UFC Media Credentialing Practices Questioned

[Warchief]

Perhaps the only thing hotter than a cageside ticket for a UFC event is a media credential. The UFC's credentialing policy, and its media strategy generally, has been a source of controversy among journalists for sometime. Los Angles Times blogger Richard Abowitz went public with his complaints about the company's credentialing policy after being denied access to UFC 84.

Abowitz believes that his poking and prodding at UFC President Dana White for an interview about on-going spats with Tito Ortiz, led to his receiving "a credential application with all sorts of stipulations required for a press pass," including "the trivial, forbidding my wearing certain clothes, to the ridiculous, controlling where and when I was allowed to write about the event forever more."

Abowitz says he corresponded with UFC events manager Diann Brizzolara who told him:

"We have the right to protect our brand and how coverage taken from our events is disseminated. Other sports leagues, such as the NFL, have similar regulations printed on the back of their press passes."

The difference according to Abowitz was the fact that his credential application required a signature, which essentially made it "contract." Whereas regulations printed on the back of a credential by other organizations essentially amounted to a wish list.

Based on my experience this practice is indeed rare in other professional sports. When I was a radio reporter in college at Hofstra's WRHU, I was routinely given access to MLB and NHL games, without having to even fill out an application. Typically, a request on company letterhead sufficed.

Source

[sandywh]

I agree and disagree with this guys little rant.

My buddy is a reporter for a local sports radio station and he gets credentials for nearly every sporting event within driving distance. Most of the time its never a hassle, but if/when he is covering anything remotely contraversial he has to sign a 'contract' type credential agreement. The 'contract' basically states that he will not talk to certain people (usually the figures surrounding the contraversy) or will only write about the event and not the side stories.

To put some examples of this, he covered the Falcons first home game tis season and had to sign the 'contract' to not ask questions of player / staff about Michael Vick, and it also stated that if he went into depth about the Vick issues that the club would refuse to grant him or his station any further credentials.
He also covered the 2006 South Carolina / Clemson game (brawl) and when he covered the 2007 game between the teams he had to sign an agreement not to ask questions or write about the previous year's brawl.

My guess is that UFC brass is making sure that they cover their ass. WHy would they want to give free access to reporters that are just looking to make a name for themselves by painting the UFC in a bad light.

[jrcbk]

Originally Posted by sandywh

I agree and disagree with this guys little rant.

My buddy is a reporter for a local sports radio station and he gets credentials for nearly every sporting event within driving distance. Most of the time its never a hassle, but if/when he is covering anything remotely contraversial he has to sign a 'contract' type credential agreement. The 'contract' basically states that he will not talk to certain people (usually the figures surrounding the contraversy) or will only write about the event and not the side stories.

To put some examples of this, he covered the Falcons first home game tis season and had to sign the 'contract' to not ask questions of player / staff about Michael Vick, and it also stated that if he went into depth about the Vick issues that the club would refuse to grant him or his station any further credentials.
He also covered the 2006 South Carolina / Clemson game (brawl) and when he covered the 2007 game between the teams he had to sign an agreement not to ask questions or write about the previous year's brawl.

My guess is that UFC brass is making sure that they cover their ass. WHy would they want to give free access to reporters that are just looking to make a name for themselves by painting the UFC in a bad light.

Completely wrong. This guy works for the press, and that makes him a god. How dare the UFC try to protect their own interest from a reporter potentially writing whatever the hell he wants to. Geez this guy is stupid. If he wanted to hear how bad the UFC is to Ortiz all he had to do is ask before the event. Tito has never shut his mouth about it.
This reminds me of wshen they were doing UFC 77 conference call with ANderson and Rich and some guy started asking questions about Gomi before Dana shut him up. There is a time and place for all questions.

[atj-lucko]

Dana is just trying to control the media, it will not work.
Jeff Gross now of SI can't even get a pass because Dana doesn't like him.
If Dana's model is the NFL then he going the wrong route. Or maybe he' going the WWE route and won't allow his fighters to talk to any media, lets see were he goes, either way another reason why Dana's a dick.

[Howie]

We've applied for the last couple UFC's and they denied it. I just stopped trying and assume MMANews isnt getting into a UFC lol

[hunterkiller]

This is bigger than credentials. The UFC doesn't allow their highlights to be shown either. EVERY other MMA organization allows their highlights to be shown on HDnet's Inside MMA show but the UFC. They have to use stills when talking about the events. I understand the UFC is weary about a rival but they aren't trying to do anything but show highlights like sportscenter does on ESPN. It's free publicity. You would think it would be good.

[Clint]

Originally Posted by thecoylewis

This is bigger than credentials. The UFC doesn't allow their highlights to be shown either. EVERY other MMA organization allows their highlights to be shown on HDnet's Inside MMA show but the UFC. They have to use stills when talking about the events. I understand the UFC is weary about a rival but they aren't trying to do anything but show highlights like sportscenter does on ESPN. It's free publicity. You would think it would be good.

The thing is the UFC is bigger than Inside the UFC, so allowing clips would potentially cause more people to watch Inside MMA and thereby let more of those people know about the UFC's competitors.

The UFC knows that anyone watching inside MMA, already knows about the UFC but many UFC fans know nothing about Inside MMA/other MMa orgs

[hunterkiller]

Originally Posted by Clint

The thing is the UFC is bigger than Inside the UFC, so allowing clips would potentially cause more people to watch Inside MMA and thereby let more of those people know about the UFC's competitors.

The UFC knows that anyone watching inside MMA, already knows about the UFC but many UFC fans know nothing about Inside MMA/other MMa orgs

That's true. I understand that. I just feel like that since it's an independent show that highlights MMA, it would be good for the UFC. But I understand why not too. It's still free publicity.