Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UW Imposes 20-Tweet Limit On Live Events

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the am-radio-on-the-attack dept.

Twitter 196

theodp writes "GeekWire's Taylor Soper reports that the University of Washington has capped live sports coverage at 20 Tweets per basketball game (45 for football) and threatens to revoke the credentials of journalists who dare exceed the Twitter limits. Tacoma News Tribune reporter Todd Dybas was reportedly 'reprimanded' after drawing the ire of the UW Athletic Dept. for apparently Tweeting too much during UW's 85-63 Sunday win over Loyola."

cancel ×

196 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fair enough I suppose (-1, Offtopic)

skovnymfe (1671822) | about 2 years ago | (#41965493)

I'm assuming it's not their job to write tweets and drive traffic toward their personal twitter feed, but to write stories that the employer can sell. No?

Re:Fair enough I suppose (4, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#41965529)

That's between them and their employer, not the organizer of the event they're covering, isn't it?

Can you imagine being asked to cover an event, but only allowed to write 6300 characters about it?

Re:Fair enough I suppose (1, Interesting)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#41965739)

Can you imagine a newspaper reporter NOT beeing given a target word-count for his articles?

Unlike space on a webpage, space in a newspaper is limited. If the editor reserves a certain amount of space for event x, the reporter is sent there with the task to write a 100 (1000, 5000...) words article about that event. No more, no less. (give or take a few additional words for lower average word lengths)

Re:Fair enough I suppose (5, Insightful)

homsar (2461440) | about 2 years ago | (#41965877)

Can you imagine a reporter having their word limit set by the organisation they're covering rather than their own publication? And being asked to write the article as the event occurs, in real time?

Re:Fair enough I suppose (4, Insightful)

fl!ptop (902193) | about 2 years ago | (#41966251)

Can you imagine..

Can you imagine writing an article as a series of tweets?

Sounds very unprofessional.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966451)

Only if they're writing about you yelling at them to get off your lawn.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (4, Insightful)

MisterSquid (231834) | about 2 years ago | (#41966659)

Can you imagine writing an article as a series of tweets?

Sounds very unprofessional.

A few months back (August 2012), Cassian Elwes (an independent film producer) posted a series of tweets about his interaction with a distraught veteran [buzzfeed.com] on a flight from New York to Los Angeles. (Sorry for the Buzzfeed link, it came from MetaFilter [metafilter.com] , I swear!)

While it's not Pulitzer-level journalism, the story does emerge reasonably well from Elwes's tweets.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (5, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41965539)

But in this case it's not their employer imposing the restriction. It's the University, who don't want people "tuning" into Twitter for a play-by-play - they want them tuning in to the local radio or TV stations that have paid handsomely for the broadcast privileges.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965663)

Can we upvote this so that everyone who go "that is so stupid, what kind of rationale could there possibly be?" can find their answer straight away?

Re:Fair enough I suppose (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41965737)

they cant stop spectators.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41965927)

most spectators don't have the follower count of the reporters

Re:Fair enough I suppose (1)

Captain.Abrecan (1926372) | about 2 years ago | (#41966283)

They will soon, once they are the only source of free play-by-play coverage.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966287)

That's only because reporters are a reliable way to get the information. Once reporters are capped, that all changes and people will have to find their information from somewhere else. All it would take is a few students to set up a "UW sports tweets" account. There will be a demand for unofficial reporting when official reporting is censored.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (3, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#41966771)

Actually, @Todd_Dybas has a follower count of 436. This isn't a lot. I have over 1,000 followers and regularly talk to people on Twitter whose follower count vastly exceeds my own. Were Todd Dybas and I to attend a game and both live tweet it, would he be kicked out since he's a journalist but I'd be allowed because I'm just a spectator? Or would I be kicked out too for daring to tweet more than 20 times during the game?

Re:Fair enough I suppose (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#41965831)

It's the University, who don't want people "tuning" into Twitter for a play-by-play - they want them tuning in to the local radio or TV stations that have paid handsomely for the broadcast privileges.

UW's failure to grasp the realities of the modern world doesn't make a bit of difference.

