I’m sure you’ve all heard about the recent tragedy that occurred at the Winter Olympics on February 12th when 21 year old luger Nodar Kumaritashvili of the republic of Georgia passed away during his final trial run. Evidently, various athletes have complained about the speed of the course because it continues dropping all the way to the end where as other courses flatten out before reaching the bottom. Just to give you an idea of the speed’s reached at the Whistler Sliding Center a new world record speed was recorded at Whistler on February 21, 2009, when a men’s luger reached 95 mph during competition. Before this, American luger Tony Benshoof held the world record at a speed of 86.8 mph which he set in 2001.
Kumaritashvili crashed and was thrown into the air out of the track where he struck a steel pole on his last turn and was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. The video of his crash is extremely gruesome and I find most news coverage of his crash particularly controversial due to how graphic it is. I searched through a variety of news stations websites and I found that very few were professional regarding the incident. MTV for example has a photograph of Kumaritashvili laying lifeless on the ground after the crash with a pool of blood around his head. (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1631877/20100212/story.jhtml) Do you believe that this image is newsworthy and that it should have been posted? I then found that CNN had an image very similar on their website, however they had been sure to angle the camera so that the photograph would not have blood in it. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/02/12/olympic.luge.crash/index.html)
On MSNBC’s website I then found a slideshow with 27 images of Kumaritashvili before the crash, images of him in the air, an image of medical staff working on him and then images of people mourning his loss. (http://www.nbcolympics.com/photos/galleryid=412282.html#photos)
I also found that CBS had posted a video of the crash on their website which was shown up until he hit the pole and was laying motionless. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6202459n) Do you believe that it was professional for CBS to air the crash video as well as to post it on their website?
I read that in order to minimize harm and be professional in cyberjournalism that journalists must, “Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief” (Baran & Davis 121) Do you feel that MTV minimized harm when posting the photograph of Kumaritashvili with a pool of blood? What do you think that MTV could have done differently? During the time when yellow journalism was prevalent, the majority of media professionals cared little about public sensitivity then the concept of professionalism in the media came to be and its goal was to eliminate shoddy and irresponsible content.(Baran & Davis 97) When it comes to the news coverage of Kumaritashvili’s deathly crash, do you believe that no images or videos should have been aired or posted on news websites? Do you believe that any of the four news stations whose websites I posted above were responsible with their coverage of this story? Does anyone have any other news stations reports of Kumaritashvili’s death that they recall that were even more graphic?
We all know that every organization that isn’t non-profit, aims its efforts at making money which is exactly what these news stations are doing. “News organizations are driven economically to capture the largest possible audience, and thus not to turn it off with whatever does turn it off—coverage that is too contro-versial, too demanding, too disturbing” (McQuail 173) Do you believe that the majority of people would turn off news coverage that is extremely graphic such as some news stations graphic video coverage or images of Kumaritashvili’s crash as this quote implies? Also, do you believe that the crash video itself, with no close up of Kumaritashvili’s lifeless bloody body is professional to show? And, can you think of any other news stories that you feel the news should have been more sensitive with?
Olivia brings up a very valid point in her blog regarding media professionalism when a touchy subject such as death is concerned. When does it become too much or in this case, unnecessary? We are a society that has a “deep interest in the free flow of information, and thereby a free press.” [Rourke qtd. in McQuail, 162] However this case raises several issues given that it is a personal matter. I am up in the air when it comes to the media’s decision to air factual, yet horrifying content. On one hand, I was shocked when I saw the video of his death on television, as probably was everyone else. I had first seen it on NBC where the broadcasters gave a detailed account of the Georgian’s death. I found nothing wrong with this—it was respectful and an essential choice to discuss how and why it happened. The public would have complained if they did not. However, they then showed a complete video before and after the crash occurred. Not only did it show the video, but they replayed it in slow motion and then lingered on his motionless body. That, in my opinion, was unnecessary. It was disrespectful not only to Kumaritashvili, but to his family and his teammates. It was not as if he was in an accident and then was going to stand up on his two feet and give the run another go. This young man was dying. A photograph and description of his death was necessary to inform the public and explain the situation, but the decision to show the video was pointless. This idea of free speech that is embedded in our society does not only “imply a right to publish where [and what] one chooses” [McQuail, 180], but to do so in an ethical manner. McQuail’s notion of “responsible journalism” falls directly under this incident—the luger’s story did deserve much coverage, yet all networks could have approached it in another way when broadcasting it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, “professional standards can be difficult to implement and enforce.” [Baran & Davis, 110] As Baran and Davis take into consideration, these “standards” [if there are any] are unclear, and because they are unclear, it becomes extremely difficult to differentiate between necessary coverage and unnecessary coverage. I cannot say the media had no right to show footage of Kumaritashvili’s death and then turn around say an event like September 11 for example, should be. How is it really any different? People could question whether it was appropriate to show excessive amounts of footage of the plane crashing into the building or mangled bodies in the rubble. I recall seeing people throwing themselves off of buildings to their death. I did not see them die, but one can assume the outcome of that jump. Then take another extreme example—Suddam Hussein’s execution. We saw the noose tied around the man’s throat. We saw his lifeless body covered in a white cloth after it was completed. In the end, whether or not we agree with this sort of coverage, the media is a business. If NBC did not show the video of the Olympian’s death than some other network would have [which Olivia pointed out with the various examples]. Is the media’s job to tip toe around these sorts of issues, or is their job to simply provide the information, raw and uncut? Their essential job is after all to relay the news to us and these horrific depictions, whether we want to see it or not, is the news.
Michelle Kokot
I think that it has become very clear in today’s society that the news media has one sole purpose: to sell papers or garner viewers and, in turn, sell advertising space. Any convictions held by journalists seem to fly out the window for a story that will sell. Baran and Davis write, “during the era of yellow journalism, most media professionals cared very little for the niceties of accuracy, objectivity, and public sensitivities,” (Baran and Davis 97). The authors claim that since then, the media has cleaned up and become more respectable, however, like Olivia, I am not totally convinced, as is evident in the tragic case of Nodar Kumaritashvili.
ReplyDeleteMr. Kumaritashvili’s crash is one of the saddest, most gruesome occurrences at an Olympic games since the bombings in Atlanta in 1996. In his case, almost every single media outlet was culpable of exploiting the tragedy for ratings by either posting graphic photographs of the aftermath, like Fox, or showing the actual video, like CBS.
One could mention the public’s right to know as a defense for the publishing of the graphic photographs and videos. While I admit that this rule exists, there is a limit to what the public needs to know. We have a right to know that on February 12th, at a certain time in Vancouver, Nodar Kumaritashvili died in a luge accident when, due to a questionable track, he was launched from his luge into a metal pole at speeds upward of 88 miles per hour. However, the pictures and video that were not even fit for his family members to see do not fall under this “public’s right to know” and were completely and totally inappropriate and disrespectful.
Denis McQuail mentions that reporters maintain that they “operate in the public interest,” (McQuail 165). In this example, that was definitely not the case. Who truly needed to see a dead luger lying in a pool of his own blood? I certainly didn’t and I refuse to look at it willingly. In this situation, the media acted only in their own interest, sensationalizing a sad, tragic story by over-publicizing details in an effort to boost readers and ratings.