Tensions in the Press Box

Abstract

Sports journalists have long enjoyed close—many would say too close—relationships with their sources. As suggested by a neoinstitutionalist, understanding of organizational relationships, routines, and professional expectations become accepted over time by journalists and sports organizations alike. However, new competition from online media, as well as new opportunities for teams to bypass the media, have threatened the legitimacy of journalists and their work practices. A survey of 437 reporters and communications personnel found key differences in the ways those in the professions perceived access, suggesting that traditional work patterns are evolving in ways that could delegitimate journalists inside and outside sports.

Keywords

sports journalism neoinstitutionalism college sports sport media sport communications

The media credential signifies status at a sporting event. Dangling from a lanyard or flapping from a belt loop, the small placard tells everyone who sees it that the bearer can go to restricted places, talk to coaches and athletes, record audio or video, and use designated work spaces. The credential symbolizes the legitimacy of media work, including access to sources and the freedom to publish.

In sports, journalists and organizations (events, teams, athletic departments, etc.) negotiate access through routines that have evolved over decades. In the United States, athletic programs—including teams, events, and athletic departments—employ media-relations professionals, known in the college ranks as sports information directors (or “SIDs”), directors of athletic media relations, or sports communication directors, to negotiate access and provide services to journalists (Funk & Pritchard, 2006; McCleneghan, 1995; R. Hardin & McClung, 2002; Stoldt, Dittmore, & Branvold, 2006; Swalls, 2004). Journalists, in turn, publish stories and work with SIDs to maintain access.

The literature on the professional roles of journalists and public relations (PRs) professionals in sports is extensive, but both it and the broader literature on the work of journalists curiously neglect the question of how journalists obtain and maintain access. Tuchman, Gans, and others mention developing sources and working with PRs professionals as a component of journalists’ work activity but do not discuss how negotiations for access to elite sources (i.e., newsmakers) take place (Aronoff, 1975; Gans, 1979; Marbut, 1971; Tuchman, 1978). Within the specific realm of sports, the question of access is most often discussed in the context of media ethic, specifically on the case of whether, in the name of maintaining relationships with sources, reporters sacrifice too much independence and allow sources to dictate coverage (Garrison & Salwen, 1989; Knoppers & Elling, 2004; McCarthy, 2014; M. Hardin, 2005; M. Hardin & Ash, 2011; Oates & Pauly, 2007; Rowe, 2005; Schultz & Sheffer, 2007; Serazio, 2010; Theberge & Cronk, 1986; Wenner, 2012; Whiteside, Yu, & Hardin, 2012). Moreover, the history of sports media hints at the implied exchange between sports organizations and media by noting the implied exchange relationship that has existed between both sides: Organizations allow access to popular people (coaches and athletes) and events to provide valuable content, while the media provide free publicity to the organization (Holt, 2000; Holtzman, 1978; Menke, 1963; Woodward, 1949). In the particular context of American intercollegiate athletics, this exchange is operationalized across campus: As it is often phrased, sports is “the front porch of the university” (Pratt, 2013, p. 50).

Challenges to Media-Source Relationships

Recent events suggest that the terms of the relationship between media and organizations may be changing. First, some athletic programs have attempted to reduce the autonomy typically enjoyed by reporters by limiting access for reporters, sanctioning them from reporting the organization believed to be inaccurate, unfair, or unflattering, and deprioritizing media needs. The University of Southern California athletics department in 2012 forbade media from reporting information from practice sessions, and then its coach, Lane Kiffin, attempted to ban a reporter from covering its football team allegedly for violating the rule (Gleeson, 2012). The same year at the University of South Carolina, the football coach, Steve Spurrier, told a radio audience that his athletics director and president would support him in getting a local columnist fired for critical coverage (Rauch, 2012). Florida International University also declared a reporter from The Miami Herald persona non grata for undisclosed issues in coverage, only to relent in the face of national coverage and condemnation (Kaufman, 2014). Also in 2014, Clemson University’s sports-communications department produced a mission statement that read, in part, “It will always be of importance to treat the media professionally and provide them with the tools to do their jobs. However, it is not the singular focus or even foremost priority of our department” (Gillespie, 2014, ¶ 2). And just in 2015, the football coach at the University of Illinois, Tim Beckman, asked independent media during a press conference to cover his team more positively to help in recruiting (Just, 2015).

Second, some programs have limited the ability of outlets to publish in real time using blogs and social media, claiming that such work infringes on broadcast rights. In 2007, the National Collegiate Athletic Association attempted to prevent reporters from publishing blog updates on baseball championships on these grounds (Bozich, 2007). The Southeastern Conference (SEC) attempted to do the same in 2009 (Kruse, 2009). And at the University of Washington, the athletics department in 2012 announced a cap on the number of social media updates posted during games by credentialed media (University of Washington, 2012). However, the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s policy was rescinded and the SEC’s never has been enforced. Washington, while maintaining the concept of the cap on posts, has backed off a specific number of social media updates.

Two theories have been put forth in the popular discourse to explain such examples of curtailments of access. First, athletic programs have been competing with independent media by producing far more content intended primarily for fans, both on their own web and social media platforms and through the expansion of broadcast agreements with television networks. Sports-communication departments have taken on responsibility for delivering content directly to fans through websites and social media, often competing directly with independent media (Stoldt, Miller, & Comfort, 2001; Stoldt, Miller, & Vermillion, 2009; Swalls, 2004). These include the YES Network in the New York area (Moss, 2008), the Big Ten Network (Weaver, 2009), and the Longhorn Network (Associated Press, 2012). This suggests that the long-held notion of an exchange relationship may be yielding to a more-explicit cost–benefit analysis of granting access to independent media. As Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, recently put it, “in the year 2011, I’’m not sure I have a need for beat writers from ESPN.com, Yahoo, or any website for that matter to ever be in our locker room.… [W]e communicate any and all factual information from our players and team directly to our fans and customers …. we have also reached a point where our interests are no longer aligned” (Cuban, 2011, ¶ 1).

Second, sports organizations are facing requests for access not only from traditional media outlets but also from online-only or online-primary publications like Rivals.com, BleacherReport.com, SBNation.com, 247.com, and Scout.com. Many of the writers for these outlets request the same kind of access as traditional media. As such, the list of outside media requesting credentials from sports organizations has grown significantly over the past 10–15 years, creating questions among sports-communications officers about when and to whom to grant access (Schultz, Caskey, & Esherick, 2010; Stoldt et al., 2009; Whiteside & Hardin, 2010).

