1. One of the paradoxes associated with the media coverage of sports is that the media open up new opportunities for spectators to view sports, but they also limit and define the experiences of spectators. Explain how the media can do both of these things simultaneously.
Many people would agree that they would rather go to a sporting event rather then watching it on television. But on the other hand some would prefer to stay in the comfort of their own home. In the past decade or so, media has opened up new opportunities for spectators. When we watch sports on television the images and messages we hear are designed to heighten the content. By staying in and watching the game on television the viewer can see different camera angles, close-ups, slow motion shots, play by play description and so on. If one were to attend a sporting event they would not have the luxury of all that, but what they would have is the experience of being there. Mind you, most facilities now do have screens where the fans can see replays and so forth. Another possibility may be installing in the seats a place to insert headphones to listen to commentary (like in a plane). Being at a sporting event, we able to be part of a group (spectators), being able to smell the grass, smell of the ice. Enjoying the taste of a hotdog and a cold beer. There is an excessive amount of media coverage that is going on in the sports industry. The commentators are constantly advertising things. Like Dr. Kiger said, "it's not like the old days," the commentators would tell stories in between pitches or during rain delays. I personally cannot stand watching games on television. With all the commercials and ads here and there I lose interest in the game. The media can do both things simultaneously by
allowing the commentators to do their job of commentating and when there is a break in the game, then that is when they can throw in the ads.