There are points
in some sporting events where the unexpected happens, and no, I am not talking
about a miracle on ice, a diving catch in the back of the end zone or a buzzer
beater to win the game. I am talking
about gruesome injuries that happen during live sporting events. The decision on how to handle horrific injuries in a
broadcast is a tricky matter of negotiating, which tiptoes the line between
being exploitative and being uninformative. Live sporting events are live for a
reason, the viewers thrive the anticipation of what is coming next on. But when
things go wrong, it always seems that the television broadcasts are damned if
they do and damned if they don’t. Viewers either want to see it all or see none
and that’s where it gets tricky for programs.
Right
around this time last year, arguably the most gruesome injury ever shows on
live television was witnessed. On March 31st 2013, Louisville was
playing Duke in the Elite Eight of the Men’s division one basketball tournament
when Louisville guard, Kevin Ware, landed awkwardly after attempting to block a
three-point shot attempt and suffered a compound fracture to his right leg
where the bone was sticking out of the skin. The injury left the crowd, teams
and especially the announcers dumbfounded. Clark Kellogg was quoted by USA
Today’s article, “CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury With Restraint” saying that
after the injury happened, the game coverage was left “in totally uncharted
territory for everybody in the
building, for players, for us."
On March
22, 1989, another one of the most gruesome looking sports injuries ever to
happen, occurred. In an NHL game between the St. Louis Blues and Buffalo
Sabres, two players collided at the front of the net, and one player's skate
caught Sabres goalie Clint Malarchuk on the neck, slicing open his jugular vein,
which caused blood to start pouring from his neck onto the ice. Amazingly,
Malarchuk left the ice under his own power with the assistance of the team's
trainer. This incident did not only affect Malarchuck, but also affected the
spectators. Seven people in the stands fainted, two had heart attacks, and some
of his own teammates threw up on the ice.
Probably
one of the most knows horrific injuries comes from the 1985 NFL season where
Washington Redskins quarterback, Joe Theisman was hit by New York Giants’
Lawrence Taylor and suffered a compound fracture to the tibia which broke
through his skin. Taylor couldn’t believe his eyes when he saw the damage that
he did. Theisman was rolling around on the ground in horrendous pain while
Taylor is standing next to him jumping up and down, waiving his arms
frantically for the Redskins’ medical crew to come to Theisman’s aid.
These
injuries are terrible and are wished upon no one but this is sports, and these
things unfortunately happen. As a television broadcast, it is very hard to deal
with certain situations. The questions star to arise like, at what point is it
“okay” to show the injuries? Which injuries can be shown and which can’t? Are
you supposed to replay these horrific injuries? Does the audience have the
right to know what is going on? These are all the questions that broadcasts
have to be faced with when something horrific happens during a live event. In
the case of Kevin Ware, at halftime, Greg Gumbel and CBS decided that they
would not show the injury again. CBS Sports head, Sean McManus said, “We did
not try to highlight it. I think we did the right thing.” (Petchesky) He went
on to explain his reasoning by saying, “You have to use great judgment about what your audience can stomach and
what they must see. Actually, maybe more importantly, what they must not see.
We used to run into this in horse racing. Whenever a horse was injured and had
to be euthanized on the track, we tried to show where the injury happened. We
showed that one time and then we'd shoot the scene wide enough so no details
could be seen. I'm sure auto racing has the same protocol if a driver is
injured. It's all part of the production plan and camera meetings: What do and
don't we do if a catastrophic injury takes place.”
This brings me to my final thought.
How far do we want athletes to go for our entertainment? How do you think
television broadcast should handle these certain situations? As a viewer, do
you feel as if you should have the right to know and see everything that is
going on during these games whether it is right or wrong? Like I said earlier,
these situations are tricky but when these horrific injuries happen, there has
to be a point when the viewer deserves the right to know what is happening.
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with
Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
Petchesky,
Barry. "Two Replays, No Warning: How Broadcasters Handle Gruesome Injuries."
