Media

[Guest GoStangs]

Do you think the media puts in their fair share to support local football teams?

I know they publicize it, but that's as much for their own good as anything else. I'm more curious about $$$ they give to schools. These folk are making serious cash from high school sports, but do they give enough back (or should they give anything back) to help the programs that are basically handing them hefty paychecks every fall?

[tvc184]

Do you think the media puts in their fair share to support local football teams?

I know they publicize it' date=' but that's as much for their own good as anything else. I'm more curious about $$$ they give to schools. These folk are making serious cash from high school sports, but do they give enough back (or should they give anything back) to help the programs that are basically handing them hefty paychecks every fall?[/quote']

I think the media's fair share is zero. It just seems wrong paying someone because you used them in a news story. The media should not pay anyone for the service they provide. With that rationale, the New York Times should pay George W. Bush a ton of money because they have sure been making a living off of him.

If any business wants to donate to a charity or a worthy cause, that is good. It is just wrong to expect it or say that it is their fair share.

[Tiger90]

The media has been a let down the past couple of years especially the Enterprise. Looks like every story is just a cut and paste from the A.P. The last few seasons you were lucky if a box score of a hs fb game was even in it on a Saturday morning. As far as the other media I guess if you are from mid county you enjoy the fb coverage. :?

[Guest GoStangs]

TVC, generally I would agree with that, but I don't see the media just going out to get a news story. Rather, schools pay for press boxes that the broadcasters use; they allow the media to have access to coaches, players, and the field; they give the media power for their equipment; they don't charge the media for entrance; they give them food; etc. Once they are done with those gifts, several companies extend their profits by copyrighting their broadcast and selling replays of the games (generally at 4-5 times more than the original ticket price).

I believe the media's obligation to give something back to the schools is more in line with a thank you -- they certainly don't need to do anything, but morally, they probably should show a sign of gratitude by sharing at least some of the profits they enjoy thanks to the willingness of the schools to allow them the opportunity to reap money from the games and the hospitality they show them while they're in the stadium.

[tvc184]

................

I believe the media's obligation to give something back to the schools is more in line with a thank you -- they certainly don't need to do anything' date=' but morally, they probably should show a sign of gratitude by sharing at least some of the profits they enjoy thanks to the willingness of the schools to allow them the opportunity to reap money from the games and the hospitality they show them while they're in the stadium.[/quote']

From the school's point of view, they give the media a press box, they allow access to player/coaches, they give them food (maybe?) and give them a story. In return they get... nothing.

It looks as if the school is giving up a lot and getting absolutely nothing in return.. or are they? The schools could shut the media out by not giving them a press box, not giving them access to players and coaches, etc. But then what would their coverage be? The media could still get the scores or buy a ticket like the rest of us and report the game. Then the hometown crowd doesn't get to see feature stories, in depth coverage of the game and players, coaches comments, etc. I think the schools and the fans want all of that. That is the very reason the schools allow access to the press box, coaches and players. The schools want it out in the public for their fans, for the attention their coaches/players get and the media is giving them that service. Like I said, the media could get the scores and watch the game like anyone else and report the game without access to the participants.

It might be a nice gesture for the media to give something back to the schools, especially for broadcast rights. They might give something to the schools for all I know.

The bottom line is that the media owes the schools nothing (I think they are doing the schools/fans a service) and there certainly is no moral reason or an obligation to kick in some money for something that appears to be public information from my point of view.

[KFDM COOP]

Media gives Schools and Teams coverage. And Coaches, Fans and the kids really enjoy it.

[Guest GoStangs]

The bottom line is that the media owes the schools nothing (I think they are doing the schools/fans a service) and there certainly is no moral reason or an obligation to kick in some money for something that appears to be public information from my point of view.

They owe them nothing, I agree. Yet, we all realize the media earns a lot of money from high school football, and, although they do publicize games and such, they are coming out much better than where they started, thanks to the generosity and hospitality of local school athletic programs. The football teams, fans, players, etc., get to enjoy the benefit of their name being in print or their picture on TV, but there is no other real gain for them. I think you would agree that if a news outlet only reported game scores, they would not make as much money as they're making now, so viewing it in that light, you can certainly see who needs whom.

As I wrote in the initial post, part of the sports media's job is to publicize high school sports, but that's as much for or their own good as anything else. They're in the business to make money, I certainly understand and support that concept, but in the same respect, I believe they should be a little more appreciative of how they're getting their profit. To me, a moral obligation to give something back, if nothing more than just as a sign of gratitude, certianly exists.

[KFDM COOP]

Profit? TV stations pay their employees, not Schools.

[Guest GoStangs]

So, Coop, are you saying any profit a business makes should only go to their employees, or are you saying companies don't earn any profit from high school sports activities?

[KFDM COOP]

I don't know where all the money goes from this (or any) station after employees are paid? That's just the nature of the business, it's been like that from the beginning of time. The answer is no, TV stations do not make money off High School Sports. TV stations make money off advertisements.

[Guest GoStangs]

TV stations do not make money off High School Sports. TV stations make money off advertisements.

Coop, take one more step and you'll see what I'm talking about. Ask yourself why the media even covers sports, and you'll see what the point is.

