The fatal helicopter crash in New York, in which a family from Barcelona died, has sparked reflection on the tragedy in various morning magazines. The jungle from TV3 reflected on grief at school when children are among the victims. The program contacted the psychologist Alba Alfageme to explain how trauma can be managed in these circumstances. While she was speaking via video call, the program's production team split the screen and, along with the expert, showed us a loop of images of the tragedy. The flying helicopter, the helicopter falling into the Hudson River from different points of view, a propeller crashing into the water beyond, the helicopter's legs sticking out of the river, the process of removing the cabin with a crane, the emergency crews carrying away a litter. And the scenes continued as they discussed the topic, as if what they were showing weren't particularly transcendent or painful. From a journalistic perspective, it's understandable that these images are required to provide an informative context for the news. But using them as decoration to liven up the screen is excessive. First, because this approach is inconsistent with the psychologist's story. While we're talking about how to approach a situation of this nature with sensitivity and responsibility, the television does the exact opposite: it dwells on the harshest aspects of the tragedy. Second, because by the simple logic of proximity, these images can be especially hurtful for families and people close to the victims. We viewers are very experienced in seeing terrible scenes on television, but when you are connected to the people affected, those images become especially traumatic. It's not that they shouldn't be broadcast, but it should be done with responsibility for information, and not for media appeal, which is the objective of the split screen. This device was originally an invention of private television stations. It's very useful for capturing the viewer's attention with just a glance, without having to listen to what the presenters are saying or even having to make the effort to understand what they're talking about. When the scenes are tragic, they even distract from the story, causing a dissociation from the message. Broadcasting looped images of a tragedy or a violent event is an insensitive and morbid act of television viewing, and public television stations should be aware of this. Before imitating the devices of commercial networks, it's worth reflecting on their meaning and why. And consider, in each case, whether it's appropriate or not, rather than turning it into a television inertia. If, as journalism professionals, there's a concern about how grief and trauma are managed, perhaps the same sensitivity needs to be applied.