Deadspin. N.p., 1 Apr. 2013. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook
of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
Gill, I think you put it best when you wrote “television broadcasts are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” Showing serious injuries is a very tricky subject. It becomes a balance between the duty of the network to keep home viewers informed about what is going on, but not invading the player’s privacy or showing images that may be too grotesque for the program and its viewers. Either way, they will face some criticism.
ReplyDelete“In general terms, people view mediated sports because they expect positive emotional impacts from their viewing. These emotional reactions to sports programming are assumed to be dependent upon and governed by the affiliations—or affective dispositions—that viewers hold towards one (or both) of the competing teams” (Raney 315). Basically, people feel better while watching sports. People enjoy them, and expect to enjoy them. People create bonds to one or more teams, and find sports especially enjoyable when a team they like is playing. This is how we get these sports fanatics that yell at the TV and paint their entire bodies team colors. Because people get so attached to a team or player, I do think that it is important that viewers at home are informed by the broadcast media about what is going on in a game. And sometimes, an injury is a part of a game, unfortunately. It’s a sportscaster’s job to keep home viewers informed. In this case, its important to show the injuries.
However, broadcast media is regulated. There are certain restrictions on things they can and cannot show. After reading your post, my curiosity took over and I looked up footage from both Malarchuk’s and Ware’s games. I regret it, to say the least. Especially in Malarchuk’s case, I found the images to be startling. I can’t imagine how I would have reacted if I hadn’t been expecting it, like when watching the game live. In this case, I can see how it could be best to not show the injuries.
I think that a middle ground would be best for broadcast channels. I think the way that CBS handled Ware’s injury was acceptable. “On its halftime studio coverage, CBS was sensible. Host Greg Gumbel said there would be no replay -- "with the severity of that injury, we are not going to be showing it here”” (Hiestand 1). This way, they have informed viewers of the injury but not offended anyone by showing repeated images. Another tactic could be to show replays, but from a far enough angle where it doesn’t allow the viewer to see too many gross details, or to just show the athlete getting carried off, or the teammate’s reactions. That way, viewers know what has happened and can still see what is going on on the field or court, but not have to see offensive images.
As you said, injuries are an inevitable part of sports, and there isn’t really any correct or incorrect way to show them. I think that broadcasters just need to use their best judgment for the situation at hand.
by Heather Madore
Works Cited
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
Gill,
ReplyDeleteI think you pose an interesting question. As communications majors, we are taught to maintain a certain level of discretion when reporting death, injury, and other gruesome events. This is both for the respect of the hurt or dying individual, their families, and the audience. However, I disagree that injuries are unexpected. Athletes are aware of the risks of the sport. Athletes do not plan to be hurt during a game but they are aware that any minute they could be taken out by an opposing team member, land on their feet wrong, or that some freak accident might happen. Growing up as an athlete provides awareness of the risks of sports, and you become used to dealing with injuries. As a high school soccer and basketball player and now, as a runner, I suffered through stress fractures in my shins, concussions, torn ligaments, and ankle and knee problems. I have bled on the court, and I have seen teeth get knocked out of a teammate. I have even seen teammates get carried off the field and immediately taken to the hospital. This was just in high school. By the time athletes reach a competitive college or professional career they have been exposed to these situations are not oblivious to the risk.
Since athletes (and their families) are aware of the risks of injury, I think that it is okay to show injuries during live sporting events. However, I do not think that there should be playbacks of the occurrence. I think it is okay to show live views the immediate fall or injury and if the individual is able to get up and move off the court, track, field or rink. In the case of Kevin Ware’s injury, I believe CBS made the right call to show the initial occurrence and not repeat it again after halftime. The game is live. Why keep playing an event that happened earlier in the game? I know audiences (especially American audiences) seem to thrive on drama. In the article, “Why We Watch Mediated Sports,” Arthur A Raney writes: that a “source of the thrill experience when consuming mediated sports seems to be the perceived violence contained in the action… Enjoyment increase[s] with the degree of violence in each play.” Some people want to see the gore and violence of injury and the rough competition of games.
