| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: News Item: Posted 2007-07-26
NFL Photographers Vest Controversy: Not A Fashion Statement
By Robert Hanashiro, Sports Shooter
Photo by Robert Hanashiro / USA TODAY
Sports Illustrated's John Biever, left, and USA TODAY's Bob Deutsch wear NFL-issued red vests while covering Super Bowl XXXIX in Jacksonville, Florida on February 6, 2005.
|
The NFL caused quite a stir with photographers and publications when it announced recently that it would require that all sideline photographers must wear red vests. And the biggest rub about this announcement: The red vests will have the logos of NFL sponsors.
The announcement by the NFL was made in mid-May, but it is only recently that the controversy has bubbled over into editorials by newspapers that cover the league and statements of objection by organizations like the Associated Press Managing Editors and the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
Vests for photographers are by no means a new thing. Several NFL teams have required photographers to wear them for years. I don't think I have ever been to a soccer game without having to don a vest (or "bib") made out of some synthetic material ... doesn't anyone out there make these things out of cotton?
The NBA has used colored vests for years to sort the "haves" (NBAE shooters) from the "have-nots" (the rest of us) during The Finals. I have a huge bankers box filled with different colored vests with the NBA logo on them and the year. My wife has used them for kids to wear in art classes to keep paint off the kids' clothes.
Since 1988 I have been to numerous Olympic Games and related events all requiring wearing vests (usually with "Kodak" stenciled in huge letters). The Sydney Olympic Games took things in another direction by using Domke photo vests with a large colored patch to identify "EP"s (photographers). Of course several photographers from Sports Illustrated had their vests "fitted," taking them to a local tailor to have them shortened and hemmed so they would be a little cooler.
Since forcing photographers to wear vest is not new, what is causing the outcry, the loud objections and even an editorial in the Chicago Tribune?
It's the ads.
Photographers (and their publications) do not want to be seen as "walking billboards" for sports' corporate sponsors. It doesn't matter that the photographs we run from NASCAR races are essentially free ads for the drivers' sponsors. What Major League Baseball stadium these days can you get a clean background, devoid of a huge advertising sign? And when the LA Galaxy recently presented David Beckham, soccer's answer to Michael Jordan, to 800 media members, they also unveiled new uniforms with sponsor Herbal Life on the front. Soccer for years has used its players as "walking billboards".
If we object to photographers wearing vests prominently displaying a corporate sponsor's logo, hasn't the media been giving a freebee to them by referring to venues carrying corporate names ... Staples Center, Monster Park, Petco Park, Pepsi Center, et al? Or referring to events by its "corporate name" ... Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, PapaJohns.com Bowl, Coors Lite Tournament, Outrigger Hotel Classic, et al?
(I've always wondered when Larry Flint would spend the money for the naming rights to a sports venue or event. I can see it now: "The Hustler Coliseum" or "The Jamie Farr/Hustler Open"...)
Maybe sports feels that their venues and athletes are already "walking billboards" so why shouldn't sideline photographers get into the action too?
I don't know if there is a compromise somewhere in the future. Do we shut up if the NFL decides to take the corporate logos off the red vests? Is there anyone else out there, like some of the photographers quoted below, interested in cleaning up the sidelines and background?
The really cool SportsDesigner.com website poked fun at this controversy with a (doctored) photograph: http://sportsdesigner.blogs.com/1/2007/07/kneeling-billbo.html
Sports Shooter decided to get opinions on this controversy from the people on the frontlines --- or rather the sidelines --- the photographers that regularly cover the NFL.
(Note: Sports Shooter attempted to get quotes from photographers that work for the league, but those contacted felt they should not comment publicly.)
Simply put, enough is enough. I'm tired of being marginalized.
Scott Strazzante, Staff Photographer, The Chicago Tribune
In the 20 or so years that I have been shooting sports, I have been adorned with everything from vests to armbands to stickers to name tags identifying me as media, press, photographer, visitor and guest.
In the process, my body has advertised Tostitos, Kodak, Nike, Advil, Motorola and even Cialis. For almost all of the last two decades I have left the house with two camera straps over my shoulders boldly emblazoned with a Canon or Nikon logo.
So, why now am I pissed that the NFL wants to give Canon and Reebok a little pub on my torso as I roam the sidelines of Soldier Field?
Simply put, enough is enough. I'm tired of being marginalized. I'm sick of making multi-billion dollar entities richer while they try to make me poorer. It's time to stand up for what's right before I resemble Jeff Gordon's DuPont Pepsi Quaker State Lay's Nicorette Chevy Monte Carlo.
Luckily my bosses at The Chicago Tribune have taken a firm stand by proclaiming that they won't allow us photographers to cover games in logoed vests. The paper has threatened that if the rule doesn't change, the Trib will cover the NFL without visuals.
Does the NFL care? I don't know. But I sure do.
The logos on the vest don't bother me as much as the creeping reporting restrictions.
David Eulitt, Staff Photographer, The Kansas City Star
Photo by Robert Hanashiro / USA TODAY
Photographers wear green vests while shooting Ohio State's Ted Ginn jr. scoring on the opening kick on 93 yard return during the BCS national championship game at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, AZ, on January 8, 2007.
|
As the Kansas City Chiefs beat photographer for my paper, I spend from late July to the end of the year basically covering any and all things Chiefs, both home and on the road. I've become used to wearing vests in places like Denver and Oakland and armbands in other stadiums. This year's Super Bowl had a small Reebok logo on the back on the vest, so this development doesn't come as a huge shock to me.
