Cameras lingering on the aftermath of accidents: Informative and Reassuring, or Tasteless and Unnecessary?

[pastronef]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775911403938894148

View: https://twitter.com/BenjiNaesen/status/1775911403938894148

 

[noob]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775911403938894148

View: https://twitter.com/BenjiNaesen/status/1775911403938894148

I really don't agree with Benji today. We're all here watching it complaining about it airing. I can't even fathom the irony in that. Be real plz

 

[AnotherArmChair]

It's not like people have 0 agency and anyone is forcing them to watch at gunpoint.

Exactly

If you dont want to watch turn off the TV
Too many holier than thou people out there inc ES comms with their view on what is an isn't appropriate for me to see and yet they broadcast it ?

How many times have we seen them broadcast something and tell us again and again they dont want us to see it .....
Change the screen, easily done technically ..go to black

but for the love of God stop telling me what to watch when you are showing it to me and then saying how you dont want me to see it

If I were a relative I would want to see as nothing worse than not knowing and ones imagination can be worse

 

[Rackham]

I absolutely agree with showing us images. I want to know who is okay & the best way to see that is via the tv images. Yes there's a 'risk' someone could be in a critical condition but the contrary, i.e. withholding the images & leaving everyone watching in the dark, is worse.

 

[Sciatic]

I think there is a wrong, and is Hansen's view. The only people that matter in these situations are close relatives and I imagine most would want to see how their loved ones are. The fact that the rest of us are also seeing it is irrelevant.

I personally don’t like to see that stuff—but I can control what I look at. Broadcasting bike races, though you could say it’s part of the entertainment industry, is still a type of sports journalism. As I think we’re all painfully aware from watching godawful images from Ukraine, Gaza, Haiti, etc., the boundaries on what the proprietors of journalism (broadcasting companies, media outlets, social media) are now willing to show on screen is dramatically different from decades ago. One can debate whether it’s a good idea the show the harsh realities of life or keep them partially hidden, but showing more details of tragedy is becoming the norm, so it’s hard (in my view) to call today’s coverage outlandish or horribly disrespectful.

 

[noob]

I personally don’t like to see that stuff—but I can control what I look at. Broadcasting bike races, though you could say it’s part of the entertainment industry, is still a type of sports journalism. As I think we’re all painfully aware from watching godawful images from Ukraine, Gaza, Haiti, etc., the boundaries on what the proprietors of journalism (broadcasting companies, media outlets, social media) are now willing to show on screen is dramatically different from decades ago. One can debate whether it’s a good idea the show the harsh realities of life or keep them partially hidden, but showing more details of tragedy is becoming the norm, so it’s hard (in my view) to call today’s coverage outlandish or horribly disrespectful.

It's also that in the past without internet tragedies in details were often shown as long as the victim was from Africa. South America, Middle east, Asia or somewhere else the western world didn't relate to.

(journalist degree hat on)

 

[Brullnux]

It's not like people have 0 agency and anyone is forcing them to watch at gunpoint.

Most broadcasters, in the UK at least, have fairly strict rules around showing sporting injuries (there was, rightly, a lot of criticism of UEFA after Eriksen's heart attack, when they started filming Eriksen's crying wife). But it will always depend on a subjective decision re what is insensitive.

I think the clearly better option is for better communication between race organiser, broadcasters, and commentators. I don't think many people would say close-ups of riders unconscious on the floor lying still helps anyone. I personally think today's coverage, at points, crossed a line, and from my knowledge of UK broadcasting rules is unlikely to have been shown. Of course, I am biased because this is the media context I have grown up in. I appreciate that others will have a different perspective.

 

[noob]

Most broadcasters, in the UK at least, have fairly strict rules around showing sporting injuries (there was, rightly, a lot of criticism of UEFA after Eriksen's heart attack, when they started filming Eriksen's crying wife). But it will always depend on a subjective decision re what is insensitive.

I think the clearly better option is for better communication between race organiser, broadcasters, and commentators. I don't think many people would say close-ups of riders unconscious on the floor lying still helps anyone. I personally think today's coverage, at points, crossed a line, and from my knowledge of UK broadcasting rules is unlikely to have been shown. Of course, I am biased because this is the media context I have grown up in. I appreciate that others will have a different perspective.

crying wife means the wife is there and can watch it. That's the whole point of our arguing

 

[Rackham]

Most broadcasters, in the UK at least, have fairly strict rules around showing sporting injuries (there was, rightly, a lot of criticism of UEFA after Eriksen's heart attack, when they started filming Eriksen's crying wife). But it will always depend on a subjective decision re what is insensitive.

I think the clearly better option is for better communication between race organiser, broadcasters, and commentators. I don't think many people would say close-ups of riders unconscious on the floor lying still helps anyone. I personally think today's coverage, at points, crossed a line, and from my knowledge of UK broadcasting rules is unlikely to have been shown. Of course, I am biased because this is the media context I have grown up in. I appreciate that others will have a different perspective.