Although they could revoke the "credentials" of a traditional-media reporter (ironically, the one group they do need to appease for the advertising revenue), how do they plan to stop a "random fan" from tweeting as much as he wants? 20 tweets? That doesn't even come out to one-per-scored-point in most sports. I've seen people send twice that (well, I've only "seen" them text, can't say for sure if they tweeted it) just in the top of the first inning!

Let UW have its little pissing contes - They'll lose, of course, but it might provide some entertainment to watch (cue them learning about the "Streisand" effect at their next game in 3... 2...1...).

Re:Fair enough I suppose (1)

joshuao3 (776721) | about 2 years ago | (#41966365)

"Random fan" probably doesn't have nearly as many followers as the media tweeter. So, no problem.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 2 years ago | (#41966887)

The number of followers is much less relevant at live events (including sports events). Some followers might be drawn in that way, but many will simply tune in to the hashtag.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#41966951)

They understand the 'modern world' perfectly well. They also understand things like 'exclusive contracts' and 'source of income'.

What the 'modern world' needs to learn is that just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it is right to do that thing, or that doing that thing has no long-term negative effects. Yes, some idiot can tweet the entire play-by-play. But what do you think will happen to UW's basketball program when it no longer is a source of revenue (or loses even more money than it does now, if that is the case)?

Re:Fair enough I suppose (4, Informative)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#41965551)

It's the private school that restricts it, not the reporter boss. From the article:

“I think just generally speaking is what we’re trying to do is steer people toward partnerships we have with radio, television and our own web presence,” Moore said. “We don’t want people taken way from that experience.”

In plain english: "We have deals with radios and the twitter feeds do not generate revenues, so we decided it was better for us if you cannot follow the games in detail with twitter even if you prefer that over radio."

Re:Fair enough I suppose (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41965735)

I just adore the way that the school's PR weasel manages to word it as though those cruel journalists are tearing innocent readers 'away from that experience', rather than admit the obvious "apparently following the game on twitter is more engaging than watching or listening to it, at least as broadcast by our paying partners"...

Re:Fair enough I suppose (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965745)

Private school? My taxpayer dollars go to fund that particular institution of higher learning via sales tax and property taxes. It is most certainly not a private institution.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (3, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#41965755)

Actually, it is a state school which is restricting them. I am curious as to whether this would stand up to a first amendment challenge. Since this involves "credentialed" journalists, who presumably receive free access to the games rather than having to purchase tickets, it certainly might withstand such a challenge.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966001)

What First Amendment challenge? Since when does the First Amendment oblige the school to give the reporter credentials? Methinks you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. You do realize that getting credentials is a privilege and not a right, correct?

Re:Fair enough I suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966297)

BTW, reread the GP post, they agree with you.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966367)

I did read their post. Maybe you need to re-read it?

Since this involves "credentialed" journalists, who presumably receive free access to the games rather than having to purchase tickets, it certainly might withstand such a challenge.

This would not withstand a First Amendment challenge because there are no First Amendment grounds. Tons of organizations put restrictions and conditions when they issue credentials. Schools do it all the time as well. This is not restricting free speech or freedom of the press as the school has no obligation to give out credentials to everyone.

Re:Fair enough I suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966705)

he says its curious if it would stand up to a first amendment challenge AND THEN SAYS HE THINKS ITS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THEM BEING CREDENTIALED! seriously, if someone points out your mistake, take the time to double check before trying to call them out. "it certainly might withstand such a challenge" means that they're rule WOULD WITHSTAND SUCH A CHALLENGE. How are you interpreting that to mean the opposite?

Re:Fair enough I suppose (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966767)

Ha ha. You don't know the meaning of withstand. Allow me to fix the first sentence of your second paragraph for you:

This would withstand a First Amendment challenge because there are no First Amendment grounds.

The way you wrote that sentence does not make any sense.

Points (5, Insightful)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 2 years ago | (#41965499)

In basketball, usually more points get made than goals get made in football so shouldn't the tweet limit be higher for basketball?

Re:Points (2)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41965511)

A typical basketball game lasts about 2 hours, while a typical football game is generally just over 3 hours. I'm guessing that is why the different tweet limits

Re:Points (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965931)

A football game is 90 minutes, 45 minutes each half.

Re:Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965991)

Bless you!

Re:Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966017)

Spoken by a true geek, who has never been forced to watch a game start to finish!

