There is much discussion around these parts, especially over at Will's place, about how sports teams are reluctant to give press access to Internet writers. Part of that, I'm sure, is the problem of pure volume: lots of people would like access, but there's only so much room.

I found an interesting entry by Mark Liberman on Language Log about Sports Interviews as Rituals, that sheds some more light on this issue:

...when I listen to recordings of journalistic interviews, I rarely get the impression that anyone is trying to learn anything new. The journalists already know what the stories are. Their questions are not designed to discover any new facts or ideas, but rather to get quotes that will fit in to designated places in the frameworks of logic and rhetoric that they have already erected.

As they say, read the whole thing. There are many interesting points. One of the most fascinating to me is that there is a implicit agreement between the interviewer and interviewee regarding the content of the interview and the context in which their quotes will be used. When that unspoken agreement is violated, people get angry.

Part of the problem with getting press access for bloggers is the fact that there are no established ground rules. Bloggers can write about whatever they want. They have a completely different set of incentives from newspaper writers. It's like letting a complete stranger into your house; if you have no idea if they'll behave the way you expect, you're not likely to let them in.

Eventually, established bloggers will get regular press access. But only after the product has been rendered predictable 99.9% of the time. Teams will let bloggers into the locker room the moment they understand exactly what will be coming out of it.

Is that remaining 0.1% worth the effort?