However, the literature does not operationalize conditions and dynamics of this exchange relationship: What is the sports organization actually getting for allowing reporters access to games and athletes? In the passage quoted previously, Cuban suggests that the cost–benefit analysis no longer works for the Mavericks provide access to online media (he notes that print media such as The Dallas Morning News and The Wall Street Journal do reach a fan demographic that his organization cannot reach with its own media [Cuban, 2011]), but it is unclear whether sports organizations study the value of working with independent media. As such, what other forces might shape the interactions of organizations and the media that cover them? In the literature on political communication, a new set of theories suggests that noneconomic elements may be behind the While Cook, Sparrow, and others suggest that interactions between media and sources are governed by institutionalized routines and processes much more so than purely strategic or economic factors (Cook, 1998; Sparrow, 1999). These are critical questions for all media: Recent reports suggest that journalists on a range of beats are experiencing reduced access to elite sources, including politics (Coglianese, 2009; Downie & Schudson, 2009; Hermes, Whibey, Junco, & Aricak, 2014; Oputu, 2013), education (Carlson & Roy, 2013), and law (Goldstein, 2014).

The purpose of this study is to develop a theoretical approach to journalistic access and publishing autonomy and to assess these anecdotal threats in the context of that approach, primarily in the context of intercollegiate athletics. In particular, the perceptions and beliefs of those in the organizational field of sports media can provide important evidence of whether journalism is perceived to be, and treated as, legitimate work in the organizational field of spectator sports. This is an exploratory study in one segment of sports media, but its findings can inform the growing debates over access and publishing in other fields and beats.

The Neoinstitutionalist Perspective

Ultimately, news about sports or any other topic is produced from an information exchange between journalists and sources, generally in an organizational context. This process has been theorized in the literature on political communication (Cook, 1998; Sparrow, 1999). Individual journalists are under no formal constraints in deciding what to cover and how to cover it, and each news organization gets to decide for itself what merits publication. Such decisions are shaped by the level of access to important sources and information garnered by any individual reporter, giving rise to even more uncertainty.

Cook, Sparrow, and others use neoinstitutional theory to explore the conditions created by this uncertainty. From this perspective, organizations are shaped according to myths that have taken on social power through various channels, such as public opinion, education, and the assertions of dominant institutions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Acceptance of such myths, particularly in an uncertain environment, occurs as organizations attempt to emulate more-successful peers; as new laws or political activities force new shapes or from individuals within organizations spreading beliefs through personal networks (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Institutionalized organizations as being resistant to rational scrutiny and expectations from outside (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Individuals and groups within organizations pursue their own goals and agendas through activities not recognized in the formal organizational structure and rules. Activities take place without the active oversight of managers, goals are made ambiguous, and ontological and teleological goals are separated (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This process of decoupling allows managers to use institutionalized understandings rather than formal rules as referents for decision making in reaction to environmental pressures. In the context of news, editors create professional expectations and reporters depend on a finite number of sources to provide and confirm the news. The broad field of media has developed its own myths, as suggested by Meyer and Rowan, including what Cook calls “a series of rituals that protect objectivity, factuality, and other indicators of so-called journalistic ethics” (Cook, 1998, p. 206). As a result, news coverage looks surprisingly uniform across different publications and different media.

One particular set of rituals involving not only news organizations but also their sources are the subsidies that organizations seeking coverage provide to the media (Gandy, 1982). According to Cook, such subsidies have their origins in the political journalism of the 19th century (Cook, 1998). To replace the practice of sponsoring partisan publications, political actors began to provide explicit entitlements favoring the “bona fide” press, such as favorable postage rates for periodicals, press bureaus at executive-branch agencies, and special press seating.

A particular form of subsidy is what Cook calls “accommodation with strings attached” (Cook, 1998, p. 44), that is, “strings” are the expectation that journalists will publish the beliefs, policies, and agendas of the newsmakers (politicians, as Cook describes) in exchange for that level of access. Gandy mentions access as subsidies just in passing, point to the examples of leaks, off-the-record interviews, and background press briefings (Gandy, 1982). These exchanges mirror what has happens between newsmakers and journalists in sports.

Understanding the Professions

In sports media, the process of give-and-take has not been described in these terms, but scholars paint a picture of a media that is cozier with its sources and more willing to protect them than journalists on other beats (Garrison & Salwen, 1989; M. Hardin, 2005; Holt, 2000; Rowe, 2005; Salwen & Garrison, 1998; Serazio, 2010; Whiteside et al., 2012). Newspapers invested in sports coverage in the early 20th century because that and crime news were the top draws for audience (Menke, 1963). Reporters in the 1960s and 1970s brought a more critical strategy to covering sports, but many more continued to cover teams glowingly, and many of the traditional practices have remained in place to this day (Whiteside et al., 2012).

Salwen and Garrison (1998) found that sports journalists struggled with professional standards, being slow to adopt codes of ethics and being more tolerant of questionable ethics, although the 1990s saw progress on this front as the need to appear unbiased and willing to investigate supplanted previously cushy relationships with sources (Reed, 2011). M. Hardin (2005) found that sports departments at small-circulation newspapers were unlikely to have a code of ethics, and about half of editors at such newspapers thought sports coverage should boost home teams and tended to ignore ethical issues. As Anderson noted, “sports journalists who wanted to gain and maintain professional credibility had to do so while sustaining a close relationship with the source of information” (2001, p. 364). This need for access has, over time, led to sports journalists being labeled as much more tightly entwined with their subjects than other reporters, gaining legitimacy with their subjects but losing it with other desks. Oates and Pauly (2007) suggest that breaches of the walls between business and editorial are acceptable in sports because the topic area is not as socially significant as government or civic affairs.

At the same time, SIDs work under their own limitations. Because of the frequency of games and other events, SIDs tend to have formalized, routinized contact with independent media at contests, scheduled media availabilities, and through interview requests with players and coaches. This is somewhat different from relationships between media-relations officers and reporters on other beats, wherein reporters might call officials only to discuss breaking news or occasional enterprise stories. Sports organizations “institutionalize contacts with journalists and again create a bridge between themselves and the news world,” according to Theberge and Cronk (1986, p. 198). Sports-communications personnel tend to place a premium on operating in Grunig’s “public information” model of PRs, providing information and statistics without trying to be persuasive, according to Jackowski (Grunig, 1983; Jackowski, 2006). Their jobs generally tend to be technical: They produce material for media and teams and manage requests from members of the media, but are not central to departmental decision making (M. Hardin, Whiteside, & Ash, 2012; R. Hardin & McClung, 2002). The degree to which media relations functions as a component of integrated marketing and communication varies widely among athletics departments (Stoldt, 1998; Stoldt et al., 2009). Even prior to the Internet age, SIDs had been overwhelmed by the growth of media outlets connected to athletics departments, such as cable and radio, and saw their influence being supplanted by marketing professionals reaching fans directly (McCleneghan, 1995).