Re:Points (2)

slim (1652) | about 2 years ago | (#41966085)

Yeah, he's failed to account for the 15 minute half time break, and typically 5 minutes of stoppage time.

Then if it's a cup game, there might be extra time, and maybe penalties!

Re:Points (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41966513)

Yeah, he's failed to account for the 15 minute half time break, and typically 5 minutes of stoppage time.

But he didn't fail to remind you that a 90 minute period has halves exactly 45 minutes in length! That's geeky enough, isn't it?

Re:Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966687)

Whoooosh to all of you. I mean really, are any of you paying attention?

A football game is 90 minutes, 45 minutes each half.

They are referring to what the rest of the world calls 'Football' (what we in America call 'Soccer'). They were making a joke, thus the Funny moderation.

Re:Points (0)

Ecuador (740021) | about 2 years ago | (#41966199)

It might surprise you, but there are these Americans who insist on calling "football" a game where you actually use just your hands to throw/catch/carry and only very rarely you get to kick the ball (up to a handful of times per game). People outside the US in the end gave into the madness and are also referring to this game as "American football" instead of using a more fitting name such as "Pansy Rugby" or "Handegg" (http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=3849). They just try to not refer to it much.
Anyway, the aforementioned game indeed lasts a bit over 3 hours on average (at least the NFL version). Curiously (for people who are only familiar with the more appropriately named football), the "dead time"/"actual play" ratio of American football is not at all better than Basketball, as those 3 hours involve just 60 minutes of actual play. So it is about 50% more actual play than a college Basketball 40-minute game and about the same 50% extra of actual time (3 hours vs 20hours) but it gets more than 2x the tweets allowance even though the plays and the scoring are several times less...
In conclusion, we can't start doing logical analyses for random caps taken out of someones' posterior ;)

Re:Points (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#41966239)

*facepalm* [imageshack.us]

Re:Points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966375)

People outside the US in the end gave into the madness and are also referring to this game as "American football" instead of using a more fitting name such as "Pansy Rugby"

We refer to euro football by the more fitting "flopball" or "diveball" where any time you are stripped of the ball, you flop on the ground hoping to pick up a yellow card.

and....? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965507)

Struggling to discover how this is even mildly interesting or newsworthy.

Re:and....? (5, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41965527)

“I think just generally speaking is what we’re trying to do is steer people toward partnerships we have with radio, television and our own web presence,” Moore said. “We don’t want people taken way from that experience.”

that it's supposedly an university.. sounds to me like it's a pro sports team first and everything else second.

Re:and....? (4, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about 2 years ago | (#41965571)

"..sounds to me like it's a pro sports team first and everything else second."

To me it sounds like the ole 'protect our soon-to-be extinct business model at any costs' no matter how idiotic it is.

Re:and....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965717)

College and Pro Sports are getting bigger and bigger broadcast deals.

But please, continue the circlejerk about downloading or netflix or hulu or whatever.

Re:and....? (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#41965747)

And anyone cares for the people who don't want to be taken away from the twitter experience?

Re:and....? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#41966137)

You just know realized that college sports is a big business? Welcome to decades and decades ago?

Re:and....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966527)

I'll explain it for you. Twitter is stupid. People who use it are stupid. But the school wants stupid people to watch the game on TV or play it on the radio because their contracts with TV and radio are based on the number of people who consume that media. So if all the stupid people stop watching the game on TV and, instead, look at stupid tweets like, "LOL, Jenkins got pwned on a post play. Score now 63-58 in fvr UW.", then U-dub gets less money and has to stop "hiring" quite as many A list basketball players. Oh, and they might not need any high-priced PR people either.

Only credential holders? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965537)

So um... what's to prevent random attendees (or previous credential-holders who have gotten their credentials revoked) from live tweeting the whole game?

Re:Only credential holders? (1)

clark0r (925569) | about 2 years ago | (#41965565)

And then the reporter can re-tweet them? Surely if the reporter didn't write the tweet then they're not the ones breaking the rules?

Re:Only credential holders? (2)

zevans (101778) | about 2 years ago | (#41966063)

In the UK, the Director of Public Prosecutions has stated that a retweet of an arrestable tweet is itself arrestable.

