Based on comments posted on the Association of Caribbean Media (ACM) Workers e-mail network by a journalist in Grenada, the issue of accreditation fee for coverage of track and field meets has again resurfaced.

Taking direct aim at the organisers of the Cayman Invitational Meet scheduled for today, this Grenadian journalist denounces the requirement of a one-time fee of $250, claiming that “this is a restriction of trade for our profession”.

In recent years the issue of media accreditation fees, especially relating to sports journalists, has generated some heat from both sides. On one occasion this required the intervention of the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ), although to the best of my knowledge no permanent resolution was reached. Given existing realities, one wonders if both sides can ever reach a satisfactory agreement.

As one who has operated on different occasions as a journalist and a meet organiser, I must concede that there are two sides of the coin. I find no problem with an accreditation fee in principle. But there are challenges for media managers especially.

Promoters of events want the media to publicise their events. This includes coverage before the event, on the day of the event, and/or especially in these days of ‘instant’ media, during the event; also finally, after the event. Few, if any event organisers, are willing to pay for this media promotion by way of supplements, features or other paid advertisements. For one, this is a costly undertaking, especially for track and field meets, many of which do not operate at a profit.

In very recent years Jamaica has been fortunate to have been benefiting from an increase in developmental track and field meets. Thankfully, the sport is growing as a public attraction at the local as well as international levels. The media are partly responsible for this growth.

However, it goes both ways. Media interest has also waxed in response to the increased interest of the public which they are committed to serving and on whose audience growth they depend for attracting advertising support. Unquestionably, the cost of mounting meets and of providing live coverage is exorbitant. This is particularly strenuous for financially strapped media houses.

However, it is equally challenging to meet organisers who are dependent on sponsors and volunteer workers. It may be useful to conclude here that the motive of one side is profit and the other is primarily sport development.

Notwithstanding the profit agenda, the media, on principle, ensure that their publics are best served by the quality and credibility of the information they produce and that every attempt is made to ensure that these are not compromised. For years, media houses have been wary about providing promotional coverage free of charge for fear of conflict of interest accusations.

It is not a secret that today’s sport and entertainment journalists often double in producing stories, especially inclusive of photographic material, for more than one media channel — overseas as well as local. In this scenario, the public is often well served in terms of access to information.

However, while for national events there is a clear demand and need for the public to be kept informed, there is an inherent danger in serving the interest of the public while simultaneously serving that of a profit-seeking entity. There is definitely a line between providing information to the public and acting as a publicist for a promoter, which can lead to a blurring of factual information.

On the other hand, promoters spend large sums to stage their events and certainly have a right to determine who gains access, free of charge, and what this access allows. In these days of blogging, virtually anyone can claim to be a journalist. It is the prerogative of the promoter to determine who is of value to his/her event and which journalists and/or media houses should have free access.

Occasionally, promotional agreements are made which give access or some access to only the ‘sponsorship media’. This is a tricky game for the promoter to play as it might deny his/her event publicity in large areas of the media. However, if it is determined that adequate coverage can be had from one media house or from one entity — newspaper, television and/or radio — then that, too, is their decision to make.

There is no easy answer. Access to specially designated media areas must be controlled and monitored, and some promoters feel the easiest way to do this is to charge a registration fee. When they do, they take the risk of alienating the media, but in the end it is their event and their prerogative.

I certainly do not believe that any media house or individual practitioner should blacklist an event, especially one of national import, because an accreditation fee is required. The media cannot have it both ways; press freedom does not only mean freedom to publish or broadcast information as selected by media gatekeepers; but also, and perhaps more important, to provide information about which the public has a right to know and on which they have come to depend on the media.

The promoters in Cayman may regard the imposition of an accreditation fee of $250 as one way of defraying costs. This, on the surface, seems excessive, but some journalists, photo-journalists in particular, especially those with the facility of posting on the Internet via YouTube, can make back this money from one posting or sale of a single photograph.

I recall that following one heated debate on the right of media practitioners to unrestricted entry to a meet at which Usain Bolt was a star attraction, a video of Bolt’s race was posted within minutes on YouTube.

In addition, meet promoters usually feel compelled to make budgetary provisions for suitably accommodating journalists at their events. Hence promoters tend to feel an accreditation fee is fair game. For some media, recouping a fee in excess of US$200, while covering other costs, especially when a team is involved, might prove a challenge.

That said, I think the promoters might be best served to look at each accreditation application on an individual basis, and where fees are charged they should be reasonable. In the end, journalists and media houses must decide if it is worth the cost required in terms of the needs of their audience, and if it does, thoughts about a counter campaign are misguided.

Kingston/IAAF World Challenge Meet

Congratulations to the athletes and organisers of last Saturday’s Jamaica International Invitational track and field meet. Don Quarrie is to be especially commended for managing to secure some big-name, last-minute replacements. Quarrie obviously retains influence and connections on the global circuit as he has done since the first staging of the Manley Meet.

It was especially pleasing to see America’s Tyson Gay at or near his best. Not for the first time Gay demonstrated that he is fearless and always prepared to enter the ‘lion’s den’. It is only a pity that he could not have matched strides with either or both of our two top sprinters. Overall, our athletes put on a good show and the future continues to look bright.