The relationship between journalists desiring contact with elite sources (star coaches and athletes) and sports-communications officials is analogous to Ryfe’s (2006) description of the relationship between political reporters and their sources: “In their search for political legitimacy, journalists find themselves in a complicated, uneasy relationship with public officials, and, more broadly, the political culture. It is this relationship that news routines and practices are intended to mediate” (p. 139). Members of the media have to manage professional expectations of critical, objective coverage with sources’ desires for laudatory coverage, with future access sometimes hanging in the balance. This environment also is laden with uncertainty: Sports organizations retain the discretion to pick and choose which media cover them in person. While professional sports organizations have formal requirements for media availability written into collective bargaining agreements with athletes, no such requirements exist in intercollegiate athletics. This level of decoupling action from policy, as predicted by neoinstitutionalism, creates a fluid situation in which organizations have a spectrum of options: Should reporters get subsidies such as open access to events and individuals and should they be allowed to record and publish whenever they choose? Or should teams limit access to press-box seating and news conferences with coaches? The extent to which journalists can gain access, work independently, and publish in the context of an organizational field can be conceptualized as legitimacy. Traditionally, reporters have had opportunities to gain access to sources and information, and, in the context of sports, they are provided with other subsidies, such as free access to events. This suggests some level of legitimacy in the institutionalized field of commercial sports. However, if new platforms and broadcast partners are providing teams with alternative channels to reach fans and constituents, then independent journalists may be losing that legitimacy.

One can get information about the legitimacy experienced by journalists by looking at the policies of organizations and interviewing their media-relations representatives, but legitimacy is not merely a matter of policy. As suggested by Meyer and Rowan (1977), organizations exert themselves in gaps between official rules and actions taken by individuals, often to shield themselves from scrutiny and to meet other organizational ends. Thus, evidence of legitimacy should be found not in official statements but in the beliefs and perceptions of individual actors in the field.

If access were considered merely as a means of deriving publicity, then one would anticipate some measure of whether that publicity was generated in the manner expected, or some means of evaluation as to whether granting access resulted in greater engagement or interest among targeted audience. Is the audience of a given outlet evaluated in deciding whether to grant access? How much leeway are reporters given in what they are allowed to publish, especially in the context of expansive broadcast rights agreements? Are media accorded privileges in accordance with the value they add to an organization? If institutional actors—in this case journalists—function only in the context of a cost–benefit relationship, it would suggest that they have lost the level of legitimacy they enjoyed for many years.

These issues are explored through five research questions. The first two address basic tenets of neoinstitutional theory; the second two on lived experiences of legitimacy as proxied by the access, privileges, and freedom to publish in the context of the incidents discussed previously; and the fifth considers whether new media have disrupted the accepted myths and patterns of work in sports media.
Research Question 1: Do SIDs report that access is primarily a function of publicity and audience development or that it is based primarily on tradition and discretion?

This question is designed to explore the basic contention of decoupling: Do SIDs make rational decisions on whether to grant access to specific journalists or are such decisions based on discretionary interests? If relationships between independent sports media and athletics programs have been institutionalized, the process of requesting and granting access likely have been routinized to the point that officials make such decisions without formally evaluating their costs and benefits.
Research Question 2: Do sports organizations attempt to minimize scrutiny and reject outside examination?

If an organization is attempting to prevent or punish negative coverage or if it is perceived as doing so, then it suggests the existence of rules of the game that carry consequences if they are broken. Of course, the First Amendment entitles American journalists to write what they want subject to certain restrictions, but teams and sports organizations also are free to decide not to speak with particular individuals. As such, the existence of rules in this space is evidence of institutionalization.
Research Question 3: Do reporters and SIDs have differing perceptions of access?

The basic practices of newsgathering and reporting have remained nominally unchanged in the realm of sports: Reporters are given credentials to attend games and events such as press conferences and are granted access to players and coaches for interviews for both stories and features. They also get seats in good locations to watch games, courtside for basketball games and midfield press boxes for football. In an institutionalized field, conditions under which credentials and interviews are granted should be commonly understood from both sides. If not, one would expect such practices to be undergoing a change process, shifting from one paradigm to another.
Research Question 4: Do reporters and SIDs have differing perceptions on restrictions on publication?

The question of whether news organizations can restrict what journalists publish, and when, is considered absolutely beyond the pale in most conversations of news ethics (Starkman, 2014). However, the example of social media limits, along with accounts of college athletic departments allowing media to observe practice sessions if they do not report on them, suggests that boundaries are becoming more fluid (Orme, 2014).
Research Question 5: Has the addition of new channels of communication (i.e., owned and contracted media and social media) and new media competitors (i.e., independent websites) disrupted working conditions for reporters?

Institutionalized practices of access and freedom to publish have remained durable over the years, despite changes to the composition of major college sports, the rise of over-the-air television and then cable television, and the early days of the Internet. While social media might have the potential to deinstitutionalize organizational relationships, if access and autonomy are strongly institutionalized concepts, then the advent of social media and new competitor platforms should not mean a difference in reporting practices.

Data and Method

Participants

Assessing these questions was undertaken through two online surveys conducted in the summer of 2013. Participants for the first were recruited from the membership of the Football Writers Association of America and the U.S. Basketball Writers Association, the two organizations for journalists covering these sports on the collegiate level, both of which agreed to solicit responses from their members. A total of 777 working journalists were identified from membership lists after dropping retired journalists, PRs professionals, and student journalists from the sample. After three invitations (one from organizational presidents and two from the author), 268 members of the media agreed to participate, for a total response rate of 34.5%.

The second survey was sent by CoSIDA, formerly the College SIDs Association, to 1,588 members on its Division I membership list (i.e., members working at institutions belonging to Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association) by the organization’s interim director. Two follow-up requests also were sent by the author, resulting in 239 usable responses, for a response rate of 15.1%.

The sample skewed heavily male (93% for media, 79% for SIDs) and white (88% for media, 92% for SIDs), figures comparable to demographics of other studies of sports media and communications professionals (M. Hardin, 2005; Whiteside & Hardin, 2010). This suggests that despite the low-response rate, responses should be generalizable to some extent to the populations as a whole.

Method

The media survey instrument consisted of 84 items, and the instrument for sports-communications professionals consisted of 106 items. Research questions were assessed using descriptive results from the surveys as well as independent-sample t-tests to assess differences in beliefs and perceptions between journalists and SIDs or among journalists from different kinds of news outlets. All degrees of freedom were calculated using Welch’s formula instead of Satterwhite’s approximation to eliminate the need to assume equal variances in the samples.