ReplyDelete(Part 2)
Particularly when providing coverage of live games, I think networks should keep the focus on the game and respect the injured individual as they attempt to recover or team medical staff figure out what is wrong. The audience may be verbally updated if necessary. That is how the people at the game are seeing the game. Therefore, that should be how people at home see it as well. Most viewers today have access to instant updates and playbacks of these situations if they choose by looking for content on the Internet. They do not need to see it again and again through the live action coverage.
In “CBS handles Kevin Ware injury with restraint” Michael Hiestand states: “CBS couldn't really avoid showing a replay of the injury, given that TV coverage should at least give viewers access to anything they'd see if they were in the stands. CBS aired the cringe-inducing replay twice. Kellogg stated the obvious, but it seemed appropriate: "You never want to see that."….And on the same day CBS was showing how to ably handle violent injuries, NBC was showing how they could be mishandled. NBC's NHL studio coverage Sunday included a slow-motion replay on Pittsburgh star Sidney Crosby Saturday literally getting his teeth knocked out by a flying puck” (CBS handles Kevin Ware injury with restraint”).
There certainly are gracious and appropriate ways to show viewers injuries and keep viewers up to date while they are at home. As I stated, people thrive on drama. But, there is a way to provide dramatic coverage while respecting the players. Hiestand writes: “But the CBS shots, from producer Mark Wolff and director Bob Fishman, seemed almost more compelling than replays of the injury itself. The closeups of seemingly mortified fans were jarring. The footage of Louisville coach Rick Pitino wiping away tears was a striking visual. And CBS followed the news, including showing Ware being driven away in an ambulance” (CBS handles Kevin Ware injury with restraint”). In cases of grievous injury and particularly when the outcome of the injury is unknown, it would be inappropriate to provide replay after replay. This action would show a lack of consideration for the player, the player’s family, the teams and the fans.
Work cited:
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
Luke Glockenberg
ReplyDeleteAs a huge sports fan I love seeing those big hits in football, players hitting a game winning shot in basketball, or even a no hitter in football. I’ve just been getting more into hockey in the past couple of years and man I love when the players will fight. Gill I never really asked myself the question you ask here. How far do we want athletes to go for our entertainment? It made me think about all the things that get me excited about watching sports. This is why I commented on your blog other then the fact that I am a die-hard Louisville fan and you mention Kevin Ware. Every year it seems that there is more of an entertainment aspect of sporting events. Whether its all the ads you see all over the stadium during a game, the tweets you read, or pictures you see right after or during the game, sometimes I feel like I’m watching the MTV movie awards and following Twitter. Today I think social media has a huge part in turning a big game into a entertainment. The players are becoming more and more like actors on a stage while fans are cheering them on to make the huge play. Gill I also wonder how television broadcasts should handle these situations? I don’t think there really is a clear answer right now.
A good example of how far we go for entertainment in sports is the Super Bowl. With the half time show, commercials, pretty much every social media outlet there is being used during the game, the Super Bowl has very much become a show. There are many patriotic commercials and signs of patriotism during the game. The national anthem before the game is always breath taking with the American flag stretching across the field and jets flying across the stadium. To me I don’t ask for this entertainment, I ask for the hard hits and a close game. Which we all didn’t see in this year’s game. I wanted to see Peyton Manning throw a few touchdowns. I also wanted to see Richard Sherman make big this and get an interception. What I am trying to say is yes we ask for entertainment, but we are also starting to get entertainment during a game that we don’t want.
