Coverage of Kalitta crash raises questions

As I'm sure you've heard, champion drag racer Scott Kalitta was killed on Saturday when his funny car blew out an engine and then crashed at nearly 300 mph while he was making his final qualifying pass for the NHRA race at Englishtown, NJ. The main eliminations took place as scheduled yesterday, although in a very subdued manner. Racing went on, as the cliche says, because "Scott would have wanted it that way."

(Note: Just so there's no question what I want, let me make this clear. When I die, I want the mourning process to be incredibly, stupidly intense. Like after a champion boxer from Latin America is killed in the ring. I would like all blogs that have linked to me, that I've linked to, or that might have heard of me to shut down for at least three days after my death out of respect, and the inability to move forward because they are so personally crushed. Thanks.)

The cause of the accident is currently being investigated, and the NHRA has pledged to take those findings and make any necessary changes to limit the risks for other drivers in the future. (I said "limit" since even though drag racing cars are much safer than they were even five years ago, there is no such thing as a 100 percent safe car.) Some things are clear: the engine in Kalitta's car exploded when he reached the end of his quarter-mile run, creating an explosion forceful enough to raise the car off the ground and buckle it into two. Kalitta was unable to stop the car - either he was knocked unconscious from the initial engine explosion or the brake lines had been severed in the blast - and he went through the gravel pit at the end of the runway meant to stop runaway cars, through some addiitonal netting and into a large pole, where it there exploded in a huge fireball and basically disintegrated while sending parts into the woods behind the track.

There is already a lot of speculation on if the "run-off" area at the Englishtown track is large enough to handle a runaway dragster. Many people familiar with the sport - including two-time funny car champ Tony Pedregon - have expressed the opinion that the run-off area is far too short at the Englishtown track, and that this was a major factor as to why Kalitta's crash was fatal. Needless to say, there are going to be a lot of questions asked about this in the weeks to come, and the NHRA needs to have some pretty damned good answers.

But beyond mentioning the crash itself, I want to talk about the coverage of the crash, primarily by ESPN. As you might have noticed, I haven't posted the video of the crash yet. If you want to watch it, here it is - I'm sure not going to embed the clip. But you are all big boys and girls, and I'll let you make the decision on watching it for yourself.

There was a lot of hand-wringing on the Deadspin late night comments thread on Saturday night about two things: the size of the run-off area at the track, and ESPN's coverage of the accident and its aftermath. Specifically, there seemed to be a general agreement that ESPN has being ghoulish or appealing to the viewers' prurient nature by showing footage of the crash over and over.

First off, I watched the 10 p.m. Sportscenter on Saturday night (at least 10 p.m. on the West Coast, check your local listing for dates and times). In their segnent in the accident, they showed the footage of the crash exactly one time, preceded by a warning the the footage was "disturbing." On the ESPN2 tape-delayed coverage of qualifying (which was canceled after the crash), they also showed the accident once, and spent the rest of the time talking to drivers in the pits about Scott Kalitta. And on ESPN News immediately after it was announced that Kalitta had been killed, they broadcast the footage once every "show" (i.e. half-hour), with the same warning that Sportscenter had.

And I suspect that part of the problem is that people were getting confused because of the sheer frequency of ESPN's broadcasts, and equating that with the footage being shown "over and over." If ESPN re-runs the same Sportscenter eight times in one evening, it might feel like you can't turn on ESPN without seeing that crash. Add in ESPN News, the coverage of the actual event, etc...people tend to jumble things in their minds anyway (which is why most people are not reliable witnesses), and seeing it a few times on repeated programming can seem like it's being shown on an endless loop.

If you watched the footage, you'll notice it's not particularly "graphic" - from the angle that ESPN has released, you really don't see much of the crash into the barrier itself, just a giant ball of dust and smoke and flames. As much as people want to make the comparison, this clip isn't the same as when Greg Moore was killed in a CART race at Fontana several years ago, where ESPN essentially refused to show any replays of the accident. This was footage of a closed vehicle crash from a wide-angle shot; the Greg Moore crash footage is a much tighter angle of an open-wheel car, where the car flipped and hit an inside retaining wall. Basically, you can see a human body get crushed against a wall at 200 mph and flip, still in the "tub" of the cockpit but lifeless and limp, along the grass. Needless to say, I'm not linking to that clip - find it yourself if you are so inclined.

But beyond all of this, the question remains - does ESPN "need" to show the footage at all? After all, this isn't Joe Theisman's leg, which was gross and painful, but not anything near fatal. Couldn't ESPN cover the story without showing the footage?

Personally, I think ESPN has a obligation to show the footage in a responsible manner, which I think that they did. There is inherent news value in the footage of the crash, and not just grim fascination like it's from some "Faces of Death" video. Seeing the video and how the crash unfolded gives fans the chance to form their own conclusions on what happened. You can see how the track is laid out, and how much (or little) run-off space there is. I can guarantee you that the outrage over the track set-up wouldn't be nearly as loud as it is (or will get) if there was no footage of the crash made public right after the accident. And the NHRA needs to answer these questions, whether they are at fault or not - for the sake of their drivers and their fans who pay good money to take their families to the races and would prefer that they didn't have to explain to their kids on the drive home why that driver who crashed isn't racing ever again.

Should they be "showing it over and over?" No, and I don't think that they did. And I think they have a duty to choose what angles are shown - having watched a lot of races over the years, I promise you that there is footage from a camera stationed after the finish line that would show the crash in much more horrific detail, and ESPN chose not to release it. (I find it interesting to compare the coverage of this crash to the crash that killed Gordon Smiley in qualifying for the 1982 Indianapolis 500 - where his car went head on into the wall at 200 mph and basically broke apart like a missile hit it. It was one the most graphic and disturbing crashes I've ever seen, but ABC showed a replay of it to lead off their broadcast along with news that Smiley was dead - the crash happened before the broadcast began - and ABC Nightly News showed a different, still icky angle in their broadcast.) ESPN doesn't need to show blood and guts to do its job, but they do need to report the news, even if it's troubling.

Posted by The Duke of Everything at 8:47 AM