All questions requested responses on a 4-point Likert-type scale to require respondents to make judgments instead of remaining neutral. No previous measures from other studies could be found, so this should be considered an exploratory study. Each variable was represented in the survey by a minimum of 2 items and as many as 6. Variables that did not return a Cronbach’s α score of at least .70 among instrument questions were dropped from the study.

Assessing the beliefs and perceptions of media and PR professionals is not the same as assessing the decision-making processes of sports organizations, but understanding both parties’ perceptions of legitimacy can provide a sense of their values. While formal rules and stated procedures are official communications of organizational policy, how that policy is carried out can be best explored through the lived experiences of those ostensibly governed by the policy.

Results

Table 1 provides a summary of results in standard form to accompany the findings discussed here. The first research question asks if SIDs use rational criteria to decide whether grant access to journalists. A small majority (57%) said they took the size and demographics of a news outlet’s audience into effect when deciding to grant interviews. This finding was consistent across several instrument questions (Cronbach’s α = .72), but answers were inconsistent on whether SIDs took outlet audience into account when deciding to grant credentials. Less than half of SIDs (47%) said they reviewed audience demographics for the news outlets that covered them, and nearly 60% said their departments had never analyzed audience information for media.

Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Differences in Instrument Responses Between Journalists and Sports Communications Professionals.

Item Journalists SIDs

n = 213 n = 148 t-test (df)^a

We take the size and demographics of a news outlet’s audience into account when deciding whether to grant credentials 2.64 (0.74)

We take the size and demographics of a news outlet’s audience into account when deciding whether to grant interviews 2.60 (0.73)

We review reach, audience, and/or market penetration for outlets that cover our teams 2.47 (0.66)

Reporters from big-name publication get better access than local beat writers 3.08 (0.77)

Having a desirable audience means getting better access 3.04 (0.72)

Reporters need to have good relationships with SIDs to get one-on-one interviews with coaches and athletes 2.11 (0.73) 1.93 (0.59) −6.91 (352.41)*

I/reporters can get access even after writing critical stories 2.92 (0.62) 3.16 (0.46) −4.19 (358.86)*

I/reporters cannot publish injury information or other information we learn in practice 2.66 (0.82) 2.27 (0.70) −4.77 (343.86)*

I get enough access to provide the coverage my editors and audience expect 2.54 (0.84)

During the season, interviews with athletes and coaches only take place in press-conference settings 2.61 (0.82) 1.92 (0.60) −9.24 (360.06)*

Independent media have the same access to coaches and athletes as they did before the athletic department or its conference signed their latest round of broadcast agreements 2.43 (0.72) 3.02 (0.57) 8.60 (357.35)*

I/reporters used to get more informal access than I/they do now 2.86 (0.90) 2.41 (0.69) −5.18 (338.00)*

Media seating has been moved away from prime locations (e.g., 50-yard-line, courtside) at the venues I cover 2.57 (0.84) 2.20 (0.84) −4.06 (318.59)*

The athletics department (I cover) or its conference has established limits on the type or number of blogs/social media posts I/reporters can publish during contests 2.02 (0.73) 1.80 (0.69) −2.84 (330.53)

Both traditional media and new organizations get credentials to events 2.86 (0.82) 2.81 (0.71) 0.60 (344.71)

The program I cover/we break its/our own news on the Internet/social media before it is sent to news media 2.75 (0.72) 2.55 (0.76) −2.51 (307.64)**

Note. SID = sports information director.

^aWelch’s exact degrees of freedom are used to avoid having to assume equal variance between samples.

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

That said, 80% of reporters agreed with the statement that journalists from national news outlets got better access than local beat writers. Most journalists disagreed with the statement that having a good relationship with an SID was necessary for getting one-on-one access (60%), although SIDs did not report consistently on that statement.

A large majority of reporters (81%) did say they did not have trouble getting credentials to events, although reporters from online outlets (e.g., Scout.com, BleacherReport.com, and independent blogs such as BCEaglesFootball.com) did report trouble, as discussed subsequently. Moreover, a majority of both reporters and SIDs agreed with the statement that online outlines got the same access and other privileges that reporters from traditional news outlets got.

All of these suggest that there is little transparency or rational evaluation going on when a decision is being made whether to grant a particular reporter or news outlet access. Instead, SIDs appear to depend on a level of discretion to determine the ability of media members to work in their particular environments. Beyond the belief that athletics departments grant special treatment to national outlets such as ESPN The Magazine or Sports Illustrated, however, little evidence could be found of rational evaluation taking place when it came to decisions to grant access, suggesting that access policies stem more from tradition or institutionalized policies.

Research Question 2 asks if sports organizations attempt to minimize external scrutiny of their practices, as predicted by organizational theory. This is assessed by examining whether reporters are able to maintain access even while writing critical stories, assuming that these stories are factually accurate. Reporters themselves believed this was true: 83% said they could maintain access even after writing a critical story, and 80% disagreed with the statement that they had to write positive stories to get the access they got. SIDs answered the question inconsistently, with nearly all (96%) saying that reporters would maintain access, but 89% saying that reporters would not get access if they were working on a critical story. That said, SIDs were more likely than reporters to say that media would maintain access after writing critical stories, t(361.7) = 3.26, p ≤ .01.

Journalists also were more likely than SIDs to agree with the statement that media could not report information they had gained in practice sessions, t(343.9) = −4.77, p ≤ .001, as in the case that prompted Southern California coach Lane Kiffin to ban a reporter from covering the team (Gleeson, 2012). These findings suggest that the reporting function retains legitimacy even when reporters criticize their sources, but that reporters believe access is somewhat more tenuous than SIDs do. It also suggests a high level of variability in local conditions for access and relationships between journalists and sports organizations.

Research Question 3 asks if reporters and SIDs have different perceptions of access. A small majority of reporters (54%) said they got enough access to do their jobs, but the same proportion said that they only got to talk to players and coaches in group settings like press conferences, not in informal or one-on-one conversations. A majority of SIDs (86%) reported that media could get one-on-one access to key sources during the season, creating a significant difference with reporters, t(360.0) = −9.24, p ≤ .001.

With regard to media seating, reporters (50%) were much more likely than SIDs (36%) to report that seats had been away from prime locations, t(318.6) = −4.06, p ≤ .001. All of these suggest that reporters and SIDs have significantly different beliefs about how changing conditions are affecting the legitimacy of reporters working with sports organizations.

