News Boycott to the RWC?

[jabali]

Did your read this?:

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...La93F1e_bXbkLxA

News agencies suspend coverage of Rugby World Cup over media restrictions
30 minutes ago

PARIS (AP) â€" A day before the opening of the Rugby World Cup, the world's three leading news agencies suspended coverage Thursday of the showcase tournament in a dispute with the sport's governing body over media restrictions.

The Associated Press said its journalists would not attend any World Cup events until the dispute over media credentials is resolved with the International Rugby Board. Reuters and Agence-France Presse also said they were suspending coverage.

Also AFP and Reuters joined the boicot.

What the hell is that?

 

[Buceph]

Seems reasonable to me. The IRB gave rights away that they shouldn't have done. I'm not sure if it's a limit of 40 photos sent during the match or if it's 40 published during the match. The first seems unreasonable, the latter doesn't. What gets to me is the limit on interviews. Fine the rights holders have exclusivity to the matches, and live rights to the interviews, but it's a bit much that these interviews with nations coaches and players aren't allowed to be carried by anyone, and on the internet.

Like it says in the article, it seems the IRB are trying to muscle in on a lot of areas, particularly the online bit. FFS IRB.

 

[fcukernaut]

So the media is ****** because they can't post more than 40 images from a single and can't post interviews longer than 3 mins. That doesn't sound that bad to be honest. They seem to be crying over spilt milk. However, I'd do whatever possible to these news agencies back.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Will this really change anything? I don't get my rugby news from rueters.
I get my Rugby News from TheRugbyForum.COM

 

[scuubasteve]

Its a bit hard to get the full story from most of the internet articles on this topic, as ironically they're from the media sources the whole issue is centred around.

As I understand it, both parties agreed some time ago what the agreement will be. And now issues have been revolving around the specific interpretation of what they agreed on.

The amount of info that the IRB has allowed the media to use seems pretty reasonable. But I think the media will see this as the thin edge of the wedge, so to speak. Similar attempts at Media content control were tried by FIFA for the worldcup last year. And the media had a cry about that and got away with it. But, as usual, the IRB are taking the non-compromising "we're right, you're wrong" mentality. But I think the media companies have probably realised that if they let this slide now then the example will have been made and that media exlcusivity rights will become the norm, meaning they'll have to pay more to cover events.

Doesn't this just echo the Edinburgh/Curruthers vs. SRU/McKie problems of last month. Where a contract was signed, only for both sides to have differing interpretations of what they signed.

Essentially its lose/lose. IRB loses exposure of its showpiece tournament. Media lose content to attract customers.

How does Rugby get itself into these situations?!

 

[Buceph]