Roland Garros 2011: Appeal to FFT

To French Federation of Tennis,

I'm aware that the International Tennis Writer's Association has asked the authorities not to publish transcripts that follow the matches after Roland Garros within a 24-48 hour limit. I'm also aware that the decision has been made not to publish the transcripts at all.


While I understand the reasons given by the ITWA (see a publicized copy of their
letter here), I think the response not to publish transcripts at all is short-sighted and overshoots the mark for a number of reasons.


1) The most important reason is that Roland Garros 2011 is a part of modern tennis
history. These transcripts are a primary source. This year there are plenty of
stories that could form material for a book (or part of a book): Nadal's attempt to equal Borg's record, Djokovic's streak, Federer's 2nd Roland Garros to cap a career, Murray's breakthrough Slam, Na Li's breakthrough Slam as the first Chinese woman and/or Schiavone's repeat. Ironicially, some member of the ITWA would no longer be able to go to a publically available official source after the event has concluded such as the Roland Garros website. As you might be aware, when a writer is working on
a book, they do not always have the luxury of traveling to collect primary sources.


2) As I understand players do not always trust the media to represent their words
accurately, and feel that their words are taken out of context. This is especially
true of players who tend to speak discusively and at length (e.g. Federer, Nadal, Schiavone, Henin).

Publically available transcripts would hold the press accountable for responsible journalism as it would be easy to compare what the journalist wrote with what the player actually said. Furthermore, players that are not necessarily stars of the game and not given a lot of mainstream media attention would also have a bit more spotlight.

This issue with accurate representation of the players does come down to the ATP & WTA having a stake in these interviews. In honoring the request of the ITWA, it's not entirely clear if the player's unions have been consulted for their opinion on the matter. I have volunteered reasons for why the player's union would not simply accept the ITWA's request by embargoing all transcripts.

3) Finally, these transcripts are getting leaked to other sites (a la WikiLeaks). Fans that want to see these transcripts are hitting those sites instead of Roland Garros, which ought to be getting those site hits. There is no guarantee that
those sites are accurately representing those transcripts. I believe it is in your interests to be the ones presenting the official stamp of approval on those transcripts on the Roland Garros website. It is in principle no different
from addressing a black market: the best way to control such a marketplace
is to present yourself as the official source of such information.

I write these things as a concerned & informed tennis fan. I also work for a large entertainment company. I know that intellectual property rights for entertainment products are a subtle issue. What is needed is an output deal that would satisfy
the interests of all the stakeholders (ITWA, ATP, WTA, the publicists at
Roland Garros, etc.). I believe a 24-48 hour embargo is reasonable to allow
journalists to get their stories out while it is hot, but an indefinite embargo is not reasonable at all.


Cheers,






















In conclusion, an output deal is needed that would satisfy all the parties.

Roland Garros 2011: Transcript Gate

The decision of Roland Garros to acquiesce to the International Tennis Writer Association's request not to publish interview transcripts is gravely mistaken on a number of levels.

Now to be fair, to my best understanding, ITWA only wants the transcripts not to be published within 24 hours of the match because these post-match pressers are their primary source while the news is still hot. Nor have they asked for videos of the post-match pressers to be delayed for publication. Roland Garros has simply chosen not to post the transcripts at all. Nevertheless a significant number of tennis fans are not happy with the Roland Garros (and the ITWA) for what is perceived to be the "suppression of information."


First and foremost it seems clear to me that ITWA does not have any property rights over such transcripts. The tournament does. And they have only acquiesced as a favor to them. Roland Garros' decision not to publish any transcripts at all (for now) is overcooked.

Second, the assent to the ITWA's request was justified as allowing official journalists to provide "relevant quotes" of the post match interview. Unfortunately, trust between many fans and journalists is not exactly at high point, because there have been numerous instances of so-called professional journalists who have made fairly egregious mistakes. Even more worrisome is the frequency with which quotes taken out of context and/or the quotes "used" to drive a predetermined story line.

Third, the players themselves should be protected. It is THEIR words that should be faithfully represented for all to see, rather than filtered through the lens of the all-too-human official media. Some players such as Justine Henin and Roger Federer have a speaking style which is more discursive. They speak in paragraphs rather than sound bites. It actually is important to read or hear what they said in its context.

Finally and most importantly, a historic tournament like Roland Garros needs to publish to these interview transcripts as they are a primary source of modern tennis history. Tennis nuts often go back to a website like Roland Garros for an interview transcript to try to recall what a player said often a few years back.

For views advocating a similar view as I do, see:

• The Stolen Word: Controlling The Transcripts
  


• The Silence of the Slams
  

UPDATE: Transcript gate has blown up to be a bigger emotional issue (on both sides) than it ought to be. I've amended my original post to be more reasonable and fair-minded to both sides. But the basic point is still the same: failure to publish interview transcripts is wrong.