Research Question 4 asks if reporters and SIDs have differing perceptions on restrictions on publication, such as the limits on social media at the Universities of Washington and Southern California mentioned earlier. Nearly 90% of SIDs and 80% of journalists said that athletic programs had not established any sort of restrictions on reporters posting social media. These responses were consistent across instrument questions; while the difference between SIDs and journalists was statistically significant, t(330.5) = −2.84, p ≤ .01, it appeared that such restrictions remain rare. Thus, institutionalized taboos against dictating or restricting reporters’ ability to disseminate information appear generally strong, with some localized exceptions.

Research Question 5 asks how new channels of communication for athletics programs and new media competitors have disrupted working conditions for journalists. Most SIDs (85%) also reported that journalists had the same amount of access to elite sources as they did prior to the last contract the athletics department or its conference signed with broadcast partners. This has been an issue because some media outlets have reported that new broadcast partnerships, such as ESPN’s creation of the Longhorn Network with the University of Texas at Austin, has included exclusive access to events, practices, athletes, and coaches for networks (Associated Press, 2012). Fifty percent of reporters, on the other hand, said access had declined, creating a significant disparity, t(357.4) = 8.6, p ≤ .001.

Journalists also were more likely than SIDs to report that access had declined from earlier points in their career, t(338.0) = −5.18, p ≤ .001. As shown in Table 2, the length of their careers was associated with believing this more strongly. There was also a significant relationship between the length of SIDs’ careers and their beliefs about whether access had been curtailed, as shown in Table 2. As noted earlier, these results suggest that journalists’ believe their role is much more precarious with regard to access and autonomy than SIDs do.

Table 2.
Differences in Perceptions of Changes in Access Based on Career Duration—Sports Communications Professionals and Career Duration—Sports Journalists.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Years working in sports information/sports communication/sports media relations/ n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

“Reporters used to be able to get more access to players and coaches, such as informal chats and access to locker rooms, than they do now”

0 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

1–5 2 (7.7) 15 (57.7) 7 (26.9) 2 (7.7)

6–10 1 (4.0) 16 (64.0) 8 (32.0) 0 (0.0)

11+ 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Declined to specify 5 (5.3) 44 (46.8) 39 (41.5) 6 (6.4)

Total^a 9 (6.1) 76 (51.7) 54 (36.7) 8 (5.4)

“I used to be able to get more access to players and coaches, such as informal chats and access to locker rooms, than I do now”

0 0 (0.0%) 6 (50.0%) 1 (8.3%) 5 (41.7%)

1–5 1 (2.4) 23 (54.8) 14 (33.3) 4 (9.5)

6–10 4 (11.4) 14 (40.0) 14 (40.0) 3 (8.6)

11+ 4 (4.0) 22 (21.8) 31 (30.7) 44 (43.6)

Total^b 9 (4.7) 65 (34.2) 60 (31.6) 56 (29.5)

^aPearson χ²(12) = 21.17, p ≤ .05. ^bPearson χ²(9) = 36.63, p ≤ .001.

Generally speaking, reporters and SIDs agreed that online-only publications, including independent blogs and online networks such as Rivals.com and Scout.com, had achieved enough legitimacy to receive credentials to events and access to interviews, with both groups agreeing with the statement that both traditional media and startup or online-only publications got credentials (77% of journalists and 76% of SIDs agreed). However, as Table 3 shows, reporters from those organizations were much more likely to report having trouble obtaining credentials than those from traditional outlets.

Table 3.
Differences in Perceptions of Access Among Types of Media Outlets.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Traditional news media (print and broadcast) 75 (53.2) 52 (36.9) 7 (5.0) 7 (5.0)

Startup/online media (bloggers, blog networks) 18 (26.9) 22 (32.8) 12 (17.9) 15 (22.4)

Total 93 (44.7) 74 (35.6) 19 (9.1) 22 (10.6)

Note. “I have trouble getting credentials to college games and press conferences.” Pearson χ²(3) = 28.62, p ≤ .001.

Roughly, half of SIDs reported that independent media receive news at the same time as they publish it online or via social media. Journalists did not report consistently on the matter, but t-tests on all three instrument questions showed more of them than SIDs believed that athletic programs did break news using their own channels before releasing to independent media, t(356) = 5.21, p > .001.

Discussion

In summary, both SIDs and journalists reported that while certain prominent outlets got better access, there was little evidence that SIDs used any form of cost–benefit analysis or assessment of the benefits and risks of granting access. Instead, they maintained traditional patterns of prioritizing national or “big name” media. It did appear that newer, online media sources had attained legitimacy comparable to traditional media in terms of getting credentials and interviews. As such, it appears that an institutionalized framework explains work patterns and relationships among sports organizations and media outlets more fully than a theory of rational choice.

Majorities of SIDs and journalists said reporters were able to maintain access despite writing critical stories, although this was a subject of concern to many reporters, particularly those for whom access had declined over the course of their careers. In general, reporters were much more likely than SIDs to report that access had decreased during their careers, that they had been prevented from reporting information garnered during practices or informal conversations, that they could not get exclusive interviews with key sources, and that access had decreased in the face of new broadcast contracts. Very few reporters or SIDs reported that publishing on social media had been restricted, and media got important announcements in the form of press releases before or at the same time as information was posted publicly.

In all, it would appear the legitimacy of journalists, as proxied by the traditional subsidies provided to reporters, is not under immediate threat in college athletics. That said, SIDs consistently reported that journalists get more privileges and higher levels of access than journalists themselves do. This would suggest that reporters perceive a level of uncertainty or unsettledness to the legitimacy they enjoy in the field of college sports.

What was clear is that organizations, through SIDs, retain the discretion to negotiate access and provide other subsidies on their own terms and the possibility of shifting to a cost–benefit paradigm might be in the future as the field continues to face disruption. While there was no indication that reporters or SIDs believed that exchanges of positive coverage for access were requested or provided, there were suggestions that SIDs could withhold access if they deemed it prudent. Reporters, in other words, have no guaranteed privileges in the press box or the locker room. This speaks to a level of strategy in decoupling work practices from the nominally accepted rules in the environment. Individuals can adopt strategies of decoupling as organizational actors negotiating with others in the field (Hirsch & Bermiss, 2009). In this case, SIDs have the autonomy to operate with discretion when it comes to granting access to journalists, thanks to the tremendous public interest in their teams and organizations. As such, they can base access decisions on parochial needs rather than adhering to commonly accepted standards or measurable strategic goals for their organizations.

Both of these conditions, and many of the findings listed previously, fit well with the notion of an institutionalized culture, thus suggesting support for the theoretical framework presented previously. The media-SID conflicts of 2012–2015 do not appear to be commonplace and the relationship between media outlets and athletics departments does not appear subject to renegotiation on a broad scale, but it does appear that some organizations are testing boundaries.

