Comparative analysis reveals traditional media downplayed concussion severity, while social media discussions reflected broader criticism of NFL practices.
Drawing on Herman and Chomsky’s (1988) propaganda model, this study compares traditional and social media portrayals of Elijah Moore’s dramatic brain injury during a National Football League (NFL) game. Traditional media coverage minimized the severity and emotional impact of Moore’s injury, relied on NFL sources, and ignored the long-term health consequences of concussions. In contrast, social media discussions were more diverse and more likely informed by medical professionals. While traditional journalists remained mute on the need for reform, social media users often criticized the NFL and advocated for policy changes. However, many social media users also neutralized the risks posed by football and responded adversely to anyone who called for change. These findings highlight social media’s potential as a platform for concussion education and activism. Yet the adversarial qualities of the online discourse and the ephemeral nature of social media itself underscore the challenges of raising awareness about the health risks posed by repeated head blows in football.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Woods et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: