team is going to reveal only what they want anyway, but this is a way to let fans close to the team rather than go through the papers. ...also mentioned that the mainstream media isn't what it was because of the internet and the choices it's opened up. ..they breifly showed a clip of Larry Micheal talking to Randy Thomas while he was rehabbing his knee, pointing out that you're not going to see stuff like that on the local sports shows. The guy doing Outside the Lines didn't seemed bothered by it, but you know it probably bothers ESPN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingarthur65 Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 Part of the segment discussed how the local media isn't able to get as much access to the players as someone like Larry. One such instance was the day that GW signed an extension to stay with the Skins. The local media was told he would not be available for interviews but that same day Larry interviewed him on redskins.com. Larry's viewpoint was that the local media is just lazy, they don't take the time to get to know the players and coaches the way he does. Meanwhile they interviewed some local media guy and he was complaining that he doesnt have the same kind of access that Larry Michaels has. At the end of the segment the host said that many sports franchises have called the Redskins to get information on how to offer the services that Redskins.com does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Part of the segment discussed how the local media isn't able to get as much access to the players as someone like Larry. One such instance was the day that GW signed an extension to stay with the Skins. The local media was told he would not be available for interviews but that same day Larry interviewed him on redskins.com. Larry's viewpoint was that the local media is just lazy, they don't take the time to get to know the players and coaches the way he does.Meanwhile they interviewed some local media guy and he was complaining that he doesnt have the same kind of access that Larry Michaels has. At the end of the segment the host said that many sports franchises have called the Redskins to get information on how to offer the services that Redskins.com does. But it makes perfect sense too. Redskins control Larry Micheals and therefore can allow him more unfettered access without having to worry about hime spinning some strange story because of a comment made by a player or a coach. Then you have the color commentators who want to whine about no access, but then you watch them spin every comment into some HUGE controversy brewing in the locker room. But I'm not surprised to hear other teams being intrested in this. It's a fans dream come true.. even if it is filtered through Redskins colored sunglasses. We get to see and hear more about our favorite players. We get sneak peeks into camps. We get interviews where the host isn't trying so hard to dig up trash that he ruins the whole interview.. instead we can learn more fun and "useful" information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 i have to say, i think this could be an antitrust case. if the team is giving preference to its own news source and not giving the same access to outside news sources, there could be an illegal monopolizing act going on.... just something to think about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 i have to say, i think this could be an antitrust case. if the team is giving preference to its own news source and not giving the same access to outside news sources, there could be an illegal monopolizing act going on.... just something to think about How do you define the market though? That's where this, and most anti-trust cases, fall apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryBrownsFan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 i have to say, i think this could be an antitrust case. if the team is giving preference to its own news source and not giving the same access to outside news sources, there could be an illegal monopolizing act going on.... just something to think about He couldn't have been serious. ...could he? ...nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieskin Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Just another case of the redskins setting the mark for all the others to follow Hail all things redskins:especially the news information system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 How do you define the market though? That's where this, and most anti-trust cases, fall apart. i dont think its that hard to define the market in this case. the redskins clearly have a monopoly in the professional football team market in the dc area (antitrust law requires a definition of the market which contains a geographical component). But, and i'm not sure if you know this or not, the plaintiff in an an attempt to monopolize case is allowed to define the market as they see fit. So, say a newspaper (like the post) defines the redskins as having a monopoly in the professional football team market in the dc area. Then, all they have to show is that they are using that market power to gain an advantage in another market. in this case, the news market in the area. All they would have to show is that the redskins are using their enormous market power in the nfl team market to gain an advantage in the news market. and if the skins are conducting interviews, granting access to events, etc that they arent giving to other newspapers, well... its not a bad case. i'm not saying its a no-brainer, but it sounds like a good case to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 He couldn't have been serious. ...could he? ...nah. yes, i am serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FightForOldDC21 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 i saw it that is sweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 But, and i'm not sure if you know this or not, the plaintiff in an an attempt to monopolize case is allowed to define the market as they see fit. Indeed, but that doesn't mean that a court (in a bench trial) or a jury is going to buy it. The market for professional football teams in DC is the most narrowly defined market that a plaintiff could reasonably construct. Obviously, defendants are also going to have their opportunity to advocate their version of the market. That a plaintiff has the right to define the market does not mean, ipso facto, that their finding is despositive. In fact, a court may find that the market isn't Redskins football news, but professional sports news or even sports news. So, it's not quite as open as shut as you make it out to be, and I don't even think it's a likely winner. Proving a market is an extraordinarily difficult task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Indeed, but that doesn't mean that a court (in a bench trial) or a jury is going to buy it. The market for professional football teams in DC is the most narrowly defined market that a plaintiff could reasonably construct. Obviously, defendants are also going to have their opportunity to advocate their version of the market. That a plaintiff has the right to define the market does not mean, ipso facto, that their finding is despositive. In fact, a court may find that the market isn't Redskins football news, but professional sports news or even sports news. So, it's not quite as open as shut as you make it out to