Also, some subsidies appear to be more durable than others. While munificent and expansive new broadcast contracts appear to have had some impact on the access of independent journalists, athletics departments did not appear to be using the Internet or social media to bypass independent journalists and direct information subsidies at a wider public, such as fans or donors. Also, very few journalists or SIDs reported that journalists were being prevented from covering games on new-media platforms such as blogs or social media, suggesting that free wireless Internet access is becoming a very common information subsidy.

Conclusions and Limitations

The primary limitation of this study is that it is focused on American intercollegiate athletics, which is a major focus for most outlets with an interest in sports media but which covers a vast array of universities and teams. With more than 300 basketball teams and almost 130 football teams in the “big time” of Division I and the Bowl Championship Subdivision competing for media attention, most if not all college athletic programs have incentives to provide access and other subsidies to media outlets to increase their chances of coverage. The study was not able to separate responses from such elite institutions from those coming from colleges with a greater need for publicity. Getting a truer picture of the status of media and sports-communications professionals in the organizational field of sports communication would require comparative work with other segments of the field, such as professional sports and international sports. It would be expected that in the context of American sports, the much smaller supply of major league teams would create more demand for access to any individual club, giving sports-communications officials more leverage to manage news subsidies, resulting in different patterns of institutionalization.

The findings are also not generalizable beyond sports. However, one of the things that separates sports media from other sections of newspapers, television programs, and websites is the much-institutionalized nature of contacts between sports reporters and their sources covered in this article. Media-relations officials in other organizations may only encounter reporters during breaking-news stories, pro forma events such as earnings releases, or human-interest stories. SIDs see reporters every time there is a game. Organizations have begun to recognize that they have the opportunity to tell their own stories, circumventing the media much as Mark Cuban suggests. This has already begun to happen with the advent of “brand journalism,” in which corporations produce narrative content aimed directly at audiences in place of traditional marketing and advertising (Bull, 2013; Cole & Greer, 2013; Misloski, 2005; Wilken & Sinclair, 2007). As such, access trends affecting sports journalists may well spread to other beats, or vice versa.

Finally, basing findings on the perceptions of research participants can restrict the universality of the findings, but the key concern of this study—the acceptance of reporters as legitimate actors in news fields—cannot be captured through data such as written policies when conditions are often assessed apart from those policies. The beliefs and experiences of those most closely involved in this field can provide the basis for understanding the institutionalized status of uncertain participants, that is, news media to whom sources have no enforceable obligation to talk.

Trouble may be on the horizon if sports organizations choose to follow Mark Cuban’s suggestion to align a program’s access policies with its marketing priorities. If source organizations move toward freezing out journalists, it would create a significant problem for those seeking to tell the stories the public needs and wants to hear. While these surveys did not find strong evidence of trends in this direction, the topic will be worth revisiting as new channels and platforms mature and offer new opportunities for organizations to tell their own stories instead of permitting the media access to do so.

Item	Journalists	SIDs
We take the size and demographics of a news outlet’s audience into account when deciding whether to grant credentials		2.64 (0.74)
We take the size and demographics of a news outlet’s audience into account when deciding whether to grant interviews		2.60 (0.73)
We review reach, audience, and/or market penetration for outlets that cover our teams		2.47 (0.66)
Reporters from big-name publication get better access than local beat writers	3.08 (0.77)
Having a desirable audience means getting better access	3.04 (0.72)
Reporters need to have good relationships with SIDs to get one-on-one interviews with coaches and athletes	2.11 (0.73)	1.93 (0.59)	−6.91 (352.41)***
I/reporters can get access even after writing critical stories	2.92 (0.62)	3.16 (0.46)	−4.19 (358.86)***
I/reporters cannot publish injury information or other information we learn in practice	2.66 (0.82)	2.27 (0.70)	−4.77 (343.86)***
I get enough access to provide the coverage my editors and audience expect	2.54 (0.84)
During the season, interviews with athletes and coaches only take place in press-conference settings	2.61 (0.82)	1.92 (0.60)	−9.24 (360.06)***
Independent media have the same access to coaches and athletes as they did before the athletic department or its conference signed their latest round of broadcast agreements	2.43 (0.72)	3.02 (0.57)	8.60 (357.35)***
I/reporters used to get more informal access than I/they do now	2.86 (0.90)	2.41 (0.69)	−5.18 (338.00)***
Media seating has been moved away from prime locations (e.g., 50-yard-line, courtside) at the venues I cover	2.57 (0.84)	2.20 (0.84)	−4.06 (318.59)***
The athletics department (I cover) or its conference has established limits on the type or number of blogs/social media posts I/reporters can publish during contests	2.02 (0.73)	1.80 (0.69)	−2.84 (330.53)**
Both traditional media and new organizations get credentials to events	2.86 (0.82)	2.81 (0.71)	0.60 (344.71)
The program I cover/we break its/our own news on the Internet/social media before it is sent to news media	2.75 (0.72)	2.55 (0.76)	−2.51 (307.64)**

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
“Reporters used to be able to get more access to players and coaches, such as informal chats and access to locker rooms, than they do now”
0	1 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
1–5	2 (7.7)	15 (57.7)	7 (26.9)	2 (7.7)
6–10	1 (4.0)	16 (64.0)	8 (32.0)	0 (0.0)
11+	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Declined to specify	5 (5.3)	44 (46.8)	39 (41.5)	6 (6.4)
Total^a	9 (6.1)	76 (51.7)	54 (36.7)	8 (5.4)
“I used to be able to get more access to players and coaches, such as informal chats and access to locker rooms, than I do now”
0	0 (0.0%)	6 (50.0%)	1 (8.3%)	5 (41.7%)
1–5	1 (2.4)	23 (54.8)	14 (33.3)	4 (9.5)
6–10	4 (11.4)	14 (40.0)	14 (40.0)	3 (8.6)
11+	4 (4.0)	22 (21.8)	31 (30.7)	44 (43.6)
Total^b	9 (4.7)	65 (34.2)	60 (31.6)	56 (29.5)

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
Traditional news media (print and broadcast)	75 (53.2)	52 (36.9)	7 (5.0)	7 (5.0)
Startup/online media (bloggers, blog networks)	18 (26.9)	22 (32.8)	12 (17.9)	15 (22.4)
Total	93 (44.7)	74 (35.6)	19 (9.1)	22 (10.6)

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Survey data can be obtained upon request from the primary author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

W. B.

(2001). Does the cheerleading ever stop? Major League Baseball and sports journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 355–382.