Re:Only credential holders? (1)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#41965593)

In real life, if I pay to go watch a sport event, I want to watch the game, not my smartphone...

Re:Only credential holders? (2)

peragrin (659227) | about 2 years ago | (#41965719)

if but this isn't about you paying to watch a game it is about radio and tv stations paying to watch a game so you can hear/see the play by play.

you can't always watch every game, sometimes you have to follow it other ways. twitter doesn't pay royalties for play by play announcing and so the university it trying to cut it out.

Re:Only credential holders? (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#41965749)

That's so 20th century!

Re:Only credential holders? (1)

advantis (622471) | about 2 years ago | (#41965753)

Not if you're a journalist you're not. Parent has a point: if the journalists exceed the limit, have their credentials revoked and start attending as private citizens instead, what's the UW to do about it? Ban communication devices and have them "detained" at a TSA-like security checkpoint at the entrance? Install a Faraday cage around the avenue and hinder the radio and TV stations too? Jam GSM/UMTS/CDMA specifically and hope they don't leak any jamming signal outside and get in trouble with the FCC?

Re:Only credential holders? (2)

Xenx (2211586) | about 2 years ago | (#41965829)

They'll probably ban the person specifically, if it became an actual issue for them. One could argue how successful enforcing it would be, but nothing says they have to let them attend the games. For what it's worth, I understand both sides of this issue. However, I don't give a crap about either side.

Re:Only credential holders? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966115)

What about watching it from TV and tweeting based on that? I don't think there's that much delay or is there?

Re:Only credential holders? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966025)

You are a moron.

Re:Only credential holders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966217)

And here I was, expecting to learn something new.

So how is tweeting about semi-pro sports ... (1, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | about 2 years ago | (#41965555)

So how is tweeting about semi-pro sports ... news for nerds?

(Yes, I am aware that this is a university game, but any game where the sponsors control the media exposure in order to profit is at least semi-pro in nature to me, since being "Pro" is all about whether you get income from it)

Re:So how is tweeting about semi-pro sports ... (2)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#41965617)

I believe the tweeting part is more or less related to nerds, enough for you to click and comment. I predict it will gather more interest than the emscripten story posted earlier!

cant understand the post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965563)

what is this post even about? article just has corrections. why limit tweets? why are journalists tweeting. i thought they are paid to write stuff more deep than a 160 char stupid tweet.

News sources should simply skip a few games (4, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41965567)

Seriously, This harms ALL sports caster to have the university dictate how things will happen.
if ALL of the news sources would simply skip a couple of games, then the sports director would quickly change their mind.

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41965619)

I think the issue here is that a print reporter essentially becomes a broadcast journalist when tweeting the game play by play. The make royalty from the authorized broadcasts of the game and want people watching/listening to those instead of following tweets in near real time to which they get no income from.

The news sources won't skip the games because the readers/viewers/customers will look for the information if they do not carry it. Its essentially sending customers to the competition where they might like something and stay.

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (2)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#41965757)

Do you really think 140-chars snippets are an adequate replacement for a real tv or radio coverage?

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (2)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41965993)

Presumablly that depends on just how many of those 140-char snippets are sent....

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#41966021)

No way.

I could follow a few matches of the last World Championship only via a text-only stream. And even without any limit, it does not capture the suspense and mood of following a match on tv or radio.

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 years ago | (#41966491)

Gooooooo....
Msg 1/400 .....
l!!!!!!!!!!!!
Msg 400/400

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (1)

bmuenzer (557506) | about 2 years ago | (#41966489)

Not for a full-time live coverage (as opposed to short live segments of my favourite team's game interrupted by commercials, segments of parallel games and top-40 hits).

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41966525)

I don't think it matters if it lessens the ability to generate revenue from the authorized broadcasts.

When I listen to a game on the radio, its all background noise until the commentator sounds excited, then I pay attention because something interesting just happened and they will repeat it. So for me, yes it could replace it. But if it makes the revenue from the radio or tv covering it worth less, its still a problem.

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#41966629)

A bunch of tweets scrolling by is not even background noise. And it doesn't even sound excited when something happens.

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#41966809)

Or, more to the point, if your sport's coverage can be substantially harmed by twenty one 140-character snippets, perhaps your sport just isn't exciting enough to merit live TV/radio coverage.

