1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No blimp over Jacksonville for MNF

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by bigpern23, Dec 7, 2011.

  1. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    And, yet, ESPN aired multiple overhead shots of the city. And of Charlotte, NC, just for kicks, apparently.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/ESPN-confuses-new-Jacksonville-with-old-Jacksonv?urn=nfl-wp13393

    Unbelievable. I know it was a shit game, but they really used file footage and tried to pass of as live footage. They really don't have ANY journalistic standards there, do they?

    EDIT: Just noticed a mention of this on the NFL thread, but I think it could use it's own thread. If the mods disagree, feel free to kill it.
     
  2. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

  3. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Hate to break it to everyone, but those scenic shots you see of cities during a game are not live. True for every network.

    Feel free to go on with the tired "ESPN is the devil" schtick, but this happens on one level or another in every single broadcast you watch.

    No excuse for showing the wrong city, though.
     
  4. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    People in Jacksonville were having a complex before the game about Stuey Scott and Co. staying back in Bristol instead of traveling to town, as they have for virtually every other MNF game. I'm sure the Charlotte shots went over just as well.
     
  5. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    I have no idea if that's true, but if it is, it doesn't mean it's right. If I run a file photo with a story in the newspaper, I identify it as a file photo.

    If they are presenting the images in a live context (in other words, not during some montage or kid's wish story), the networks should identify it as file footage. Period.
     
  6. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    But what about when Brent Musberger announces, "You are looking live ...?"
     
  7. This is what I had pretty much always assumed was the case almost every time, and it in no way offends me or surprises me.
     
  8. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Broadcasting an event is not in any way analogous to being a newspaper covering a sporting event. Entirely different goals, different styles, different mediums.
     
  9. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    They are covering a live event and portraying it as live. If it is not a live shot, it should read on the screen somewhere "file footage." Simple. Otherwise, they are intentionally deceiving the viewer.

    When they broadcast the Olympics prime-time show, they make it abundantly clear which events they are showing live and which are on delay.
     
  10. Azrael

    Azrael Active Member

    Raises an interesting question: is the live television broadcast of a sporting
    event 'journalism?'
     
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Active Member

    A cutaway of the skyline isn't the event.
     
  12. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    There's a massive difference between showing an event tape-delayed and showing a shot of a palm tree as you bump in from a commercial. That shot of the palm tree is not live. The crew does not actually have 20 cameras and satellite trucks stationed all over the city to bring you 5 second scenic shots live.

    They are not intentionally deceiving the viewer. If they tell you a shot is live and it isn't, that's intentionally deceiving the viewer.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page