Book Chapter by: Andy Miah, Beatriz García and Tian Zhihui
Narratives about the Olympics arise largely from the stories filed by the mass of journalists (press and broadcasters) who attend the Games and spew forth accounts of what occurs on and off the competition ground. Who those journalists are, what they do, how they are channeled through the Olympics world, each of these aspects has implications for what is represented and what the billions around the globe see and read.
As such, the issue of defining who is a journalist, what rights they have, and how they are served and managed is crucial, since it will play an important role in determining control of the platform. Yet it is increasingly understood that the concept of “the journalist” has changed and, with it, the management tasks of the Olympics and its host cities. Our newly expanded concept of the journalist has nevertheless resulted in more than increased demand for media guidance, information, and facilities. It will likely have important implications for what is covered and how.
In this chapter, we look at the processes of change in journalism, using the accreditation process at the Olympics as a lens. We also examine the challenges and opportunities this presents to the construction of narrative(s) about and the management of the Games.
Since the 1980s, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has established guidelines that determine who is accredited as an Olympic journalist. To be an accredited journalist in this context enables privileged access to Games venues and the exclusive right to report the official competitions. However, new technologies and new sources of supply have highlighted the need for new institutions and new protocols.
From the Sydney 2000 Games, nonaccredited journalists have become a significant component of the Games’ journalistic community. And increasingly elaborate arrangements have been developed for the management of this group at both Summer and Winter Games. These arrangements take the form of specially constructed enterprises, which have come to be called Nonaccredited Media Centers.
The term ‘nonaccredited’ refers to journalists who do receive recognition -ie. an accreditation of sorts from the established center, so they are not simply unaccredited or completely external to the Olympic organizational framework. However, such journalists do not have an official IOC accreditation and cannot access official venues as journalists or cover the sport competitions.
This term is most commonly used by the people who organize facilities for such journalists, so it also coheres with the self-characterization of this community. By studying the origins, functions, and development of the Nonaccredited Media Centers, we can gain insight into the shifting world of journalism and how it puts additional narratives into play.
The emergence of nonaccredited journalists highlights the challenges arising from shifts in traditional journalism since, in the absence of IOC guidelines, the criteria for defining a journalist are more fluid. In the context of the Olympics, these shifts have given rise to at least three categories of journalist.
- The most obvious is the Olympic journalist who would be labeled “accredited,” namely those to whom the relevant authorities have given certain rights to cover the Games.
- A second category would be journalists, traditionally professionalized, who cannot, because of limitations and contractual rights, be included in the full complement of entitlements for those who are accredited but who will be present at the Games and inuence mainstream narratives.
- A third category, closer to the technological and supply side exposition, are those who self-characterize as journalists; this group has a more tenuous relationship to mainstream media, but through blogs and similar devices, may have a greater impact on public understanding of what the Olympics mean and why.
At the Torino 2006 Olympic Winter Games, these Web-based journalists were a strong presence at the Nonaccredited Media Center. This was the first occasion in Olympic history where low-budget journalistic operations could broadcast in an effective manner through the Internet (e.g., the audiovisual sharing Website, YouTube, came online around the end of 2005). Torino demonstrated the challenge posed by such journalists, given the capacity to publish multimedia content through diverse online platforms.
Together, the combination of an increased number of journalists who are not accredited to the main facilities and the emergence of new media suggests that the established mechanisms of media representation at the Olympic Games are being reconstituted.
This chapter is based on research that draws on ethnographic, documentation, and interview data collected at the Nonaccredited Media Centers at four consecutive Olympic Games: Sydney 2000, Salt Lake City 2002, Athens 2004, and Torino 2006.
The research entailed participant observations, archiving of materials, and interviews of key management personnel at all of these centers. At each of the Games, except for Salt Lake City, we were present at least three days before the opening ceremony of the Olympics. Our analysis of Nonaccredited Media Centers is also based on documents and interviews with officials afiliated with and working within the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (BOCOG), which we used to ascertain the extent of planning for nonaccredited media two years before the 2008 Games.
In this context, the chapter will undertake three main tasks:
- First, we will discuss the emergence of much more varied and variously regulated media at the Olympics, offering evidence from the last four Olympic Games and contextualizing it with reference to the broader media framework of the Games. These details help to develop an understanding of the Nonaccredited Media Center’s character, function, and outcomes.
- Second, we consider the immediate context of the Beijing Olympic Games, particularly how its new media landscape might look, given its particular cultural and political circumstances.
- Finally, we discuss how the notion of nonaccredited media fits within broader discussions about new media studies and the challenges posed by the reprofessionalization of journalism via the rise of the citizen journalist.1.
Access the full paper, here