Obviously NCAA Baseball and International League are two separate bodies, but probably equal on several fronts, including popularity. They clearly differ on how they handle bloggers. While the NCAA bans it, the IL has no policy whatsoever. The Mud Hens told me they handle requests on a case-by-case basis, and I can only assume that's how it is for the other 13 IL teams. The other difference is that while ESPN exclusive rights for the Louisville-Oklahome State game, nobody had that right over the Hens games I attended (although they were broadcast on multiple radio stations and a regional TV channel).
Brian Bennett, the ejected reporter, callously pointed out that he wouldn't have gotten in trouble had he liveblogged the game from his hotel room watching ESPN. I would also venture that a non-credentialed fan could also liveblog the game from his BlackBerry.
The publicity this incident spurned may seem like we're headed for a messy conclusion (what's the saying again about never pissing someone off who buys ink by the barrel?) but this can be so easily resolved. While "pressblogging" may be in violation of exclusive broadcasting rights in the strictest sense, anyone who's tracked a liveblog knows it absolutely poses no threat to live video feed.
Hey, this is easy, guys. Just change the rule.
If a reporter is going to include live game updates on their website from the cozy press box, present full disclosure. Just like my Mud Hens media credential had checkmarks for certain clearance areas (press box, locker room, field level), include "live Internet updates" (but better worded) as a fourth level of clearance. And if the networks and radio stations get all huffy and play the Well-We-Have-Exclusive-Rights card, then compromise by restricting inning updates until the inning has come to completion.
Then everyone still has fun.