I think the decision was wrong, and likely due to an unnecessary (IMO) rush to get a video story out.
You couldn't jury rig a simulation clip? You had to watch the actual injury? Show a clip of the curve in question and use a telestrator to point out where he hit and went over. Maybe it would take a little time to put together, but you can have a ticker notice or brief breaking news read to address the main story (athlete dead in training run) and give the details later. I don't agree about the baseball example, in part because I think it hard to see a situation where showing the footage of getting hit in the head would add significant information to the story. And I have a hard time seeing any situation where that would actually be broadcast after the live coverage of the game was halted. Same with those few unfortunate boxing matches where a fighter died. I'm basing this next point off of watching various clips of sports and related injuries shown on late night talk shows (Shawn White's recent face plant was a minor scrape, but there was at least one X-Games style stunt on Letterman that led to a more serious injury, Coco's head going bonk on the studio floor), so I may be missing some relevant outlets. I do not recall any footage of an athlete being injured that was shown without said person (or host, in the case of Conan and his concussion) after they had recovered from said injury. And these were events that were intended to be broadcast live to tape. This man deserved no less. If the Georgian Olympic Committee or other local authorities raise a stink, I won't blame them. In other words, mainstream media, don't be those police chase video shows. ________________________________ From: PGage <[email protected]> I am getting a lot of email from friends and acquaintances about this tonight, but I am not understanding it. Speaking only of NBC's coverage, I don't see much to criticize. Brian Williams introduced the footage, and warned the audience it would be difficult to watch. But I can't imagine NBC not showing the footage if a baseball player was killed by a pitch that hit his head, for example. Particularly in this case, where there are questions about the nature of the track (there were lots of concerns expressed in advance that the track was too dangerous) it is clearly part of the story to show how the accident happened, and if it is unreasonably hard. This is what justifies showing it three times in rapid succession (but slow motion) so people could begin to understand what had happened. The video was not bloody (except I think for the shot of the attempt to revive the athlete with CPR). While tragic, and very difficult, this decision to show the video does not seem like a particularly difficult judgment call to me at all. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