Aronoff

(1975). Newspapers and practitioners differ widely on PR role. Public Relations Journal, 31, 25.

Associated Press. (2012). Mack Brown discusses network. Retrieved from ESPN.com website: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8538420/mack-brown-texas-longhorns-coach-complains-longhorn-network-commitments

Bozich

(2007). Courier-Journal reporter ejected from U of L game. Louisville Courier-Journal. Retrieved from Louisville Courier-Journal website: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070610/COLUMNISTS01/70610018

Bull

(2013). Brand journalism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Carlson

C. S.

Roy

(2013). Mediated access: Education writers’ perceptions of public information officers’ media control efforts. Education Writers Association. Retrieved from http://www.ewa.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ewa_survey_report_2014.pdf

Coglianese

(2009). The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government. Governance, 22, 529–544.

Cole

J. T.

Greer

J. D.

(2013). Audience response to brand journalism the effect of frame, source, and involvement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 673–690. doi:10.1177/1077699013503160

Cook

T. E.

(1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10.

Cuban

(2011, 4 4). Whats [sic] the role of media for sports teams? Retrieved September 27, 2012, from http://blogmaverick.com/2011/04/04/whats-the-role-of-media-for-sports-teams/

11.

DiMaggio

P. J.

Powell

W. W.

(1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

12.

Downie

Schudson

(2009, 10 19). The reconstruction of American journalism. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved June 15, 2014, from http://www.cjr.org/reconstruction/the_reconstruction_of_american.php?page=all

13.

Funk

D. C.

Pritchard

M. P.

(2006). Sport publicity: Commitment's moderation of message effects. Journal of Business Research, 59, 613–621. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.10.010

14.

Gandy

O. H.

(1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.

15.

Gans

H. J.

(1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ Press.

16.

Garrison

Salwen

(1989). Newspaper sports journalists: A profile of the “profession”. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 13, 57–68.

17.

Gillespie

(2014). Commentary: Clemson reinvents media access. The State. Retrieved from The State website: http://www.thestate.com/2014/05/19/3454873/commentary-clemson-reinvents-media.html

18.

Gleeson

(2012). Southern Cal lifts practice and game ban on reporter. USA Today. Retrieved from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/09/12/usc-lane-kiffin-bans-reporter-from-practices-games/70000236/1-.UnPBSpFXW4Y

19.

Goldstein

(2014). The walls erected by traditional media. SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved from SCOTUSBlog website: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/the-walls-erected-by-traditional-media/

20.

Grunig

J. E.

(1983). Organizations, Environments, and Models of Public Relations. Public Relations Research & Education, 1, 6–29.

21.

Hardin

(2005). Survey finds boosterism, freebies remain problem for newspaper sports departments. Newspaper Research Journal, 26, 66–72.

22.

Hardin

Ash

(2011). Journalists provide social context missing from sports blogs. Newspaper Research Journal, 32, 20–35.

23.

Hardin

Whiteside

Ash

(2012). Ambivalence on the front lines? Attitudes toward title IX and women’s sports among division I sports information directors. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 49, 42–64. doi:10.1177/1012690212450646

24.

Hardin

McClung

(2002). Collegiate sports information: A profile of the profession. Public Relations Quarterly, 47, 35–39.

25.

Hermes

J. P.

Whibey

Junco

Aricak

O. T.

(2014). Who gets a press pass? Media credentialing practices in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Berkman Center.

26.

Hirsch

P. M.

Bermiss

Y. S.

(2009). Institutional “dirty” work: Preserving institutions through strategic decoupling. In Lawrence

T. B.

Suddaby

Leca

(Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 262–283) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Holt

(2000). The discourse ethics of sports print journalism. Culture, Sport, Society, 3, 88.

28.

Holtzman

(1978). No cheering in the press box. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

29.

Jackowski

(2006). Conceptualizing an improved public relations strategy: A case for stakeholder relationship marketing in division IA intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Business and Public Affairs, 1. Retrieved June 15, 2014 from https://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1016.htm

30.

Just

(2015). Tim Beckman wants media to be more positive. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved from Chicago Sun-Times website: http://chicago.suntimes.com/colleges/7/71/344820/tim-beckman-wants-media-positive

31.

Kaufman

(2014). FIU provides credential for Miami Herald’s beat reporter. Miami Herald. Retrieved from Miami Herald website: http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/college/conference-usa/florida-international-university/article1986713.html

32.

Knoppers

Elling

(2004). “We do not engage in promotional journalism”: Discursive strategies used by sport journalists to describe the selection process. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39, 57–73.

33.

Kruse

(2009). For SEC, tech-savvy fans might be biggest threats to media exclusivity. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from Tampa Bay Times website: http://www.tampabay.com/news/science/personaltech/for-sec-tech-savvy-fans-might-be-biggest-threats-to-media-exclusivity/1027680

34.

Marbut

F. B.

(1971). News from the capital: The story of Washington reporting. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale.

35.

McCarthy

(2014). A sports journalism of their own an investigation into the motivations, behaviours, and media attitudes of fan sports bloggers. Communication & Sport, 2, 65–79.

36.

McCleneghan

J. S.

(1995). The sports information director–no attention, no respect, and a PR practitioner in trouble. Public Relations Quarterly, 40, 28–32.

37.

Menke

F. G.

(1963). The pictorial encyclopedia of sports. Glenview, IL: Progress Research Corp.

38.

Meyer

J. W.

Rowan

(1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

39.

Misloski

(2005). An opportunity for tomorrow’s multi-channel integrated marketer. Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 17–25. Retrieved June 15, 2014 from http://jimc.medill.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2014/02/archives/2005/NeoRenaissance.pdf

40.

Moss

(2008). Regional sports networks, competition, and the consumer. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 21, 56.

41.

Oates

T. P.

Pauly

(2007). Sports journalism as moral and ethical discourse. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22, 332–347. doi:10.1080/08900520701583628

42.

Oputu

(2013). Hacks vs. flacks: Do public affairs offices get in the way? Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/hacks_vs_flacks.php

43.

Orme

(2014). Editor column: knowing but not telling is a nightmare. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from The Salt Lake Tribune website: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58532594-78/practice-news-baird-media.html.csp

44.

Pratt

A. N.

(2013). Integrated impression management in athletics: A qualitative study of how NCAA Division I athletics directors understand public relations. International Journal of Sport Communication, 6, 42–65.

45.

Rauch

(2012). Steve spurrier wants a columnist fired and will probably get his way. Deadspin.com. Retrieved from Deadspin.com website: http://deadspin.com/5947590/steve-spurrier-wants-a-columnist-sacked-and-will-probably-get-his-way

46.

