DURHAM, NC (August 14, 2007) - As photojournalists begin to cover National Football League pre-season games, the National Press Photographers Association and other press organizations continue to oppose the presence of corporate logos on the red vests that photographers are required to wear in order to cover NFL contests.
The vests are red and say "Media" or "Photographer" on the back along with a individual vest number the league says security will use to identify the wearer. A Canon logo is on the front, and a Reebok logo is on the back (up high, by the neckline). Even though photographers are required to wear the vests to get on the playing field, they are also still required to wear a large game credential that is openly displayed. The NFL says they need for photographers to wear the vests so that security officers can tell who should be on the field, but photographers are already required to show identification to get their credentials, or the credentials have been sent to the photographers' employers by the league.
The vests seem to repeat a purpose that's already served by the game credential, while journalism ethics require that members of the media refuse to endorse products or wear corporate logos so as to avoid creating the appearance of impropriety. NPPA holds that the vests, bearing corporate logos, put journalists into a position where their objectivity and independence can be called into question by readers, viewers, and the public.
As the games begin, NPPA's Advocacy Committee is seeking feedback and information from photographers about the vests and what may have happened with them during this past week's NFL games.
Advocacy Committee chairperson Alicia Wagner Calzada is asking photographers if they made any attempts to cover the logos, or wear the vest inside-out, and if there were any repercussions from NFL field security personnel. The committee would also like to know if photographers are getting any guidance on the issue from their employers, and what agreements their employers may have reached with local NFL teams regarding the vests. NPPA is also asking what kinds of agreements newspapers or stations may have signed with NFL teams regarding shooting video.
"I have been in discussion with counsel from a number of media organizations including RTNDA, NAA, ASNE, and The New York Times," NPPA general legal counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher said today from Buffalo, NY. "We are working very hard to present a unified response but it is imperative that I get feedback from the photojournalists on the ground as to the actual impact of these new rules. I really need to know whether the NFL is allowing photographers to cover the logos, and if enforcement is national or if it differs from team to team and city to city. The more feedback I get, the better I will be able to assess how best to approach the NFL."
Photographers who want to provide information about the vests and their pre-season game experiences are asked to write to Osterreicher at lawyer@nppa.org.
So while newspapers continue to write editorials deploring the use of corporate logos on the mandatory NFL vests, it appears as if their staff photographers are going ahead and wearing them to shoot NFL games. And the major wire services have put up virtually no opposition to the corporate logos, saying that sponsor logos on vests have been a common practice in the sports world for some time, so it's not really a problem for them to wear the NFL's vests with logos now.
But in a story aired on the radio and also published online this week by National Public Radio, sports photojournalist Michael Zagaris says the NFL wants to "discourage the presence of photographers who don't work for the NFL." Zagaris has been a photographer for the San Francisco 49ers since the early 1970s. "Then they control the images" (with fewer photographers), NPR quotes him as saying.
The NFL is clearly trying to control the images by also limiting news organizations to a new 45-second rule for posting NFL game video on Web sites; for viewers to see more than 45-seconds of NFL action they'll have to go to the NFL's Web site or to the NFL's own cable TV network.
However, newspapers shouldn't "feel threatened," NFL spokesperson Greg Aiello told NPR. "We have to carefully manage our own media assets that generate revenue that makes the league run and pays the players," he said.
Aiello also told NPR that controlling the NFL's images has nothing to do with the vests. "The logos are not meant to be ads," he told NPR, and promised that "no one will check" if the photographers cover the corporate logos.
Columnist Ted Diadlun at The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer wrote a August 5 article explaining the logo furor to their readers, and he asked Bill Bonsiewicz, the vice president of communications for the NFL's Cleveland Browns and the person who will have to enforce the NFL's vest policy, what he would do if a photographer "simply taped over the offending logos." Diadlun wrote that Bonsiewicz said, "As long as I can see the number on the back, that's all I care about."