A few years ago an F1 driver crashed hard at Silverstone on the first corner of the race. Sky went 'dark' with their coverage & no one had any idea what the hell was happening, i.e. many people even expected the worst & stuff was spread on social media to that effect. It turned out he was fine.

I don't think that sort of obfuscation helps anyone. Especially today in Itzulia because we actually witnessed the crash happen live & not via a replay.

It would have been terrible to watch them all crash & then 'curtains closed, nothing to see here folks'.

 

[zlev11]

A few years ago an F1 driver crashed hard at Silverstone on the first corner of the race. Sky went 'dark' with their coverage & no one had any idea what the hell was happening, i.e. many people even expected the worst & stuff was spread on social media to that effect. It turned out he was fine.

I don't think that sort of obfuscation helps anyone. Especially today in Itzulia because we actually witnessed the crash happen live & not via a replay.

It would have been terrible to watch them all crash & then 'curtains closed, nothing to see here folks'.

its always much worse to not see anything. nascar did something even worse a few years ago when ryan newman crashed in the daytona 500. it took them hours to even say if he was conscious or not and everyone was assuming the worst. he walked out of the hospital the next morning without a scratch on him.

 

[search]

A few years ago an F1 driver crashed hard at Silverstone on the first corner of the race. Sky went 'dark' with their coverage & no one had any idea what the hell was happening, i.e. many people even expected the worst & stuff was spread on social media to that effect. It turned out he was fine.

I don't think that sort of obfuscation helps anyone. Especially today in Itzulia because we actually witnessed the crash happen live & not via a replay.

it's difficult to find the right balance. Today it was too much, I think.

But personally, I still see the image of Wouter Weylandt dead on the road, for example, even if it was only a brief shot of the accident.

 

[ashhutch1997]

it's difficult to find the right balance. Today it was too much, I think.

But personally, I still see the image of Wouter Weylandt dead on the road, for example, even if it was only a brief shot of the accident.

Agreed.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

But personally, I still see the image of Wouter Weylandt dead on the road, for example, even if it was only a brief shot of the accident.

I have that image in my head, too, and it felt like it was on screen for much longer than it actually was.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

Most broadcasters, in the UK at least, have fairly strict rules around showing sporting injuries (there was, rightly, a lot of criticism of UEFA after Eriksen's heart attack, when they started filming Eriksen's crying wife). But it will always depend on a subjective decision re what is insensitive.

I don't know what it has to do with UEFA. The director was just doing his job, nobody forced the broadcasters to show the pictures. They could have switched to studio or whatever.
But of course everyone has milked the tragedy and hide behind that they don't have control over the footage that's being shown...

As for today's incident, seeing that the riders were conscious and moving their body parts, there was no problem with the helicopter pictures in my opinion.

A few years ago an F1 driver crashed hard at Silverstone on the first corner of the race. Sky went 'dark' with their coverage & no one had any idea what the hell was happening, i.e. many people even expected the worst & stuff was spread on social media to that effect. It turned out he was fine.

That has nothing to do with Sky. F1 only has one global feed and the policy there is that they don't show a replay and they don't show the scene until they have proof that the driver is alive and well.

 

[Gratemans]

it's difficult to find the right balance. Today it was too much, I think.

But personally, I still see the image of Wouter Weylandt dead on the road, for example, even if it was only a brief shot of the accident.

This. I can totally get Arensman's dads take for example. But then I think of WW and I'm like 'nope, dont need to see something like that again'.
Although one could argue that was a different situation. It was very clear in a split second that that was very, very serious and the director should have cut away immediately. Today definitely wasn't that obvious (or horrific), so I have less of a problem with them showing it.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

I don't care who's fault it is. It's daft either way.

Imagine if Ayrton Senna's crash had received the same tv broadcast blackout? Everyone would have been clinging to various unsubstantiated rumors about his condition. In fact in his case, TF1 (French broadcaster) did initially say he was conscious & responding to the medical team about an hour later. But since everyone had seen the images there was some doubt which turned out to be sadly (& tragically) correct.

If you have a fetish about watching people die, then I understand that you think it's daft. But for normal people it's acceptable not to see pictures of a crash where it's not certain the driver will survive.

And how often do you watch F1? Every 30 years? F1 didn't stay in 1994, a lot has changed since then. If something really bad happens, like Bianchi's crash in Japan, someone from the FIA comes out and explains what's going on. Or are you one of those sick people who would have loved to watch from 20 camera angles in super slow motion as his head is smashed at +200km/h on a tractor?

If something has a happy ending, like Grosjean's crash, can't you wait 10 minutes to see a living person jump out of the flames?

 

[jaylew]

What's his take?

https://twitter.com/mwarensman

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775906911134663082

View: https://x.com/mwarensman/status/1775906911134663082

 

[RedheadDane]

https://twitter.com/mwarensman

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775906911134663082

View: https://x.com/mwarensman/status/1775906911134663082

And that's the problem.
Sometimes, having pictures can be a good thing; if they show signs of life.
Other times, having pictures can be a bad thing; if they show no signs of life.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to know which is which.

