We’re always keeping an eye on technology and how it shapes society’s behaviors and trends. With that in mind we found this NPR article very insightful. Using the horrible injury in college basketball yesterday, that was seemingly heard [or seen] all over the world via social media, writer Linda Holmes talks about how information is becoming more filtered by the users instead of media outlets. Essentially there is some decline in pure gatekeeping. Not in every scenario but in this case the injury was one of the biggest stories out of the games this past weekend…however showing it over and over again wasn’t necessary to hammer home the severity of what happened. If anyone wanted to know about what happened they could go to Twitter, Facebook, etc…and if they really wanted to see what happened there is YouTube, Instagram, and the internet in general, not to mention DVR. As technology advances do you guys feel the user is in more control of the content they consume or does it feel that with the internet we are being overloaded with content and information to consume? Sound off in the comments. Read some of the article below.
I was out of the house, as it happens, for most of the first half of yesterday’s Louisville-Duke game, and when I got home and looked at Twitter, before I turned on the TV, there was a huge stack of stuff to read, and the first thing that caught my attention about the game was this.
As I scrolled through my Twitter feed, the reaction was so intense, so pronounced and sohorrified — from friends I know to be sports fans who have seen plenty of very ugly injuries — that I decided almost immediately that I didn’t need to see it for myself. They told me it was awful; I believed them.
They told me they didn’t think they’d ever forget it; I believed them. They told me about both coaches tearing up, teammates lying on the floor, college kids looking like they were about to throw up. And I believed them, and I was grateful that it wasn’t replayed, because I didn’t watch it. I still haven’t.
It’s certainly possible, even likely, that I’ll bump into it accidentally at some point, and it was immediately clear that it would be available immediately for anyone who wondered, but I was surprised how quickly that wondering passed. I asked a friend via text whether it had seemed to be anybody’s fault, wondering whether some other kid was about to enter a different nightmare entirely — maybe a reason to see it for myself — but when he said no, that it was a freak accident, that was the end.
I found myself ultimately satisfied with the way things turned out, in that a viewer had to seek it out in order to see it. Sports coverage usually works the opposite way: It’s the broadcast equivalent of a push technology, where you sit back and they push the important stuff to you — highlights, replays, big moments. Here, they took the injury out of that cycle but didn’t hide anything. If you want to see that injury happen, you likely already have.
Writer Will Leitch — who, as far as I know, hasn’t watched it, either — wrote this morning in defense of those who made it available. It’s a very fair defense, though I’m more convinced by the “it is news” argument than by the “people want to watch it” argument, since the latter really would seem to allow a slippery slope into, as he puts it, “some anonymous snuff video.”
It is news, this accident. It happened in a… [Read Full Article HERE]