According to the USA Today article CBS handles Kevin Ware injury with restraint Michael Hiestand writes, “After Ware went down, Kellogg and play-by-play announcer Jim Nantz quickly realized that it was time to largely shut up.” The injury was horrible and CBS didn’t know what to say or do. I don’t think Rick Pitino the Louisville head coach knew what to do to get his team together. We love seeing guys diving for the ball or trying to get a steal and that’s what Kevin Ware did however his leg snapped like a twig. I think everyone was in shock. I think as more of these events happen television broadcasts will have some type of protocol of what to do, while still entertaining us with there words during this hard to believe moment. (1)
Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports writes, “for entertainment theorists, selective exposure naturally extends to include media content that not only is congruous with prevailing attitudes, but that also presumably brings pleasure to the viewer.” This is true it’s not just what we want the players to do during the game, but we are also very interested in how we are entertained by the broadcasters themselves. We ask for a lot during games there’s never enough entertainment for us anymore with anything not just sports. It will be interesting to see how our generation as a society handles freak injuries and the things we ask out of athletes. (2)
1. Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
2. Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
Injuries when it comes to sports is such a delicate issue. Personally, I never like to see players get injured and when I really horrible ones on TV, I pray for no replays. But of course, the replays happen. I can understand this to a certain extent, because people need to see things at least twice to make sense of them, but everyone doesn’t need to be exposed to horrible injuries any more than that. After reading how CBS handled Kevin Ware’s injury, I actually give them a lot of credit. “on its halftime studio coverage, CBS was sensible. Host Greg Gumbel said there would be no replay – ‘with the severity of that injury, we are not going to be showing it here.’” (Hiestand, 2013). I think that as technology has gotten better and we have become aware of all of the injuries that sports really can make happen. As a result of this information, athletes wear much more protective gear now-a-days, which is good, but there are still freak injuries that are so brutal people can barely stand to watch.
ReplyDeleteI have recently been seeing a lot of articles about how the NFL has been trying to cover up long-term injuries by retired players. Apparently thousands of retired players have sued the NFL for their injuries. “Studies have repeatedly shown that N.F.L. players encounter dementia, Alzheimer’s and other neurological diseases with greater frequency than the general population” (Macur, 2014). Not only is it sad that these injuries happen in the first place, but it is also sad that the NFL tries to cover them up. After reading all of these facts I would never be comfortable with someone I know playing in the NFL and getting all of these terrible blows to the head that are more than likely going to have an effect on them later in life. There is a difference, though, in showing these NFL head injuries compared to other horrific injuries that occur. Head injuries sometimes don’t seem as bad because the players are wearing helmets, and almost always end up walking away from the injury. When a player breaks a bone or is actually bleeding, it is a lot harder to watch and I think these are the injuries that TV networks are concerned with showing. Injuries that wont matter until much later in life are apparently fine to show and replay as much as people could ever want.
I also believe that with social media today and sites like YouTube, TV Networks do not need to show injuries even more than once because of how fast it will be posted online. If someone really wants to see something, they will get a hold of it. I remember a few months ago there was a terrible injury in a UFC Fight between Anderson Silva and Chris Weidman. It was a pay-per-view fight and many people weren’t able to actually see it live, but when people found out the fight ended in a terrible broken leg to one of the fighters, everyone took to YouTube or Vine to see it. And it worked! I know my brother was looking up the injury and showed it to me on Vine.
People will continue to watch sports for the thrill, no matter how dangerous they are, and when a freak injury does occur, it’s all we can talk about, almost as if we enjoy it. One of the readings from this week talked about a study done to find out if violence made sports more enjoyable. “As predicted, enjoyment increased with the degree of violence in the play” (Raney, 2004). So, I really don’t think we will stop seeing replays of injuries on TV and we will continue to push athletes no matter what the consequences might be.
Works Cited
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
Macur, Juliet. "For a Cowboys Star With Dementia, Time Is Running Out." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
I really liked how specific your topic was and could tell you put time and effort into your post. This is something that I haven’t really thought about much myself, yet it is for sure something that needs to be addressed. I’m no professional that knows the rules and abilities television editors have with time and what they can cut out during a live showing of an event, but I can imagine there is some kind of time delay where they can cut it out if they believe it’s too graphic for television. With things such as nudity and inappropriate language, that is an easy decision to make and to cut out because that is universally unaccepted in live television. Although, when it comes to something such as a graphic injury, how do you make the call in say a 4 second time delay that it should be removed? I think that is very difficult for someone to do.
