TIFF Significantly Reduces Number of Accredited Journalists For Its Digital 2020 Edition

This year, the Toronto International Film Festival decided to go in a completely different direction when it came to the number of media they would accredit. Since the year has been a wash due to COVID-19, TIFF decided to slash 2/3 of the number of press credentials they would usually accept. According to an email sent to me via TIFF’s media accreditation office, the usual number of 1600+ accredited journalists has gone down to just 500 for this year’s digitally-driven edition of the festival.

Many names you would expect to make it onto the list of accepted journos were denied press access this year, and those include Bill Chambers (Film Freak) Nathaniel Rogers (The Film Experience), Matt Neglia (Next Best Picture), Wilson Morales (Blackfilm), Monica Castillo (Roger Ebert) and many more journos who specified not to be mention in this piece due to their outlet's and editor’s demands. Peter Howell, one of the great Canadian film critics of the last 25 or so years, has also confirmed to me via email that a slew of unhappy members of the Toronto Film Critics Association have been denied accreditation as well.

What exactly is going on? I reached out to TIFF this afternoon to get some kind of reasoning behind the slashing of accredited media and got this response:

Thank you for your email. In this unprecedented year, we have had to make tough decisions regarding our press accreditation process. Security concerns from filmmakers and film companies meant we had to greatly reduce the number of journalists who can view Festival films online. We normally have 1600 accredited journalists at TIFF, but this year we will only be able to welcome 500 accredited media. We understand the disappointment and frustrations that many share. We wish that things were different, but look forward to the future.

View fullsize

TIFF’s Media Inclusion Initiative accounts for 30 spots of the 500. 57% of TIFF's 500 accredited media this year self-identify as: women, people with disabilities, people who are Black, Indigenous, people of colour and/or LGBTQ+. #TIFF20

So it seems as though, according to the festival, this decision was solely based on filmmakers and studios fearing piracy issues from the digital component of the festival. They had their hands forced into limiting the amount of journalists they could accept due to the virtual component. Does this mean the New York Film Festival will have the same issues in regards to who they can and cannot accept? What I don’t get about TIFF’s response to the controversy is that they cite piracy concerns for a smaller number of accreditations being granted, but they trust the public more than journalists? Public screenings are online too, right?

Yes, I understand, this is not going to be a groundbreaking year for great movies at fall festivals, but TIFF is still about to premiere a bunch of buzzed titles, and not denying key journalists, who drive word-of-mouth forward, to be a part of this year’s edition could be seen as a slap in the face. Film critics already don’t make that much money, but taking away potential coverage from them is wrong.

I believe TIFF when they claim they had pressure from studios to cut two-thirds of their regular press attendees to adhere to studio and filmmaker demands, but could there have been another way to go about this? I saw plenty of minor-league bloggers tweet out this past week that their applications were accepted by the festival, they will be virtually attending — but why are seasoned vets getting the shaft in favor of rookies?