In 2009, the Southeastern Conference, one of the most powerful in college sports, tried something stupid. In a hopeless and short-lived social media policy, it banned fans from tweeting, updating Facebook or sharing in any way live posts from its games.

Many are calling the University of Washington’s athletic department just as ignorant this week for enforcing a new social media policy that limits the number of tweets a reporter can send during a game, as GeekWire’s Taylor Soper reported Monday and media from here to Mashable have passed on.

“Breathtakingly stupid,” longtime Seattle sports columnist and SportsPress Northwest founder Art Thiel said of the policy in an email. “It’s so 1960s, when teams thought telecasts of home games would threaten the gate. They were so wrong. Then and now.”

But the UW athletic department thinks it’s very, very right — and they’re not the only school saying so. They’ve heard fans say they don’t understand the value of social media and counter that actually, they understand it better than most. That’s why they’re claiming their piece of it.

First off, let me say this is a tough one to sift through. I’m a citizen of the Internet, which makes me love openness and loathe obscurity. I’m a journalist, which makes me react to restrictions on reporters’ freedom to report. And I’m an early adopter of social media, so it’s never easy to imagine how restricting expression on these sites could be a winning move.

What I’m not, though, is a big sports fan, a lawyer or part of a multimillion dollar industry reliant on ticket sales and media for revenue. So I don’t understand as innately as I could to what extent real-time social media content threatens the business of sports.

But I’ll say this. I don’t personally love what the UW is doing. But after hearing from the school, my reaction to its policy went from “Ew, gross” to “OK. Interesting.”

Until I considered that the UW staffs its own reporter unrestricted by these rules, and what that could mean for the future of the local sports story.

A pre-emptive strike

Let’s get to the scariest question first.

I spoke on the phone Tuesday with an official from the UW athletic department who was very candid about the motives behind its “live coverage” policy, but did not want to be named so as to stay consistent with how the department’s handled other media questions.

The official all but promised that there was no way the policy, which restricts the in-game social media activity of credentialed members of the news media, would ever apply to fans, even when fans behave exactly like reporters.

Can we believe that? Yeah, probably. Fans’ social media buzz obviously helps teams. UW knows that as well as anyone. (And teams can do more to encourage it, as Seattle’s Joseph Sunga pointed out this week.) But the only important difference I see between reporters and fans here is that the social media activity of the first group can be regulated, but the social activity of the second group can’t.

Monica Guzman

You can’t tell me there’s a difference in their content. Coverage from the most devoted fans can mimic or even beat coverage from sports reporters in frequency and reach. It can even generate revenue. The UW can issue badges to reporters or not. It knows it’s got to let fans be fans. Gain a big and potentially lucrative enough following from live fan content at a game, though, and I’ll bet you’d at least get UW’s attention.

That aside, this policy is first and foremost about the university’s rights to its own live games. The university says so, everyone else is saying so, and you know what? It makes sense. The games are private, ticketable entertainment, after all, not public domain. The university sells TV and radio outlets exclusive rights to broadcast their games and has to protect its ability to do so.

The new social media policy, which went into effect in August, looks at reporters’ live tweets during games and says hey — that stuff’s ours, too.

A couple sports reporters I talked to acknowledged that with the advent of blogs and Twitter, a team policy like this was bound to pop up eventually.

Notably, though, the university isn’t saying “Stop tweeting.” Just, “Don’t tweet too much.” Especially the play-by-play. That made sense to reporter Greg Johns, who used to cover sports for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“I try to use ‘in-game’ tweets to supplement what a TV viewer or fan in the stadium can see for themselves — quick updates on injuries or statistics or my own observations,” he wrote me via email. “Once in a while it makes sense to update the score for people who might not be watching already or to pass along a highlight, but constantly describing the action and doing ‘play-by-play’ is pretty boring on Twitter, so that’s why I don’t really see this as a big issue.”

Then again, every tweet counts.

“Everything we know about the second-screen effects of mobile media tells us that the viewers at home want to follow social media streams and watch the game at the same time,” the Poynter Institute’s Jeff Sonderman pointed out via email. “Smart athletic departments will encourage all the tweeting they can get, to drive interest and engagement among the fan base.”

Even if you don’t accept the idea that the university has a lot to lose right now from a few reporters’ breathless live tweeting of a game — I sure don’t — the policy was designed as a defensive, pre-emptive strike, the UW athletic department official explained. Better to “draw the line in the sand” now, the official said, than to wait until live tweeting gets even more thorough and some media outlet develops a lucrative model off real-time content off the university’s games.

And that’s where things get interesting — and more than a little tense.

Reporters’ new competition

Few outside the media and sports worlds have noticed, but sports teams are becoming not just the objects of media coverage, but its producers. Make no mistake. Thanks to the very revolution in publishing that’s made live tweets possible, the University of Washington is competing with media outlets for an audience.

That makes UW’s policy of restricting reporters’ live tweets not just about rights, but turf. Turf that used to belong, by default, to outside media.

So while Tacoma News-Tribune reporter Todd Dybas was sent an email reprimand for posting more than the permitted 20 tweets from Sunday’s game against Loyola, UW’s own reporter, Gregg Bell, a former sports writer for the Associated Press who writes and blogs on, sent out 24 tweets from the game, and the University of Washington men’s basketball account posted 36.

Dybas’ reprimand wasn’t the first time the athletic department asked sports reporters to give them some space. Because Bell hosts his own live game chats with fans, the athletic department asked reporters to stop using the tool he uses, called Cover It Live, to host their own.

This could be a battle not just over rights, or turf, but story.

Are school social media restrictions affecting reporters’ ability to tell their own story from, say, a football game? Photo courtesy of The UW Daily.