In Arlington Heights, Illinois, The Daily Herald asked readers what they think about the controversy over corporate logos on vests that journalists are required to wear in order to cover a sporting event. Reader response was split between those who think journalists should refuse to wear the vests and those who don't see it as an ethical problem. One reader, Rick Dana Barlow, told the paper, "To ethical puritans, yes, this clearly oversteps the boundary between church and state. To the general public, as in the readers, I don't think it really matters because consumers generally hold journalists in as high esteem as lawyers and television evangelists."
In an Editorial published last week in the Austin American-Statesman, the newspaper said, "Even in an overly commercialized era of sports, it is difficult to judge whether the [NFL vest] policy is more appalling than outrageous. We've all watched college football bowl games with the name of a tortilla chip company in front of it, or seen banners touting a soft drink dangling from the rafters of a stadium. ... But turning journalists into walking billboards goes too far. The policy forces photographers into an ethical breach and represents the increasingly severe measures sports leagues are taking to control media coverage."
"Because professional football is so popular, the NFL can call all the shots. As a result, it is trying to protect its own media franchises — such as NFL Network and NFL.com — by restricting media coverage of professional football," The Statesman wrote.
The Buffalo (NY) News, which covers the NFL's Buffalo Bills, wrote in an Editorial that "If this sounds like we're personally miffed, it's because we are. We don't like our news photographers doubling as billboards. That's exactly what the National Football League wants, though, as it issues new rules requiring sideline photographers and cameramen to wear vests bearing the logos of NFL corporate sponsors Reebok and Canon. The league says its not about the publicity (then why do they do it?) but it's needed for security (it's not the vest that's the problem, it's the advertising). And fans probably won't care. But we do. The ads we run in this paper are clearly identified. Our reporters and photographers aren't for sale, and shouldn't look like they are."
NPPA has told NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that the size and visibility of the corporate logos is "not the point." NPPA president Tony Overman wrote to Goodell, "The mere presence of logos creates an appearance of impropriety and calls into question photojournalists' independence and objectivity."
"We feel that the logos in and of themselves create a perception that we are for sale and endorse these products," Overman wrote. "It is demeaning to our profession and undermines the very objectivity that is the basis of a free and robust press." He also addressed the NFL vest issue with an open letter to the organization's membership.
Overman has said that the NPPA is not opposed to photographers wearing vests (without logos) for safety and security purposes. "We are opposed to wearing vests that endorse corporate products, no matter the size of the logo, nor the venue in which we are covering an event, whether it is a football game or a horse race. As an organization dedicated to upholding an important set of ethical standards for journalists, NPPA is obligated to remind its members that they should never do anything to compromise their objectivity in covering a story nor should they risk the perception of bias."
"It would be naive to believe the walking billboard movement will stop with one organization, one vest, and two logos. We really need to draw a line here," NPPA vice president John B. Zibluk said today. "Other instances might have slipped under the radar, but that doesn't justify this policy. This issue is clear, and it serves as a wakeup call about the dangers and expansion of commercialism without oversight."
"Certainly it's in the NFL's financial interest to maximize the exposure of it sponsors. But in the big picture, financial considerations have to be balanced with ethical concerns. That's why we need watchdog groups such as the NPPA and the other professional organizations, to speak out for the interests - audience interests especially - that transcend financial concerns," Zibluk said.
The former editor of the Evansville (IN) Courier & Press suggests that publishers, editors, and photographers take a stand that sends a clear message to the NFL about media ethics and to the readers about how important the issue is to journalism. "One week without an NFL picture in the newspapers across the country would make a powerful statement," J. Bruce Baumann said. "I can see digital cameras melting down at every stadium in the country. Think about it."
The NFL isn't the only sporting organization in a disagreement over logos. Yesterday a federal appeals court cleared the way for NASCAR to prevent AT&T from featuring its logo on the race car of driver Jeff Burton. AT&T wants to change the Cingular logo on Burton's car to the AT&T logo after they bought Cingular last year and rebranded the cell phone company under the AT&T name. NASCAR is fighting AT&T in court because they don't want the logo changed because Sprint Nextel sponsors NASCAR's premier series, the Nextel Cup, which has exclusive rights as the sole telecommunications company for the races. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling overturns a lower court's finding that said AT&T could change the logo on the car and that NASCAR could not prevent the switch.