ReplyDeleteThe first example you pointed out of Kevin Ware will probably go down in history as one of the most graphic and well known sports injuries to date in my book. I wasn’t watching the game live so I didn’t witness it actually when it occurred, but with how easy it is for people to post and get videos to the public, I saw it within’ the hour of it happening on Facebook and YouTube. Also, there were two replays of it on CBS. I still cringe when I visualize his bone penetrating his skin. Although, I believe even though this was a brutal injury it still was rightfully shown. USA TODAY said it best that “CBS couldn't really avoid showing a replay of the injury, given that TV coverage should at least give viewers access to anything they'd see if they were in the stands (Hiestand 1).”
These painful to watch injuries are something that are rare which is why I think there are no serious restrictions or rules set in stone about them. I also think that since these games are being shown live they want to give the viewer a real experience without cutting anything out of it. It’s also something that as sports fans know is a possibility while watching professional athletes play contact sports. These injuries are obviously something that are not planned to happen and athletes know what they are signing their bodies up for by being athletes. They are well aware of the risk of getting seriously injured and how it is just a part of the game.
The viewers of sporting events are so diverse in age that it is not as though the majority of viewers are children and should not be shown these types of graphic injuries. My final thought is that I believe these injuries should not be cut out from a live showing of a sporting event and should be shown in their entirety. Even though it’s not nice to watch and can be tough on the eyes, it is part of the game.
Works cited
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
Gill,
ReplyDeleteNice job! I enjoyed reading your blog post. You brought up some great points on the topic of violence in sports and how they are broadcast. I have to agree with you that the line between too much and not enough is a thin one when it comes to showing gruesome injury in sports. I remember the Kevin Ware basketball injury vividly in my memory and actually had it replaying in my head as soon as you brought up the topic of sports injuries. In an article written by Michael Hiestand, he states that “After Ware went down, Kellogg and play-by-play announcer Jim Nantz quickly realized it was time to largely shut up. After the injury occurred with Louisville up 21-20 with 6:33 left in the first half, they wisely avoided speculating about how the game might be affected -- or what exactly had happened to Ware,” (Hiestand). I think this was a good move on the part of the broadcast team. The injury was horrifying and could have very easily turned the broadcast into a nightmare. While the broadcasters of the Louisville v. Duke game might have kept their cool, and tried their best to keep the audience focused on the game, millions of people still saw the injury footage and watched it over and over again. This is has to be largely because of things like YouTube. Its important to consider that in today’s world even if the media do not make a point to highlight an injury, people can and will find ways to see the footage.
Your blog goes on to talk about other instances of horrific injuries being presented on television. You specifically highlight the cases of Clint Malarchuk and Joe Theisman and both of these injuries are extremely hard to watch. Most viewers will cover their eyes, look away and make some sort of noise of discomfort or disgust while seeing an injury take place, but still people watch and seek out replays. It’s instances like this that make me think about sports as entertainment. Of course no one wants to see their favorite player or anyone for that matter in pain, but we still tune in and talk about crazy sport injuries. In an article titled “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports”, the author mentions, “more than any other reason, sports media consumers report tuning in to contests involving their favored teams with high expectations of being entertained,”(Raney). Sports are entertainment, and at the end of the day, are sports injuries entertaining to watch? It’s like the idea of horror movies; horror movies are not ‘pleasant’ to watch but people still find them to be extremely entertaining.
This is where I think your point of ‘how far do we want athletes to go for our entertainment’ comes in. A horror movie is scripted and no one actually gets hurt, a sporting event is live and injuries are real. Are sports becoming too violent? I’m not 100% sure on my answer to this question. I think that over broadcasting of sports injuries can maybe be seen as glorifying violence, but also sports are sports. Millions and millions of people play sports each day and sports do have a certain level of violence to them.
Your blog was very interesting and really got me thinking!
