2011 NFL Lockout: The Indianapolis Colts and the Media

If you have taken to online articles for NFL news during this ongoing lockout (and I'm assuming that you are, since you are reading this), then you have likely noticed a few pieces mentioning the relationship between the media and the players.

Most of this discussion has bemoaned the media's lack of access to certain players and teams during this time. The issue saw national attention when Yahoo! Sports' writer Micheal Silver indignantly shamed the group of Carolina Panthers who hired a uniformed police officer to keep the media out of their informal workout sessions. The article also mentioned the Miami Dolphins and Indianapolis Colts' lack of media access, the latter of which had undergone much scrutiny in the last month.

First, let me make it clear that I do not consider myself to be a part of the mainstream “media.” I do not get paid to write for Bleacher Report, but voluntarily do because I enjoy it. I am not a reporter, but analyst. Honestly, I am amazed that people actually read my opinions and conclusions, but as long as the opportunity is there, I will very thankfully take it.

That being said, as a Featured Columnist for B/R, I have a responsibility to write. With that responsibility comes the need to write things somewhat consistently. The lockout makes that much harder, for both me and any other NFL reporter, analyst, or blogger. The temptation when this happens is to “reach” for stories. However, it is our duty as writers to be better than that, to use our creativity, analysis, and reporting skills to find and create pieces that are informative and entertaining to the readers. And that becomes harder and harder as the lockout goes on.

So, I very much sympathize with people such as Silver, Indianapolis Star columnist Bob Kravitz, and blogger Brad Wells when news is slow. It's tough to be in the news business when news is slow. The off-season is always slow, but the lockout just makes it a stand still.

That aside, when I see journalists complaining about a team's (or player's) “lack of access” in an article, post, or comment, I chuckle. It amuses me to see members of the media indignantly demanding access to private workouts, that likely wouldn't be very informative anyway.

In terms of the Colts, it truly began with the birth of Peyton Manning's twins earlier this spring. Nobody, in the media anyway, had any idea that Ashley Manning was pregnant, so to hear that Manning was the father of twins was stunning. Peyton Manning and his wife never confirmed the birth, instead choosing to not comment and request privacy. The two have been criticized for this by Brad Wells (in three different articles), Bob Kravitz, and most recently by B/R's Collin McCollough.

Wells:

"

“Ashley Manning refusing to confirm a story Peyton's own mother has confirmed (she also told her hometown newspaper) is odd and borderline silly. Respecting privacy is one thing. However, the very same public that allows Peyton the opportunity to earn tens of millions of dollars a year playing a game for a living has the right to know when he became a father for the first time. It's as simple as that.”(April 11)

"

Earning lot's of money doesn't forfeit anybody's right for privacy. It makes it harder to keep, but it doesn't give the "right" to know private information about him to everybody.

"

“But refusing to confirm a birth literally everyone knows happened is silly. The news does not wait, or hold it's breath, because Peyton Manning and his wife wish it. They should just said, 'Yep, he had two kids. Now leave us alone,' and all would have been fine.” (April 12)

"

The news also shouldn't wait for the media to be spoon fed information. The reporters should have said, "He won't confirm it, let's go somewhere else to find out," and all would have been fine.

"

“This is also on the heals of Peyton and Ashley Manning being so ridiculous and silly about the media announcing the birth of their twins last month as to request that the Indianapolis Star not run the story.

Come on. Seriously?

I'm all for respecting a person's general privacy. I don't need to know what Peyton had for breakfast today, or if he and Ashely are having martial problems. But, when the most famous quarterback in the history of forever becomes the father of twins, that's news and it is the responsibility of respected news people to report it.

If Peyton doesn't like it, sorry, but instead of being a world famous quarterback worth hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe Peyton should have gone into fast food management, or waste disposal, or something else that's seemingly mundane that doesn't come with a lot of public attention.” (May 18)

"

It's the responsibility of news people to report it, not Peyton's responsibility. They requested the Star not run the story, they didn't sue them. It was a request, not a demand.

Kravitz:

"

“I mean, the local media virtually had to file a Freedom of Information Act request just to learn that Manning and his wife recently became the parents of twins. In doing so, an innocuous and genuinely happy one-day story -- The Mannings are proud to announce the birth of the twins! -- morphed into this ridiculous, weeks-long affair that included Ashley emailing The Star and requesting we make no mention of the birth.”

"

The media created the week-long affair. Peyton Manning didn't write the multiple stories. The media did.

McCollough:

"

“Instead, what happens? Indianapolis Star reporters have to go crawling through Marion County public health records to confirm the birth of the Manning twins.

I suppose I just don't see the point. It's not about Manning making the media do the extra work. It's about Manning making things unnecessarily difficult on himself by being, quite frankly, difficult. It seems, with both the birth of his twins and his recent neck surgery, that Manning has invited a line of questioning that could have been avoided entirely with a simple statement.

I mean, I can't imagine he's exactly thrilled about some of the suggestions floating out there. Serious injuries, surrogates, twins as April Fool's jokes. Suggestions he could have silenced with just a nod of his head to a publicist, who could bang out a press release in less time than it takes Mike Florio to speculate on the severity of Manning's injury or an anonymous blogger to suggest that something is amiss.”