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#41966977)

That sums it up quite well.

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 2 years ago | (#41965987)

That's actually a brilliant idea. I am sure there are lots of teams who would love to have media coverage of some kind, and allow the media to tweet all they want.

If the university suddenly found themselves blacklisted from media reporting everywhere, they would change their tune quickly.

Re:News sources should simply skip a few games (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#41966181)

If the university suddenly found themselves blacklisted from media reporting everywhere, they would change their tune quickly.

In fantasy land they would find themselves blacklisted. In the real world, there will be plenty of people who will accept the conditions in order to pick up the readers the other outlets will be losing.

Please stop posting! (5, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#41965595)

This story has a 20 post limit, please stop posting or your account may be revoked.

Re:Please stop posting! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965729)

Oh dear, I wouldn't like that to happen.

Re:Please stop posting! (1)

deniable (76198) | about 2 years ago | (#41965885)

But I'm a football player. I can have 45-20=37 more.

This is extremely important (3, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41965843)

People have got to be trained that the only sustainable liberty is managed liberty.
Bandwidth is a precious resource, and we cannot allow our Precious Bodily Phrases to be diminished by more than 20 Tweets per event. People could get excited, and drive up medical expenses.
Of course, managing communications will require a comprehensive regulatory regime. That means jobs. Now, don't get all wrapped around the fact that a day spent poring over Twitter logs and tallying Tweets has no real product. It's a job, and that means a reliable vote from the sucker in the chair.
The act of fining people for Exuberant Tweeting, of course, is a revenue stream of the government. That means more tax agents, bean counters, and a few more lines on the tax code. Don't worry; the tax code isn't predicted to topple until its height exceeds 10,000 meters.

revoke your * (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965879)

University will "revoke the credentials", so what ?!
Next time guy will be sitting next to TV, watching same game and tweeting twice as much.
And this sort of brings us to million dolar business idea - sports event live twitter coverage service ;)

Funny as hell (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 years ago | (#41965957)

The geek equivalent of 'that woman' who utterly hates cell phones everywhere at any time.

Freedom of the Press (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965975)

The University has no right to infringe upon the civil rights of duly credentialed press members who are there legally and with permission.

Members of the media have the right to document and record everything they see or hear, in any place they have a legal right to be (either through natural rights or through permission of a private property owner).

Even if the university does decide to violate the Constitutionally-protected civil rights of the press corps, they still cannot use force to prevent a press corps member from tweeting or otherwise documenting the event, so long as they can lawfully gain entry to the stadium to view and document the game.

Re:Freedom of the Press (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 2 years ago | (#41966015)

The University has no right to infringe upon the civil rights of duly credentialed press members who are there legally and with permission.

It says right there in the Slashdot summary that this is a threat to "revoke the credentials of journalists". It says nothing about hassling the journalists after they have entered the venue. Get over yourself.

Sports writers should ignore UW. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41965997)

Sports reporters should just totally ignore the University of Washington. If someone plays a game against the UW then reporters should only make mention of those playing against UW. Make no mention of UW players no matter how poorly or how well they did.

If someone working for the school has something to say and calls a press conference they should find themselves with absolutely no reporters showing up. No reporters at all showing any interest in what they have to say. Just cold shoulder University of Washington and pretend it does not exist.

Re:Sports writers should ignore UW. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#41966173)

Yes be stupid and drive readers to your competitors. Brilliant plan.

Limit reporting (1)

john82 (68332) | about 2 years ago | (#41966009)

This is just idiotic on the part of someone at the university. Perhaps the reporters should respond by limiting their articles to something roughly equivalent to 20 tweets. Most tweets are extremely short. Maybe a total of 800 characters would be sufficient. Let's see how the administration truly likes reduced coverage of their product.

Then sit in the crowd (3, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#41966027)

And tweet whatever the frak you want. The concept of "journalists" as distinct from "everyone" is just ludicrous now.

Re:Then sit in the crowd (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966541)

It's ludicrous that you actually think that.

"Everyone" clearly are not journalists as proof of the vast amount of misinformation being reported as fact.

Re:Then sit in the crowd (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966641)

And tweet whatever the frak you want. The concept of "journalists" as distinct from "everyone" is just ludicrous now.

