PDA

View Full Version : ESPN confuses new Jacksonville with old Jacksonville, and Charlotte?


Wolf
12-07-2011, 09:09 PM
http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/editorial_image/e9/e9bd5e153ed599c141f98a574bbcf249/espn_confuses_new_jacksonville_with_old_jacksonvil le_and_charlotte.jpg


We're going to go ahead and believe that the shot above is of a part of the greater Jacksonville, Florida, area — after all, the stadium shown does look a lot like EverBank Field, where the Jacksonville Jaguars play. However, this picture may not be truly representative of the current city. According to ESPN's Paul Kuharsky, observant viewers threw multiple flags against the "Worldwide Leader" after it became evident that some of the overhead shots on the "Monday Night Football" game between the Jaguars and San Diego Chargers were outdated representations of Jacksonville.

That's not the best part. According to Kuharsky, one of the aerial shots was actually of Charlotte, North Carolina. Whoops! Kuharshy reached out to an ESPN spokesperson, who had this to say:

"The Charlotte aerial was an inadvertent mistake. It should not have aired. We apologize that it was part of the telecast.

"The scenics of Jacksonville that were used during 'Monday Night Countdown' were shot the night of the previous MNF game there in late October. We did not have a crew shooting scenics Monday. There were no graphic or audio mentions indicating the shot was live, though we understand viewers may have been under this assumption."

Well, sure. Generally speaking, when you see an overhead shot of an area, you expect that you're seeing it live. We're under the impression that you shouldn't have to expect a disclaimer that you're not seeing something from a Goodyear Blimp in 1979, but maybe that's just us.

Or, given the team's new ownership and longstanding rumors of a franchise move to L.A. or elsewhere, maybe ESPN was just trying out aerials of different cities. That would have been a more creative excuse


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

GP
12-07-2011, 09:19 PM
Good find.

My opinion of the fallout over it? Meh.

It's what's called STOCK FOOTAGE. I wouldn't expect a network to go out and shoot live background footage, especially when it's a nighttime visual like this.

Now, when the footage begins to look aged...yeah, get some new stuff.

bigfan77801
12-07-2011, 09:19 PM
Oopsie

Showtime100
12-07-2011, 11:25 PM
I can do one better, at least on par with it.

Up until next year I would watch each and every Astros game live or recorded. One game they showed a shot of the Old Court Building downtown, a fairly "Houston" building. I took a screenshot of it and saved it, I thought it was a cool shot. It was clearly "live" and not a pic as evidenced by the ever-so-slow moving clouds behind the building. That was about four years ago.

Last year I see the same shot, four years later. I took another screenshot because it looked too familiar. Sure enough, the cloud formation was identical and I mean identical. I deleted the screenshot because I was a little disgusted by the deception.

No big deal in the grand sceme of things, but still the pretense of it being a live shot is a bit rank.

GP
12-07-2011, 11:52 PM
My opinion is that if the scene is just buildings, or a blimp view of a stadium, etc., then what's the big fuss?

On the other hand, if they show fans arriving to the stadium, and they're all wearing 1980s clothes and hair styles...then it becomes a problem.

It's just filler. We eat filler every day and we know we do, but a stock image or video used as filler is somehow "evil?" I don't get it, I suppose.

My major was Advertising and Public Relations, and I use both of those in my own business that I operate. This sort of thing is not deceptive, it's just something for cynics (and we're ALL cynics, btw) to grab ahold of and say "Ah-hah! I caught you! Sneaky bastards! You can't get one over on me...."

BFD, IMO.

eriadoc
12-08-2011, 03:31 AM
It's presented as live TV. You frequently hear the announcers say something to the effect of you're looking at an overhead shot coming back from break. No mention of it being an overhead shot from a year, three years ago, or whatever. Does it matter? Not really, but it's deceitful, and most people don't like being deceived. There's more than one type of lie. I already don't like ESPN, so one more reason here is all.

PsychoLove
12-08-2011, 07:00 AM
ESPN (The NY, Boston, Miami Sports Network) has been garbage for the last 10 years. Bring back CNN Sports (from the 80's-90's)!

Dutchrudder
12-08-2011, 10:33 AM
Eh, no harm no foul. No big deal to me.

You know what would be cool? Showing an overhead shot of a stadium from the 70's, then 80's, 90's and show the audience the progression. I think that would be kind of interesting to see if they have footage that goes back that far.

Showtime100
12-08-2011, 10:35 AM
Eh, no harm no foul. No big deal to me.

You know what would be cool? Showing an overhead shot of a stadium from the 70's, then 80's, 90's and show the audience the progression. I think that would be kind of interesting to see if they have footage that goes back that far.

I agree, bfd, but I LOVE the fact that it's ESPN that got busted doing it....lol.

GP
12-08-2011, 10:38 AM
I agree, bfd, but I LOVE the fact that it's ESPN that got busted doing it....lol.

I can agree with this!

I wish Fox would find a way to gain some national traction as a sports outlet. I like the concept of the regional Fox stations...but their national presence is nonexistent (except for their website).