Kerri O'Keefe
ReplyDeleteWork Cited
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
I really liked your blog and how you looked at what happens when a traumatic injury occurs during a live sporting event. I had never heard of the hockey injury, but had seen both the breaking of Joe Thiemann’s leg and Kevin Ware’s shin. I thought that it was really interesting to look into the whys of media coverage when it comes to horrific and graphic injuries, because I do not think people really take the time to take a step back and consider the decisions these media outlets need to make on the fly.
ReplyDeleteIn the article on how CBS handled the injury of Kevin Ware during the Elite Eight game between Louisville and Duke, the author said that the announces realized they needed to “shut up.” Instead of focusing on the injury itself, they wanted the audience to look at the love being shown by Ware’s teammates as they collapsed on the court, (Hiestand). CBS also decided not to replay the injury during halftime. I thought this was a really good decision by the media. There were obviously going to be pictures and videos of Ware’s devastating injury all over the internet the next day. There was no need to replay this tragedy while families with young children were watching the game from the comforts of their home.
I was curious so I went to YouTube and started typing in Joe Thiemann’s name. Before I typed “H” a video entitled “Joe Thiemann’s Breaks Leg” appeared on the screen. When I did the same I typed in Kevin “W” and YouTube suggested “Kevin Ware Broken Leg.” I found this to be somewhat disturbing. Joe Thiemann was one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history and is video legacy is reduced to his career ending injury and montages of world’s worst sports injuries. Kevin Ware was a college kid, younger than us, and every time you search his name anywhere you are bombarded with images of probably the most traumatic injury he will ever incur in his life time.
Thinking about why America seems to be so entranced with the injuries of our greatest sports legends, the article about why we enjoy mediated sports made a good point. The author wrote, “Some acknowledge that the emotional highs and lows that occur during the course of a game or a match are part of the appeal,” (Raney 315). The injury of Kevin Ware gave a multitude of highs and lows on the emotion spectrum. The low game from the injury and pain suffered by Ware, the highs coming from seeing the love of his teammates and Louisville’s defeat of Duke in the wake of tragedy. American people love stories like this and we as media consumers feel the right to be a part of every aspect of the journey from beginning to end. Is this right? No one can really say. I definitely do not feel like this entitlement is going away, but I believe CBS headed in the right direction. Show it when it happens, but don’t replay for shock value.
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 315.
Hey Gill, I think this is a very interesting topic to cover. I agree that covering that kind of injury live is enough of a difficult situation to cover that even professionals with years of experience have trouble with it. I also think you raise some very interesting questions in the piece, like what do you think the audience can handle? What is tasteful to say and do when someone’s bone is sticking out of their leg? There’s no easy answer, I’m sure, and the way the CBS team covered the incident seemed like the most prudent and acceptable: restraint is key (Hiestand). What’s incredible to me is that in most of these situations, these sports announcers and the rest of the athletes in the game who weren’t injured need to continue afterward. The game must go on. So what do you do from there, if there’s still half a game left? Do you show replays and bring it up over and over, show the kid falling and in pain over and over? If the announcers were simply going over a play, a highlight, then it would be acceptable, even expected that they bring up the most important events and go over them occasionally during the free time they need to kill between plays, but if it’s an injured kid instead, and that’s the most important thing that has happened that game, is it still right to do that? At what point does it become exploitative, and for ratings?
ReplyDeleteI think there’s more situations like this regarding injuries that the businesses behind professional sports are willing to recognize. There was a massive debate just this past year on how dangerous it is to be a football player. Concussions in professional sports, especially football, have become a hot topic in the league, but there doesn’t seem to be much action behind it. It got to the point where even the president of the United States said in an interview that if he had a son, he would need to think twice before allowing him to play football. For the most part, we as a society know that concussions and head trauma are both terrible for your brain, that repeated injuries and concussions can negatively affect the cognitive functions of the player, that in the long run professional players are sacrificing their minds to play the sports they play, and that if you look at this situation in terms of youth athletics, something like playing football can be disastrous to the kids that play, especially those that play at a very young age. Some say this is hyperbolic, another case of society coddling everyone, and who knows, there might be merit to that, although I think it’s more likely a case that the business of professional football, which makes hundreds of millions of dollars off these players and new players, are refusing to take these injuries seriously because it make lose them money. I even understand viewers hesitation to address the issue, there is a large emotional investment for many people in their favorite sports and athletes. In fact, there are dozens of reasons to love sports: they’re motivating, there’s a community in it, it’s entertaining, etc. (Raney).But I think there’s a strange parallel between the horrific injuries we see on the field sometimes and the head injuries that the players accumulate over time. Announcers are afraid to address it directly, for fear fans can’t handle it, but it’s there, right off screen. I agree that when there is a horrible bloody injury live in front of cameras, we should pan away, have restraint. But when numerous medical studies show long term brain damage in professional athletes, we need to be less afraid to look right at the problem and attack it. I’m not saying get rid of sports or don’t let your kid play or anything like that, that is too extreme. But there must be some way we can have the same sports we love without sacrificing the brains of the people we love to see play them.