 

[Volderke]

And that's the problem.
Sometimes, having pictures can be a good thing; if they show signs of life.
Other times, having pictures can be a bad thing; if they show no signs of life.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to know which is which.

I saw every rider giving signs of life. Vingegaard was mostly motionless but he moved his left arm and there was someone talking to him, so that was kind of reassuring. If Vingegaard didn't move at all and something very bad was happening, I agree those images would have been too much.

 

[RedheadDane]

I saw every rider giving signs of life. Vingegaard was mostly motionless but he moved his left arm and there was someone talking to him, so that was kind of reassuring. If Vingegaard didn't move at all and something very bad was happening, I agree those images would have been too much.

I didn't mean when you're looking at the pictures - I have often found myself starring at the screen, hoping that a crashed rider would at least wiggle his pinky finger - but whether or not the result of a crash should even be filmed/broadcast.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

There's a huge spectrum between the strawman you present here (i.e. ghoulish up close shots of macabre death) & what amounts to essentially censoring the broadcast & treating the paying public like children, which is what modern F1 does (& it's what some people are advocating for re cycling broadcasts).

I'm not a child. I don't appreciate being treated as one, nor do I appreciate being labelled 'ghoulish' just for wanting to be kept in the loop. I basically don't need self-proclaimed moralists censoring my tv feed on the basis they're doing it for my own good.

I don't know if you're a troll or just really stupid. But I think I've had enough of this forum for a while.

There is no censorship in F1, if there is any kind of crash the first question from the race engineer is "are you OK" and if the driver answers "yes" there is an immediate replay. 99.999% of the time this happens.

If there is no response, I think that is a valid reason not to show the scene until they get positive confirmation from the medical team about the driver's well-being.

It's not about whether you're a child or an adult. It's about respect the driver and his family.

 

[JPM London]

I have that image in my head, too, and it felt like it was on screen for much longer than it actually was.

It's obviously been a while by now, but my memory is they returned to showing WW lying there completely still again and again. And I also remember lingering and zooming, and the commentator going along the lines of "please stop filming now". Maybe it was not as long as we feel, but it was most definitely not just one, short clip either...

Yeah but the biggest performance enhancing athletic effect comes at around 6mg/kg, which can end up at 500+mg of caffeine depending on your size. That's around six espressos, which in some sports is taken all at once, and in others at whatever rate is needed to keep the requisite amount in your bloodstream.

It's a lot more than your average Joe in an office or on a site.

Or two cappuccinos from Pret apparently. So for this average office Joe that could easily be before even arriving at the office...

And that's the problem.
Sometimes, having pictures can be a good thing; if they show signs of life.
Other times, having pictures can be a bad thing; if they show no signs of life.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to know which is which.

While it's impossible to make every viewer happy, I don't think it's impossible to focus on what could be argued to be the constructive and clarifying images, and avoid too many of the unnecessary ones. Specifically, it's possible to choose which images to show multiple times and which not to repeat.

 

[RedheadDane]

While it's impossible to make every viewer happy, I don't think it's impossible to focus on what could be argued to be the constructive and clarifying images, and avoid too many of the unnecessary ones. Specifically, it's possible to choose which images to show multiple times and which not to repeat.

Of course, there's no need to repeatedly show a rider who's clearly unresponsive - like the example with Weylandt - however, well... in that case that first brief shot would have been enough for his family to have known that something was very wrong.

Eating the coffee using a spoon or eating the spoons???

The first.

(This post is very... emotionally confusing.)

 

[postmanhat]

Most broadcasters, in the UK at least, have fairly strict rules around showing sporting injuries (there was, rightly, a lot of criticism of UEFA after Eriksen's heart attack, when they started filming Eriksen's crying wife). But it will always depend on a subjective decision re what is insensitive.

I think the clearly better option is for better communication between race organiser, broadcasters, and commentators. I don't think many people would say close-ups of riders unconscious on the floor lying still helps anyone. I personally think today's coverage, at points, crossed a line, and from my knowledge of UK broadcasting rules is unlikely to have been shown. Of course, I am biased because this is the media context I have grown up in. I appreciate that others will have a different perspective.

Football and cycling are different though, as viewing experiences. As a Luton FC fan was crying when Lockyer collapsed on the pitch earlier this year, and was glad when the cameras turned away. But there were 12,000 people in the stadium so his family would have been kept up to date on what was happening.

That is not possible in cycling. The TV pictures are the best/only way for close relatives to be informed. The rest of us obviously have the option to look away.

 

[LesDiablesRouges]

Football and cycling are different though, as viewing experiences. As a Luton FC fan was crying when Lockyer collapsed on the pitch earlier this year, and was glad when the cameras turned away. But there were 12,000 people in the stadium so his family would have been kept up to date on what was happening.

That is not possible in cycling. The TV pictures are the best/only way for close relatives to be informed. The rest of us obviously have the option to look away.

Up the Madhatters