Except if you want to get into the dressing room to ask players something. Or go into the media room before/after the game and talk with the coach/es. Or if you're a photographer and want to be able to get in close (i.e., right at the side line beside the ref/linesman) to get better pictures.

Yes, anyone can watch the game (which was always true), but there are certain privileges that can only gotten via a pass.

45 Tweets per Football Game ... (1)

slimdave (710334) | about 2 years ago | (#41966033)

Generous, when you consider that there's only eleven minutes of actual sport being played. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406.html [wsj.com]

Re:45 Tweets per Football Game ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966557)

American football is a joke to the intelligent population :/

Maybe twitter is not the right technology for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966049)

It amazes me that twitter hangs on through all of this. It was a solution in search of a problem in the first place, and now it's causing problems with it's arbitrary solution to its non problem.

Unfathomable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966061)

Good for you UW! As I read these comments, I am dumbfounded by all the posters here who can't RTFA or understand simple cause and effect relationships. If having broadcast rights and coverage is so 20th century, you guys must be way from the future. Tell me about the price of gold, please.

If twitter is regulated, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966065)

1. Set up your own live blog
2. Tweet the URL
3. ???
4. Profit!

An extension of existing restrictions (4, Informative)

igaborf (69869) | about 2 years ago | (#41966077)

Reporters are allowed access to the event with the understanding that their reports will be published after the fact, thus protecting the value of the real-time reporting being done by the broadcast partners. All this rule is doing is telling the other reporters that they can't publish their content in real time.

These new rules are in response to newer technology, but other restrictions have been in place for years to protect licensees.

For example, as a spectator you aren't allowed to video record an event. Often you are not allowed to bring a "professional" grade still camera, either. (Of course, improvements in camera technology are making it easier to surreptitiously get around these restrictions.) The purpose of those restrictions is to force anyone wanting to see video or photos of the event to go to the licensee -- and pay for the privilege either directly or through advertising.

So, yes, it's about the money.

Re:An extension of existing restrictions (1)

quetwo (1203948) | about 2 years ago | (#41966159)

Exactly this. I know our athletics department has been worried about people tuning out of the traditional media (Radio/TV) and trying to catch the game via twitter updates. This, in their mind, reduces the media partner's viability because of lost ad listens, and essentially brings a third "live media" into the mix -- one that may not have been authorized to do live media.

i just... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966139)

blasted the hugest turd, god damn. tweet that, fgts.

Tweet Suppression (1)

aurizon (122550) | about 2 years ago | (#41966403)

The same tech that jams cellular data, also jams tweets, and the same faraday cage shielding that blocks radio transmission also blocks tweets.
Shielding is passive, and can easily be done as they build a covered arena. An open arena can be shielded by the height of the faraday walls, since cellular is line of sight. Jamming is probably illegal, but cheaper, but may be legal in your own closed space (the Arena)

How will people like no cell coverage inside arenas? No tweets? Will people actually welcome the effect? Doctors on call?

More Stupidity (1)

shawnhcorey (1315781) | about 2 years ago | (#41966415)

Once more, human stupidity rears its ugly head. Limiting people's access limits their interest. Example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/13423720996/draconian-downloading-law-japan-goes-into-effect-music-sales-drop.shtml [techdirt.com] They can kiss good-bye to their students support for sports...and their future alumni support too.

Should be (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 years ago | (#41966467)

2800 characters should be enough for everyone.

Journalists only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41966765)

Seems that any fan can tweet as much as they want. Wouldn't that fall under the realm of free speech?

TRWTF is college football and other sports :( (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#41966919)

I think we're all missing the elephant in the room. What the fuck has college got to do with sports? As far as I'm concerned, the sports scholarhips should be abandoned, and large-audience college sports banned. College is there to teach people things, not to entertain the masses. Professional sports are professional entertainment. It's no business of any college to offer that. I'm well aware of the U.S. reality where college sports attract donors and shit, but perhaps people should get a long hard look in the mirror and realize it's all stupid beyond belief. Why on Earth would I offer a scholarship for someone who, ostensibly, diverts their time to things *other* than pursuit of knowledge (namely: sports)?! Scholarships should be for kids who, I dunno, are good at learning things, doing resarch, that sort of thing? Maybe? Sigh.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>