{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}



Info icon This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
TELEVISION AND SPORTS VIOLENCE In an American Football Conference match up between the Oakland Raiders and the Pittsburgh Steelers, which turned out to be an overly violent game, the question of whether or not it is right to show such overt violence is ethically correct. Fans had been throwing bottles and fights had broken out on the field--all of which was aired on national television. Producer Byron Harris was worried that television violence could lead to violence within society. His options in covering the game were to show the violent acts which fans and viewers seem to enjoy, cutting out the anti-social behavior all together, or try to find a way to balance the two former considerations out. Cameras can avoid showing offensive actions, but it can confuse or take away from the understanding and pleasure of the game. So the questions stand: Does added attention by the media to violent acts in sports legitimize violence in both sports and in society? Do athletes feel they must live up to the now standardized levels of violence in sports? And what responsibility falls on the media in covering or perhaps perpetuating these ideas? Should Harris choose to show or omit the overly aggressive violence and anti-social acts in televised sports events? Reasons ToShow The Violence 1.Fans enjoy it 2.Violence is an accepted part of sports 3.Ratings show slow motion clips of violence or especially rough plays are liked and therefore a new staple of the industry 4.Excluding scenes in a game can confuse television viewers
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}