Reed

(2011). Sports journalists’ use of social media and its effects on professionalism. Journal of Sports Media, 6, 43–64.

47.

Rowe

(2005). Fourth estate or fan club? Sports journalism engages the popular. In Allan

(Ed.), Journalism: Critical issues (pp. 125–136). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

48.

Ryfe

D. M.

(2006). The nature of news rules. Political Communication, 23, 203–214.

49.

Salwen

M. B.

Garrison

(1998). Finding their place in journalism: Newspaper sports journalists’ professional “problems”. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 22, 88–102.

50.

Schultz

Caskey

P. H.

Esherick

(2010). Media relations in sport (3rd ed.) Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

51.

Schultz

Sheffer

M. L.

(2007). Sports journalists who blog cling to traditional values. Newspaper Research Journal, 28, 62.

52.

Serazio

(2010). When the sportswriters go marching in: Sports journalism, collective trauma, and memory metaphors. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27, 155–173. doi:10.1080/15295030903551009

53.

Sparrow

(1999). Uncertain guardians: The news media as a political institution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

54.

Starkman

(2014). The watchdog that didn’t bark: The financial crisis and the disappearance of investigative journalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

55.

Stoldt

G. C.

(1998). Current and ideal professional roles of NCAA Division I-A sports information directors: analysis and implications. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

56.

Stoldt

G. C.

Dittmore

S. W.

Branvold

S. E.

(2006). Sport public relations: Managing organizational communication. Leeds; England: Human Kinetics.

57.

Stoldt

G. C.

Miller

L. K.

Comfort

P. G.

(2001). Through the eyes of athletic directors: Perceptions of sports information directors, and other public relations issues. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10, 164–172.

58.

Stoldt

G. C.

Miller

L. K.

Vermillion

(2009). Public relations evaluation in sport: Views from the field. International Journal of Sport Communication, 2, 223–239.

59.

Swalls

G. R.

(2004). Determining the college sports information director's management role and potential to be promoted to the position of director of intercollegiate athletics. (Unpublished thesis), University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.

60.

Theberge

Cronk

(1986). Work routines in newspaper sports departments and the coverage of women's sports. Sociology of Sport Journal, 3, 195–203.

61.

Tuchman

(1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York, NY: The Free Press.

62.

University of Washington. (2012, 10 1). Credential policy. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://www.gohuskies.com/genrel/credentialpolicy.html

63.

Weaver

(2009). The launch of the Big Ten Network: How 11 universities created their own television network and changed the college sports landscape. (Unpublished dissertation), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

64.

Wenner

L. A.

(2012). Media sports, gender, sports fan and consumption culture: Main topics and strategies. Journal of Chengdu Sport University, 3, 7–15.

65.

Whiteside

Hardin

(2010). Public relations and sports: Work force demographics in the intersection of two gendered industries. Journal of Sports Media, 5, 21–52.

66.

Whiteside

Hardin

(2012). The new “toy department”?: A case study on differences in sports coverage between traditional and new media. Journal of Sports Media, 7, 23–38.

67.

Wilken

Sinclair

(2007, 7 5–6). Global Vision, Regional Focus,“Glocal” Reality: Global Marketers, Marketing Communications, and Strategic Regionalism. Paper presented at the Australian New Zealand Communication Association Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

68.

Woodward

(1949). Sports page. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Item	Journalists	SIDs
Item	n = 213	n = 148	t-test (df)^a
We take the size and demographics of a news outlet’s audience into account when deciding whether to grant credentials		2.64 (0.74)
We take the size and demographics of a news outlet’s audience into account when deciding whether to grant interviews		2.60 (0.73)
We review reach, audience, and/or market penetration for outlets that cover our teams		2.47 (0.66)
Reporters from big-name publication get better access than local beat writers	3.08 (0.77)
Having a desirable audience means getting better access	3.04 (0.72)
Reporters need to have good relationships with SIDs to get one-on-one interviews with coaches and athletes	2.11 (0.73)	1.93 (0.59)	−6.91 (352.41)***
I/reporters can get access even after writing critical stories	2.92 (0.62)	3.16 (0.46)	−4.19 (358.86)***
I/reporters cannot publish injury information or other information we learn in practice	2.66 (0.82)	2.27 (0.70)	−4.77 (343.86)***
I get enough access to provide the coverage my editors and audience expect	2.54 (0.84)
During the season, interviews with athletes and coaches only take place in press-conference settings	2.61 (0.82)	1.92 (0.60)	−9.24 (360.06)***
Independent media have the same access to coaches and athletes as they did before the athletic department or its conference signed their latest round of broadcast agreements	2.43 (0.72)	3.02 (0.57)	8.60 (357.35)***
I/reporters used to get more informal access than I/they do now	2.86 (0.90)	2.41 (0.69)	−5.18 (338.00)***
Media seating has been moved away from prime locations (e.g., 50-yard-line, courtside) at the venues I cover	2.57 (0.84)	2.20 (0.84)	−4.06 (318.59)***
The athletics department (I cover) or its conference has established limits on the type or number of blogs/social media posts I/reporters can publish during contests	2.02 (0.73)	1.80 (0.69)	−2.84 (330.53)**
Both traditional media and new organizations get credentials to events	2.86 (0.82)	2.81 (0.71)	0.60 (344.71)
The program I cover/we break its/our own news on the Internet/social media before it is sent to news media	2.75 (0.72)	2.55 (0.76)	−2.51 (307.64)**

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
Years working in sports information/sports communication/sports media relations/	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
“Reporters used to be able to get more access to players and coaches, such as informal chats and access to locker rooms, than they do now”
0	1 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
1–5	2 (7.7)	15 (57.7)	7 (26.9)	2 (7.7)
6–10	1 (4.0)	16 (64.0)	8 (32.0)	0 (0.0)
11+	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Declined to specify	5 (5.3)	44 (46.8)	39 (41.5)	6 (6.4)
Total^a	9 (6.1)	76 (51.7)	54 (36.7)	8 (5.4)
“I used to be able to get more access to players and coaches, such as informal chats and access to locker rooms, than I do now”
0	0 (0.0%)	6 (50.0%)	1 (8.3%)	5 (41.7%)
1–5	1 (2.4)	23 (54.8)	14 (33.3)	4 (9.5)
6–10	4 (11.4)	14 (40.0)	14 (40.0)	3 (8.6)
11+	4 (4.0)	22 (21.8)	31 (30.7)	44 (43.6)
Total^b	9 (4.7)	65 (34.2)	60 (31.6)	56 (29.5)