As for corporations giving back to the community, it's not that novel an idea. Many companies have done that for many years now.

[KFDM COOP]

I see the point.

[Gasilla]

I see the point.

Coop, take Sports Extra for example. The station doesn't make money off of the players and coaches that are on your program. BUT, they make a ton of money off of local and non local advertisers who pay a ton of money to have their ads played during the broadcast because they know there will be a large local viewing. Of course, this is how the business makes it's money, but they are using local sports because it makes them money. The pay back for the individuals on the program is publicity.

I tend to agree with GS, they do not have a monetary responsibility to give back to the schools, but I feel they DO have a moral responsibility to do what they can in certain situations.

[KFDM COOP]

Oh i agree. The Sunday Night Sports Extra is sponsered by Ford. Ford pays Channel 6 money for their advertisement during Sports extra on Sunday nights. But your right the pay back is Publicity to the Schools, Players etc..

[tvc184]

The media makes money off of covering local trials. When a big trial is happening, there can be extensive coverage. Should the local media pay the county for "allowing" them to cover the trials?

I have seen one of the local stations show a monthly (or maybe weekly) night patrol where they ride with the police. They do not expect anything big to happen, they just want people to watch so they can see a local version of COPS. It is to get ratings and thereby increase their advertising dollars. Does that local station buy the police officers some extra equipment when the officer allows the media to ride along?

The local schools get way more beneficial coverage of their school, players and coaches than any reward reaped by the media. Media reports the news, they don't pay for the news.

If they want to donate, go for it but there certainly is no moral responsibility. The media is in the business for profit but they do provide a service. They shouldn't pay someone else for providing them with that service. What would not be moral would be the schools wanting the media to pay for the right to show the news.

Maybe it is just a 1st amendment issue with me but there seems something wrong with anyone expecting money from the media. Freedom of the press.............as long as you donate me some money.

[KFDM COOP]

Well said!

[Guest GoStangs]

Live coverage of high school sports is not a news event -- it's a special program for radio/TV (especially when you consider they can copyright and resell the program at 4-5 times the average ticket price). The radio/TV stations generally pay for the programs they broadcast, but are allowed to air local sports for free. Again, as a matter of gratitude, I'd think/hope the companies would share some of the profits they gain from being allowed to broadcast and sell sport events.

[tvc184]

Live coverage of high school sports is not a news event -- it's a special program for radio/TV (especially when you consider they can copyright and resell the program at 4-5 times the average ticket price). The radio/TV stations generally pay for the programs they broadcast' date=' but are allowed to air local sports for free. Again, as a matter of gratitude, I'd think/hope the companies would share some of the profits they gain from being allowed to broadcast and sell sport events.[/quote']

I am sure that Coop will be glad to pass that along. Good luck.

[KFDM COOP]

I'll send it to Beaulieu Monday.

[Guest GoStangs]

Coop, when you do, send us his reply. I'm interested to see how live broadcasts of sporting events that preempt regularly aired shows are not special programs that are usually bought by the media corporations. I'm also interested to see why most local businesses give donations to schools, but the media companies that air and sell live broadcasts of those games at inflated rates don't return any money to the community that provides them the opportunity to profit on high school sports.

Also, I'm curious as to why you all don't air and sell live broadcasts of plays, concerts, ballets, musicals, etc. Are you all just dropping the ball when it comes to other live entertainment events, or is there something that makes one live entertainment event newsworthy and others not?

[KFDM COOP]

That's not a decision i make. It's been like this since the first newscast hit the air. ESPN, ABC, NBC. It's never changed. Sports is part of a newscast at every TV station in the Country, every night.

[Guest GoStangs]

Those companies (ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN, FSN, etc.) pay for the right to broadcast live sporting events. There is a huge amount of money exchanged for the ability to copyright, broadcast, and sell video/dvd of sports events. When you look at high school sports, one radio or TV station is generally given the right to air a particular game. That means all advertising dollars goes to them and not a competitor station and all profits from rebroadcasting games or selling copies of games goes to one entity. What are they giving to the schools in return for literally being handed the opportunity to make a decent-sized profit?

My point is that a lot of companies are making a significant amount of money from profiting off the broadcast of high school sports. The schools bend over backwards to accomodate them, but they get very little in return. All businesses need to make a profit, but in the same respect, I feel they could and should show some appreciation for what they're given.

In the end, it's a moral decision and how one wishes to define the issue. There certainly is no right answer. One thing I want to express, though, is that I certainly appreciate the opinions and discussion this has generated.

[kicker]

To put my $.02 in, I have to say the schools do make some sort of money off of the media. I am talking about the hype that the media brings to upcoming games. This puts more behinds in the stands, which the school makes money off of. It may be little or big, but a hyped game will get people in the stands that wouldnt normally go to that game or any highschool game. I also know of local stations coming to pep rally's and giving player of the week honors(plaques and such). Ive gotten three or four. That was awesome for me and was better than anyone giving me money(well, depends on the ammount ). Its just IMO something that makes the media nice to have around.

Feel free to discuss.

[KFDM COOP]

Your right Kicker. For example this year setxsports will be giving out a team of the week award with Channel 6 airing it during the week.

[AshlyHasBeen]

At Channel 12 we also have our 12 Star Athlete of the Week.