DeleteWorks Cited
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 9 April 2013. Web.
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
According to Arthur A. Raney, “Teams and players unify and divide communities and nations. They generate billions of dollars in advertising revenue and merchandising sales. And they arouse feelings of euphoria and despair among their loyal fans” (Raney). Sports have become an integral part of American life and media today, so I found this to be an extremely relevant topic.
ReplyDeleteI am currently taking the course Sports, Media, and Society where we recently focused on violence in sports and the media’s portrayal of that violence. We even watched an ESPN documentary about the catastrophic injuries that NFL players have been faced with due to their years of commitment to the sport. One of the main reasons fans are drawn to certain sports like football is because of this violence. Many of us find violence entertaining, and we want to watch players body-check and tackle each other as a means of winning a game. In the case of football, the public might not always see the damage being done to the players. For example, concussions are probably the most prevalent injuries and have even caused tremendous brain damage and impairment in the lives of football stars such as the Pittsburgh Steelers’ Mike Webster. Over the years, however, the media has had to acknowledge the gruesome injuries that are actually visible to the public. You mentioned several great examples of sports injuries that shocked everyone in the stands and at home. The question remains, how should television broadcasts handle these situations?
I personally believe that the public has a right to know about the injury, but that does not necessarily mean that they have to actually witness the gore. No one can really predict if an accident is going to happen in sports on live television, so I do not think there is a problem if the camera happens to catch it as it happens. This is essentially the same as what the crowd in the stadium or arena would see. However, if an injury is as gruesome as a bone broken through the skin or a throat being slit, I believe the network should refrain from airing replays and close-up footage. Broadcasters could tell the public what has occurred and show other shots of the game or the crowd’s reactions, as CBS did in the case of Kevin Ware. They could even shoot the scene at a wider or far away angle so as to let the viewers know what is happening without displaying the severity of the injury. If they are going to choose to replay the accident, the network should do so at the viewers' discretion and at least give a fair warning about the extent of the injury.
While these precautions may be taken on live television, CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus accurately acknowledged that “no one can control what footage will rattle around in cyberspace” (Hiestand). I personally can relate to this. When I first heard about the NHL game between the St. Louis Blues and Buffalo Sabres where Clint Malarchuk’s throat was slit by another player’s skate, I was both horrified and intrigued. I ended up searching for the replay on YouTube simply because I could not believe it until I saw it happen. Watching it was terrifying, but it proves my first point that sometimes the public wants to see the violent side of sports. Therefore, I think precautions should always be taken on live television with such a large audience, but viewers should have access to the content if they choose.
Works Cited:
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
This was a very interesting blog, Gill. I never really thought about what broadcasters of sporting events have to deal with when a player has an injury. Typically when something unexpected happens that doesn’t include an injury, broadcasters know how to deal with it and if it is positive of course it is going to be shown and replayed over and over again. But you are right, handling a gruesome injury, especially on live TV, could be very tricky. Where do you draw the line? Many viewers may want to see the injury out of curiosity and some may get an upset stomach if they see such an injury. It depends on the viewer.
