What stories of the Olympics do “non-accredited” journalists tell and what role do they play in terms of defining and affecting the meaning of the Games?  The issue of defining who is a journalist, what rights they have, how they are served and managed is an important aspect of determining control of the platform.  Over the last four Olympic Games, the phenomenon of alternative or non-accredited journalist has asserted itself (partly because of the Internet) and institutional arrangements, often quite elaborate, have developed for the management of this group. 

As the Beijing 2008 Olympics approaches, the future of the non-accredited journalist is in the balance. We outline the political context of their presence at the Olympics and suggest that they can present an ideological challenge for the Beijing government generally and for BOCOG specifically. However, we also suggest that non-accredited journalists – rather than the accredited – could also be crucial at re-positioning Western media within China.

This paper investigates the emergence of non-accredited media at the Olympics considering the complex media, cultural and political challenges it provokes for the Olympic Movement. The research draws on ethnographic and interview data from the Olympics Games of Sydney 2000, Salt Lake 2002, Athens 2004 and Torino 2006. Throughout this period, the size and reach of the non-accredited media has grown considerably. Yet, their presence occupies an ambiguously regulated zone within the Olympic infrastructure. Emerging from the host city local government rather than the official organizing committee, the operational space for non-accredited media does not permit use of Olympic iconography (such as the Olympic rings) provide access to sporting competitions for journalists. Instead, it offers an opportunity for journalists to report on anything that is a non-Olympic venue (which includes, for instances, theatres showcasing performances within the Olympic Cultural Programme) along with more general stories on the city or region’s heritage. To this extent, we identify, potentially, competing aspirations between the host city and the Olympic brand. For the latter, the Olympic Games is an opportunity to re-establish and showcase the Olympic brand. For the former, the Olympic brand is a catalyst for drawing attention to the cultural identity of the city/region, which is expected to translate into economic investment over a number of years. Yet, each aspiration competes for scarce media coverage during the intense period of the Olympic fortnight.

The development of non-accredited media at the Olympics presents an interesting set of circumstances for Beijing, particularly given recent developments. In particular, we discuss the presence of new media journalists at non-accredited facilities during the Torino 2006 Olympics. Arguably, the first moment in Olympic history where low-budget journalistic operations could broadcast effectively through the Internet (for instance, You Tube came online around the end of 2005), Torino demonstrated some further challenges posed by non-accredited media, given the capacity to publish multimedia content through diverse online platforms. This duel challenge of a) non-accredited and b) new media suggests the possibility of re-constituting the established model of media representation at an Olympic Games, which also offers greater potential for the Olympics to acknowledge its fundamental values. From one perspective, new media publishing, particularly as it is characterised as ‘citizen journalism’ is wholly consistent with the principles of Olympism. However, the non-accredited media presents a challenge to the financial structure of the Olympic Movement, which is reliant upon the sale of intellectual property (ie. broadcasting rights). As such, if they continue to grow in prestige and influence, then one could foresee sponsors seeking to curtail or absorb its function.  Moreover, the pressure to manage media narratives on the Games might lead to its abolition through a contractual stipulation between the IOC and the host city. We conclude that this would be devastating from the perspective of the ideals of Olympism, which should, more broadly, be characterised as ‘citizen journalism’ is wholly consistent with the principles of Olympism. However, the non-accredited media presents a challenge to the financial structure of the Olympic Movement, which is reliant upon the sale of intellectual property (ie. broadcasting rights). As such, if they continue to grow in prestige and influence, then one could foresee sponsors seeking to curtail or absorb its function.  Moreover, the pressure to manage media narratives on the Games might lead to its abolition through a contractual stipulation between the IOC and the host city. We conclude that this would be devastating from the perspective of the ideals of Olympism, which should, more broadly, be characterised as the public charter through which the social role of the Olympic Movement is ensured.

The specific term we employ relies on two premises. First, the non-accredited do receive an accreditation, so are not simply unaccredited or completely outside of the Olympic organisational framework. However, they do not have an Organising Committee accreditation, rather they have an accreditation for the Non-Accredited Media Center, which is given various names from Games to Games. The second premise is that this term is the phrase used by interviewees of media centers, so it is also reflective of the organisers’ self-characterisation.

.