Anyone who covers pro football has become used to the increasing restrictions of the NFL's media machine. The logos on the vest don't bother me as much as the creeping reporting restrictions, such as the 45-second limit of multimedia content per day, which I find absolutely ridiculous and insulting. Practices are becoming more difficult to shoot meaningful photos due to location and/or time restrictions. Last year with the Chiefs was very difficult as the photographers had to stand 20 feet off the sidelines, behind the ball boys, players and scouts. Restrictions that prevent me from making useable pictures get me to plead my case more than logos on a vest do.
Having said that, I'm not too pleased in not being compensated for advertising for companies looking for a quick company plug on replay shots. It's a slippery slope...this year it's vest logos, next year, who knows? At what point will we not be allowed to wear Nike shoes or other brands on the field? Or shoot Nikon cameras because they are not the "official" sponsor of the NFL? The NCAA is VERY quick to take a "unsanctioned" water bottle out of your hand or hide a fanny pack that has a large logo on it.
The vests are presumably used for identifying credentialed photographers on the sidelines. How do company logos on the vest help in that function?
Does the planet need another load of laundry?
Mike Blake, Staff Photographer, Reuters News Pictures
It is really no different than going to the Olympics and being given a bib to wear that has the sponsor's logos on it.
The only issue is if they are anything like the green bulletproof vests they hand out at Seattle Seahawks games, those things must come from a logging camp or off Alaskan crab boats.
My other questions are:
Do you get a bib with your season credential?
Is each game a throwaway bib or do you have to turn them in after every game ... will they wash them?
Does the planet need another load of laundry?
Another bib in the trash bin?
Can someone call Al Gore...
I'm already a walking advertisement for Canon, racing up and down the field with $25,000 of Canon equipment.
Steve Apps, Staff Photographer, Wisconsin State Journal
I do think that making working photojournalists wear vests of any color is unnecessary, and making them wear vests with corporate names is flat out wrong. Besides forced advertising, there is no other reason to use them.
I'm already a walking advertisement for Canon, racing up and down the field with $25,000 of Canon equipment, I don't need a vest with their name on it. I love Canon and would never think of using a different camera, but this makes me want to wear a Nikon hat.
At Lambeau Field the local police check my season pass with a hand held device to get into the stadium. It is again checked before being allowed on the field. They then have a staff person walk the sidelines to hand check all passes twice more. How is a red vest going to make security anymore secure than it already is? It won't, so that can't be the reason for the vest.
Maybe the national network TV folk just don't like the way we dress. The very comfortable but well used, Mountain Hardware pants and shirt, as well as my 10-year old Banana Republic photo vest just won't look good when it shows up on NBC "super-slow motion" high definition camera shots. And I'm considerably better dressed than most of my Wisconsin colleague's.
It was probably Dan Powers in his "Lucky" Harley Davidson t-shirt, that was always showing up near Brett Favre at the end of the game, that wreaked it for all of us.
In the end if we are forced to wear one of these silly vests, I'll just wear it inside out or under my photo vest. I just don't look good in red.
I am more worried about backgrounds than being a walking billboard.
K.C. Alfred, Staff Photographer, The San Diego Union
The NFL vest thing is quite interesting. Especially when the Chargers are playing the Chiefs at home, LT will score a touchdown and with 50 out of focus red vests in the background it will look like we are in Kansas City.
I am more worried about backgrounds than being a walking billboard.
A photojournalist is there to be objective and cover a game and not promote products.
Eugene Tanner, Picture Editor, The Orange County Register
There still will be others wandering the line that should not be there (Friends of Bill), and they won't be wearing any vests, just as now, so that won't be any better.
I read up on the NFL and its plans on making still photographers wear a bright red vest with Canon and Reebok logos on them. I don't have a problem with the NFL wanting the photographers wear a darker colored vest to make them blend into the background.
I do have a problem with the NFL making a photojournalist wear a bright colored vest with sponsor logos on them. A photojournalist is there to be objective and cover a game and not promote products. It's already a challenge to shoot a pro football game with nice clean backgrounds with all the advertising that surrounds the football field.
Having 50-100 photographers and other sideline people wearing bright red vest will make it worst. Newspapers, magazines and freelance photographers spend thousands and thousands of dollars on camera equipment. Why should they be forced to advertise the product for free?
It screws up the already busy backgrounds even worse.
Bob Deutsch, Staff Photographer, USA TODAY
Just say no.
The NFL's plan to make us advertise for free is a bad plan. And I for one plan to cover the logo with gaffer tape, maybe the silver reflective kind :)
But having us all wear red vests bothers me in another more important way: it screws up the already busy backgrounds even worse.
The NY Jets make us wear lime green vests, and aside for making it hard to work (gear gets tangled up in them and you can't easily get to waist packs, etc.) it often shows up in the background of photos and can ruin an otherwise good frame.
Red vest will be just as bad or worse. At the Super Bowl, we all have to wear the red vest, and it does indeed distract. It will be worse in bright sunlight.
The NY Giants require nothing but a dangling credential (up to now anyway), and they seem to have no problem policing the sidelines.
|
|
|
Contents copyright 2010, SportsShooter.com. Do not republish without permission.
|