Like I said, I’m a journalist and have a journalist’s bias. But when I hear, as I did from this official, that the UW athletic department tells its own story best, that it has the best access and the most accurate information at its fingertips, and that it’s invested in its own reporter and has to protect that investment, then even though the official said UW welcomes the news media, this unpopular but legitimate claim over rights begins to feel like a first, small step toward an encroachment of outside reporters’ ability to tell their own, independent sports story.

In September, the Seattle Times editorial board called out the UW’s football program for forgetting it’s part of a public institution after it told news organizations that they could no longer report on strategy or injuries that happen during practice. The school had already limited their access to practices and, as I mentioned, banned news media from hosting online chats, for a sum total policy the Times condemned as “the behavior of a fiefdom.”

Whatever the fallout from the department’s reprimand of Dybas Sunday, its policy, which it says is modeled after language in an NCAA policy, isn’t likely to go away any time soon. In fact, the official I talked to expects schools who aren’t on their way toward enforcing similar reporter restrictions — Taylor lists a few -— are bound to get there sooner or later.

Is the UW acting in its own best interest? Of course. Is it acting in the best interest of its fans and public?

They’re your stories. You decide.

Sports junkie? Subscribe to GeekWire's Sports Tech weekly newletter


  • Rasmus Rasmussen

    This is beyond short sighted. It’s both stupid and completely useless to try and regulate how reporters report from a game (or anywhere else for that matter). Doubly so when they go on to say that fans can tweet all the want. So, what then is the purpose of the free press? And what’s to stop a reporter from simply retweeting (or even planting) fans? For a city that so in tune with the digital frontier, this is a play right out of the stone age. And it won’t work.

    On a side note, it’s good to see some critical reporting from GeekWire for once. :)

  • LiveFreeorDie

    “[T]his policy is first and foremost about the university’s rights to its own live games.”

    I’m sorry, the university doesn’t own jack. It’s a public institution funded by my money. So they need to get over this arrogance right now. It not their live games, it mine and every taxpayer in Washington.

    You’re absolutely right though, this is another piece in the gradual destruction of true independent journalism. Today outside reporters can’t cover the team. Tomorrow they won’t be able to talk with the University President: instead we’ll have to listen to their “official” reporter ask things like how the President got to be so great (and let’s not talk about the financial crisis).

    I hope the ACLU takes notice and takes UW to court on the grounds that, as a public institution, this constitutes a first amendment violation.

    In the meantime, I hope people will start attending all UW games as “fans” and live tweet the hell out of every game.

    • Myk

      Considering the UW AD is 100% privately funded you are absolutely incorrect when you claim that it is your money. Even more, the police station down the street is ACTUALLY using your money…does that mean you get to walk in anytime you please and hang out and treat it like you own it?

  • Rasmus Rasmussen

    Psst… is this thing on? I left a comment here but Disquis ate it.

    Short version: For a tech town, our university has just labeled itself as living in the past. It’s an attack on the free press, and I hope reporters ignore thise idiocy, retweet every fan out there – or even plant fans to retweet. And also: good to see some critical reporting on GeekWire (as opposed to merely passing on info from press releases and other sites).

    • Rasmus Rasmussen

      D’oh! Now the orignal comment showed up. This is why I don’t use Disqus.

  • Travis

    As a journalist, UW grad and former UW Daily sports editor, this policy disturbs me. I understand sporting events are paid, ticketed events but it’s a limitation on free speech and to an extent free press. A similar policy has been extended to a few concerts I’ve covered and I was once nearly kicked out of KeyArena for using my phone to take notes (not tweet). I fear that as policies like these become more and more prevalent there could be security and ushers at venues checking for phones and monitoring media use of laptops and social media during events. Not cool UW. Not cool.

    • Monica Guzman

      Whoa – what was the event from which you were almost kicked out for taking notes? Good reasons to be concerned about where this is headed, on a number of levels. Regulating reporters, like I mentioned, is easy. You either give them a badge to get in (since they don’t buy tickets) or you don’t. (It’d be interesting, actually, if a reporter bought a ticket, acted like a fan – who can act just like a reporter – and claimed to not be restricted by the policy). Can venues and organizations ever hope to control what masses of people do with their smartphones at live events?

  • Chris McCoy

    Sums up why we built YourSports. Social will completely reinvent the discovery, consumption, and creation of sports content. A network the schools/teams can control needs to exist first. A network that supports the complex business rules of sports and media rights. We’ve built the beginning of that.

  • evanjacobs

    Silly and short-sighted. It often happens to me that I tune into a game on TV or radio after reading someone’s exciting tweets about it. This policy would seem to limit the number of times that will happen in the future.

  • Myk

    I am confused about the comment of Bell sending 24 tweets. Did Dybas get caught cause he sent our 21 or was he sending out way over the recommended 20? On top of that, more than 45 tweets for a football game seems excessive. There is no reason that someone should be tweeting about more than 33% of the plays that happen within a game…which I think is the UWs point.

    I understand that journalists are going to freak out about this…when saying that this is about “UW protecting their turf” you’re totally ignoring that journalists are doing the same exact thing when complaining about the rule.

    As a UW fan I can tell you that my experience of the season hasn’t changed one bit since UW stopped talking about injuries. Considering there is literally nothing I can do if I find out that Ben Riva has a broken forearm it means that it really isn’t all that “newsworthy”. That is why the article by the Seattle Times (which was terrible) really just sounded like someone complaining that they were losing out on content they could pass off as “news” to get more website hits.

    Long story short…media members complaining about this have to look in the mirror cause they’re doing exactly what they are complaining about…

Job Listings on GeekWork