"

There are a few different arguments in these quotes. Wells' argues that it is the fan's right to know when Manning has a child. Kravitz complains that the lack of confirmation led to a week-long process. McCollough says the whole situation should have been taken care of by Manning far sooner.

My question is: Why should Manning have to confirm any part of his private life to the media?

It is not the public's right to know Manning's personal life. It likely will never affect the fans' lives. Ever. To suggest that fame somehow gives away your rights to privacy is ludicrous. While Manning and other public figures must get used to more media scrutiny, who can blame him for trying to avoid as much as possible? And while Ashley Manning's request to keep it out of the paper is naive, one can't blame her for trying.

As for the arguments of Kravitz and McCollough, I wonder why the process took so long regardless. In my view, the process shouldn't have been a week-long process. Wouldn't the health records be the most logical place to go once Manning and his wife declined to comment? If Manning says “No, we're not going to comment,” then the media should move on and try to find different confirmation. And it seems to me that the county health records would be a pretty darn good place to start.

But that's the problem isn't it? It is about the media having to do extra work. McCollough's right when he says “Suggestions he could have silenced with just a nod of his head to a publicist, who could bang out a press release in less time than it takes Mike Florio to speculate on the severity of Manning's injury or an anonymous blogger to suggest that something is amiss.” Manning could have made it much easier for the reporters. But he didn't. Oh well, move on and do your job. It's not Manning's job to cater to the media. It's the media's job to find out information. And I find it hard to sympathize when the information is sitting in the Marion County public health records.

But the birth of Manning's twins was just the tip of the iceberg. The true wrath of the media began to swell when the Colts' players organized “secret” workouts that were not open to the public, or media. In fact, they declined to even release the location of the workouts, and were upset when cameras were in the building.

These workouts resulted in multiple pieces across the web, including Silver, Kravitz, Wells (many, many, many,  many times), McCollough, ESPN's AFC South blogger Paul Kuharsky, and Pro Football Talk's Greg Rosenthal.

The plethora of media complaints contained a multitude of arguments. Kravitz, Wells, and Silver (along with others) believe that the players would benefit by opening the workouts to the public, because it would show them that they truly cared about football, even when they were locked out. Wells, McCollough, and Silver think that it alienates the fans because the fans crave information. Kuharsky merely asks: Why all the secrecy? Kravitz and Wells say that the players owe the media information; they need the media at some times, so they can't just shut them out now.

First, would the players really benefit from opening up the workouts to the public? Brad Wells blog Stampede Blue reports that the overwhelming majority of people are on the players side. How would opening up the workouts help increase that number at all? And even if it did, how would that help negotiations at all? As far as I know, the fans have no say in the negotiations, in fact, they seem to be moving along now (finally). Anyway, the fans, if they've paid attention at all, know about the workouts. The location might be secret, and the fans may not be invited, but they know the players are preparing, and therefore, already know that the players care.

Second, does the fan truly need more information? Will they lose interest if they don't get more information? I think, as does Nate Dunlevy, that the fan has plenty of avenues for information, especially from the players. In fact, in light of that, Dunlevy put together a list of player interviews and media spots that Colts had been involved in in the couple of weeks prior to Kravitz' article. The truth is that yes, fans want information regarding the Colts. However, they don't need it. And they know it. As a fan, I would love to watch video of Peyton Manning's workouts. But I know that's not possible. And that's okay with me.

Third, the players don't owe the media anything. The media cover the Colts because it's what the readers want. The media covers the Colts because it makes them money. Sometimes it's beneficial for the Colts, and sometimes it's hindering. However, to claim that the Colts' players owe the media something is delusional.

The question of why, in the end, is largely irrelevant. As Dunlevy says, there are multiple reasons why the Colts could want privacy.

"

• Security.  Unlike training camps, these workouts are being paid for privately.  Hiring security guards to keep fans safe and in line is expensive.  Secret is cheaper.

• Hassle. These are voluntary workouts.  Guys don't have to be doing them, so it's natural they would want as low key an environment as possible

• Lack of distraction. They are working. Maybe they just want to work without a bunch of people hounding them. 

"

Personally, I find the last two to be most likely (as does Mike Florio). People don't enjoy a lot of hassle while they work. Especially not Peyton Manning. This is the quarterback who insisted that wives and children didn't stay with the players at the 2006 Super Bowl. Why would the players endure the media circus and fans at summer workouts that are normally secure anyway?

The truth is, this is lockout produced news. If Kravitz wants to know where the “secret” workouts are being held, it wouldn't take too much leg work to figure it out. If Kuharsky or Wells want to know, they could have a local find out the location. Heck, Stampede Blue broke a location the day after Kravitz' big article.

But this isn't about the location. The media doesn't actually care about the location. This is about members of the media being appalled that they are being shut out of things. That they may have to do some extra work to do their job. And that is a tragedy. But instead of investigating to find information to write about, or writing about information they do have, the media has taken to merely complaining about how hard it is to do their job.

Honestly, it amuses me. Media members complaining that people want to work in private, or protect their family's privacy. Perhaps Manning and Co. don't find it so amusing. But maybe they do. It sure would be a way to make the lockout more bearable.