Seeing Kevin Ware break his leg in last night's Louisville vs. Duke game was painful. What was more painful was the fact that the replay was aired multiple times following the injury. From a sport communication viewpoint, was it appropriate to show the replay or should it have been stopped sooner?
Part of me says it should not have been replayed a single time. It was a very graphic and grusome injury given the fact his bone actually protruded from his leg. You also don't want to become the station that highlights a college athlete being injured as a form of entertainment.
However, it happened. The audience is interested. What if the viewer was up getting a drink and game back to their television and the game was on hold with players crying and stretchers - shouldn't they get to know and see what happened? Ware wasn't being violated and it wasn't a violent foul or anything. If someone doesn't want to see it, shouldn't they just turn their head?
Overall, my opinion is that after the first replay (at that point the station probably wasn't even sure what happened yet), the clips should have been stopped. I think this just because how graphic the break was and a college athlete doesn't need that replayed 100 times on national television.
What do you all think?
--Jayme
You have to show the injury. It's a part of your broadcast. However, ESPN never showed it. If you weren't watching the game you never saw the injury. I know it's gruesome but there are a lot of people that may have wanted to see it that did not view the game live. I vicious hit in a football game that could end a player's career is shown over and over again but this was never shown other than the original replay at the game.
ReplyDelete