be, and I don't even think it's a likely winner. Proving a market is an extraordinarily difficult task. it's my understanding that the plaintiff is allowed to define the market as it sees fit. Furthermore, in the Oakland Raiders case, the court refused to hear evidence of increased competition in any market outside that defined by the plaintiffs. (in that case, the raiders wanted to mov from oakland to l.a. the raiders claimed that they were increasing competition in the l.a. area and that the nfl rules prevented competition from ensuing. However, the nfl was not allowed to introduce evidence that by moving from oakland, the raiders were decreasing competition in the bay area b/c it was not in the relevant market). So, i think the plaintiff can define the market as they want. I dont think they necessarily win. there will have to be a full blown rule of reason analysis in where the plaintiff must show anticompetitive effects. The defendant can then rebut those with procompetitive benefits. Its likely that both sides will argue that efficiency in the market place is created if they win the case. like i said, i dont think its a slam dunk. but i think it certainly could go to trial and has a good shot to be a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 If there's an evidentiary bar like that in anti-trust cases, then the Redskins issue could be a better case. I'm just not sure if you're take on the evidentially ruling is right given the manner in which is basically precludes the defendant from fully defending himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryBrownsFan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 yes, i am serious I'm sorry. I really thought you were joking. Since then, I read your subsequent and more lengthy explanation. I suppose if one has enough nerve, or chutzpah, or righteous indignation, or intellectual curiosity, or whatever you want to call it, one can make an argument for almost anything. My immediate reaction to the suggestion that the Redskins could be or should be somehow forced, by the law, to give outside, sometimes hostile, reporters the same access to their employees that they give to Redskins.com reporters, is to protest and say, THAT'S NOT FAIR. I know, that's not a real good argument. And it's CERTAINLY not a legal argument. But I like what I see on Redskins.Com, and I wouldn't want to see it screwed up by wealthy, lawyer brandishing organizations who think the law should give them what they can't earn. Respect and credibility for reporters are earned by working hard to get the facts for a story right and then reporting them honestly. Outside reporters CAN do that. Moreover, IF they do that, they won't need the LAW to force the Redskins to help them compete. Just to make sure you don't misunderstand, I'm not directing this at you. From what you had posted when I started writing this, as best as I can figure, I'd guess you're ambivalent about whether the outside news organizations would be justified in raising anti-trust issues. Anyway, the idea just rubs me the wrong way. Okay. I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrollsMine99 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Cool. It doesn't happen to profile any of the newcomers on OTL, do they? CarrollsMine99. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I'm sorry. I really thought you were joking. Since then, I read your subsequent and more lengthy explanation. I suppose if one has enough nerve, or chutzpah, or righteous indignation, or intellectual curiosity, or whatever you want to call it, one can make an argument for almost anything. My immediate reaction to the suggestion that the Redskins could be or should be somehow forced, by the law, to give outside, sometimes hostile, reporters the same access to their employees that they give to Redskins.com reporters, is to protest and say, THAT'S NOT FAIR. I know, that's not a real good argument. And it's CERTAINLY not a legal argument. But I like what I see on Redskins.Com, and I wouldn't want to see it screwed up by wealthy, lawyer brandishing organizations who think the law should give them what they can't earn. Respect and credibility for reporters are earned by working hard to get the facts for a story right and then reporting them honestly. Outside reporters CAN do that. Moreover, IF they do that, they won't need the LAW to force the Redskins to help them compete. Just to make sure you don't misunderstand, I'm not directing this at you. From what you had posted when I started writing this, as best as I can figure, I'd guess you're ambivalent about whether the outside news organizations would be justified in raising anti-trust issues. Anyway, the idea just rubs me the wrong way. Okay. I'm done. Hey man, no offense taken... just wanted to point out that I was making a real legal argument. And thanks for the response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I like the unfiltered news thing. Nothing against Larry, but we really don't need the studio/radio announcer roll though. Let the pressers or player comments just speak for themselves. You want to give players the mic and let them interview each other? That would be hilarious and great. You want Larry to show behind the scenes with the equipment guy, or how they travel. That's cool. But, to think that there isn't at least a positive spin when he's talking, is just kooky. Of course there is. I like to hear the positives also. But, when a guy is signed or released, Reading a statement is enough. We don't need a person reading it on camera. Use that time and energy on the site, to improve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingarthur65 Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 This anti trust argument is full of holes. If the Redskins organization said that no person associated with the Redskins was allowed to talk to the media, you might have an argument, but that is not what is happening. Larry Michael may have an advantage because he is in the facility with the players and coaches, but that doesnt mean that other reporters cant develop a relationship with the players and coaches. Local media does have access to players and coaches, just not as much as Larry. If one of those reporters had a relationship with GW, they could have called him for an interview on that day that he signed his contract. If GW wants to grant him that interview he can. How does any reporter anywhere get an "exclusive" story? Would every exclusive story be labeled as an anti trust violation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 This anti trust argument is full of holes. If the Redskins organization said that no person associated with the Redskins was allowed to talk to the media, you might have an argument, but that is not what is happening. Larry Michael may have an advantage because he is in the facility with the players and coaches, but that doesnt mean that other reporters cant develop a relationship with the players and coaches. Local media does have access to players and coaches, just not as much as Larry. If one of those reporters had a relationship with GW, they could have called him for an interview on that day that he signed his contract. If GW wants to grant him that interview he can. How does any reporter anywhere get an "exclusive" story? Would every exclusive story be labeled as an anti trust violation? BINGO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.