Coverage of Damar Hamlin’s horrific on-field collapse has, understandably, been examined and reviewed by many in the sports media world in the week following the incident. ESPN has largely been praised for their coverage in the immediate aftermath of Hamlin’s injury, with on-air talent handling the circumstances tactfully, but the network’s handling of the incident followed a long-standing playbook of how broadcasters cover on-field injuries. Is it time to re-think how live sports broadcasts handle these circumstances?
We have all seen it before. Snap, play, whistle.
And there appears to be a man down on the field … we’ll be right back.
The all-too-familiar shot of a player laying on the field, surrounded by medical personnel, followed by a quick bump into commercial. After returning from the break, a couple of carefully curated replays (usually depending on how gruesome the injury looks to the untrained eye), and a final parting shot of how the injured player is transported off the field, often paired with a quip from the announcer about wanting to “avoid speculation.”
And back to the action …
Now what? In most cases, fans have to wait for an update from the sideline reporter, or in some instances, Adam Schefter’s Twitter account, to get any further information on the player’s status. While plenty can be said regarding the sensitivity of an ongoing injury situation and avoiding speculation, is this truly the best way to serve viewers?
Football and injuries have become inextricably linked. Given the increased focus of the NFL and NFLPA on player safety, fans themselves have become more familiar with the injuries and subsequent protocols that are common within the game. These realities can make a broadcast’s injury coverage rather unsatisfying for the viewer. Let’s be clear, obviously in these moments of player distress, the satisfaction of a viewer sitting on their couch watching the broadcast is last on the list of things that are important in that moment. At the same time, it is the duty of the broadcast to inform the audience, as best they can, what is going on at that moment.
We don’t want to speculate …
Should a medical expert be a part of the broadcast crew? Viewers have certainly become accustomed to former officials joining the broadcast as rules analysts, why not have a medical analyst in New York or Los Angeles ready to hop into a game broadcast and explain what is going on to the viewers?
Imagine if, during the Hamlin incident, a medical analyst joined the broadcast to explain that each NFL game (as we have learned in the past few days) has an Airway Management Physician to provide emergency intubation to non-breathing players. Not only does that provide much-needed information, but it actually decreases any possible speculation on the broadcast or social media. It arguably makes the NFL look good for having those sorts of plans for medical emergencies in place.
Certainly, there is something to be said for remaining sensitive about an ongoing health situation. ESPN took heavy criticism for its handling of Christian Eriksen’s cardiac arrest during the European Championships two years ago. During the broadcast, produced via UEFA’s world feed, UEFA’s director chose to tighten camera shots in an attempt to gain more information about Eriksen’s status, despite teammates and other medical personnel forming a human wall, and holding blankets around Eriksen for the sake of privacy. ESPN, hands tied and choosing to stay with the world feed despite lack of directorial control, was the target of significant social media ire.
Amy Rosenfeld, VP of Production at ESPN at the time, said UEFA’s director, “severely crossed the line of what’s appropriate … I think dwelling on him, moving the cameras in even further when the players circled around Christian, was incredibly inappropriate. You don’t move your camera in to get around them. You don’t.” If ESPN had control over the direction of that broadcast, they likely would have chosen to air primarily wide-shots, interspersed with player’s reactions, as was seen during the Hamlin coverage.
The difference in editorial strategy between UEFA during Eriksen’s cardiac arrest and ESPN during Hamlin’s cardiac arrest is truly fascinating. It speaks to the differences between the American viewing audience and audiences abroad. Are fans in other parts of the world simply less sensitive to injuries than the American viewer?
I don’t suspect this is the case. In fact, I believe it speaks to the cognitive dissonance of the American viewer when it comes to athletes, and in particular, football players. Far and away the most popular viewing sport in the United States, football is also the most inherently violent sport in the American mainstream. As fans, we watch the NFL in large numbers, knowing the high risk that athletes take on to provide us this entertainment — but when the injury monster rears its ugly head we prefer to look away? To avoid reality?
ESPN and other NFL broadcasters seem to think so. At the end of the day, they’re making editorial decisions based on what the audience wants. That’s why we, as viewers, should hold sports broadcasters to a higher standard. In today’s media environment, where social media speculation can spread rapidly, it’s important that broadcasters take the next step in injury reporting. By including a medical expert in the game broadcast, networks can delve into the necessary information about an injured player’s on-field medical care, without speculating, and also maintaining a tone of sensitivity. By now, most fans have accepted the reality that injuries are part of the game, and on some level, have the ability to compartmentalize that aspect of football, and their enjoyment of the product at-large. The NFL will not lose viewers by being more transparent about on-the-field injuries, so let’s cover these stories in a way that will better serve those viewers.