ReplyDeletePrograms have a responsibility when it comes to making their viewers happy. Injuries are tricky because like I said before, not EVERYONE wants to see a horrific injury. I remember seeing the picture of Kevin Ware’s fracture circulating the Internet after that game. It was like a train wreck, I couldn’t seem to look away, but I am just one person who doesn’t mind seeing injuries. It really just depends on the severity of the injury to me. After reading the quote from the article “CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint,” I got an idea of hard it can be to broadcast something like that. The quote from Clark Kellogg stated that Ware’s injury left game coverage “in totally uncharted territory for everybody in the building, for players, for us.” This is clearly something that no one in the building has seen during a game. The injury was so gruesome that they did not even know how to go about showing it. The article also states that after the injury occurred with Louisville up 21-20 with 6:33 left in the first half, they wisely avoided speculating about how the game might be affected-or what had happened to Ware. They instead spoke sparingly with announcer Jim Nantz suggesting that we “look at the love on this team for their fallen teammate.” As he said this, viewers were shown shots of Ware’s distraught teammates. I thought this was a good tactic because you were able to still see how severe the injury was without actually seeing it. Even though CBS couldn’t really avoid showing a replay of the injury, they didn’t overdo it because you have to take into consideration the people who do not wish to see such an injury.
According to the article “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” mediated sports generate billions of dollars in advertising revenue and merchandising sales and they also arouse feelings of euphoria and despair among their loyal fans. Seeing such a horrific injury such as Kevin Ware’s obviously struck people’s heartstrings and they felt bad for him. In my opinion, I think that the viewers of these sports do have a right to see everything that is going on during these games, but when it comes to unexpected injuries I think the programs need to respect that there are many people who don’t want to see severe injuries and instead of replaying it 4 times, maybe limit it to one or two. It all comes down to entertainment, and sports are entertainment.
Works Cited
Raney, Arthur A. “Why We Watch and Enjoy Mediated Sports,” Handbook of Sports Studies, Jay Coakley and Eric Dunning, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008: 313 - 29.
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 1 April 2013. Web.
Gill,
ReplyDeleteLike stated before I think you hit the nail on the head when you stated that “television broadcasts are damned if they do and damned if they don’t”. Injuries are bound to happen no matter what sport and the devastating injuries are in the same categories. I think in a way the public has a fascination with them, just like when there is a fatal accident on a highway. Just because people don’t want to look, doesn’t mean they won’t. This is where broadcasters I think are dammed, in that they may make the moral decision to no re-air the injury doesn’t mean that they can control the footage once it has reached the internet. Like CBS Sports head, Sean McManus stated, “We did not try to highlight it. I think we did the right thing” (Petchesky). On the other hand there is a judgment call besides moral to be held that these broadcast stations need to make on what is too gruesome to show over and over again and what will gain them more numbers when it comes to audience ratings. Within the same article, Sean McManus went on to say “You have to use great judgment about what your audience can stomach and what they must see. Actually, maybe more importantly, what they must not see” ( Petchesky). The other factor that comes into these two large judgment calls is that they have to remember that live programming is popular with any age range and that the possibility that children are part of the viewing age range is a high possibility. The media industry itself, as we are all familiar with is slow to accept change and rocky in uncharted territory. Within a USA Today’s article, “CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury With Restraint” saying that after the injury happened, the game coverage was left “in totally uncharted territory for everybody in the building, for players, for us"(Heistand). I believe that this itself is a large topic of debate, because though even the most gruesome injuries have happened previously and have been aired on live television, the way in which the industry has developed as well as with the internet is that finding the line between an injury and a gruesome injury. Though there doesn’t seem as though we are anywhere closer to a balance of any sort but atleast it is being brought to light and the questions of morals is being brought into the spot light.
Works cited:
Hiestand, Michael. "CBS Handles Kevin Ware Injury with Restraint," USA Today 9 April 2013. Web.
Petchesky, Barry. "Two Replays, No Warning: How Broadcasters Handle Gruesome Injuries." Deadspin. N.p., 1 Apr. 2013. Web. 9Apr. 2014