Note the quotations around the word "OFFENSE" and please contemplate the following questions:
1) is sarcasm a welcome addition to the traditionally objective statistical chyron? why or why not?
2) if sarcasm is embraced by the authors of the NFL informational overlay, what are the consequences and implications?
3) should we consider the narrator in the featured chyron unreliable, biased, and/or compromised?
2 comments:
1. Absolutely. Stats are otherwise overwhelming dull in many cases. In this case, with such an inept offense, a tiny shot of comedy was just a hint of what could have livened up the snooze.
2. It could (and almost assuredly would) slip down the slope to obnoxious and annoying, but it could also lead to newly back-to-work comedy writers being employed to punch up sports with good humor. The 4th quarter of games without playoff consequence could become actually fun and worth watching the screen. Imagine Patton Oswalt and John Mulaney inputting material into an otherwise dreary Texans-Colts game. HBO would start to carry games instead of the networks, allowing Chris Rock and a reinstated Louis CK to add their more risque elements to the writing. Monday Night Football tried something like this with Dennis Miller and Tony Kornheiser unsuccessfully once upon a time, but this won't be the on-air guy (and those guys were stiffs), this is the chyron-writing.
3. We definitely should. And we should start grading NFL coverage by comedic value as much as anything else.
Thanks for your inquiry.
Nice work. Whit. Thoughtful answers with specific supporting evidence-- and you anticipated my "Dennis Miller clause" refutation with a worthwhile rebuttal.
A plus!
I hope we see more coverage and statistical overlays headed in this direction . . .
Post a Comment