At the start of the program Al Rojo Vivo, broadcast on La Sexta last Friday, a video photo circulated widely across media and social networks. The prevailing reaction was a near-uniform condemnation, reflecting a broad discomfort with the visual choices used on screen.
The program’s set had been enhanced with augmented reality to captivate viewers and boost screen presence. As the broadcast moved toward portraying the war scene, some observers pointed out disturbing details: under the destroyed buildings that adorned the set, the presence of human figures suggested corpses, prompting questions about the line between production and reality. It is recalled that Al Rojo Vivo first experimented with augmented reality in October 2018, during the AVE train launch moment in Mecca when a train sped onto the set at high speed. The moment generated shock and excitement among La Sexta staff, who described the approach as a fresh form of expression that was faster, more agile, avant-garde, and dynamic. Today, many viewers would challenge that description given the current portrayal of violence and death as part of televised spectacle, highlighting a potential mismatch between the historic branding and contemporary sensitivities.
Beyond the studio, the public commentary has shifted attention toward Gaza, while other conflicts such as Ukraine have faded from the prime slots of newsrooms. In television, as is often observed, the focus tends to move from one major event to the next, regardless of the broader context. The rise of so-called magazines and talk formats adds another layer of influence, often amplifying sensational angles and rumor. Observers note that discussions around the Zaporizhian region and related episodes in the Donbas sometimes surface without precise geographic literacy, yet these conversations quickly loop back to current hotspots like Gaza and topics such as Hamas and Hezbollah. This dynamic underscores a tendency for media ecosystems to chase immediacy rather than maintain consistent coverage of ongoing crises, a pattern discussed by media researchers who track broadcast behavior and audience perception. In contrast, some commentators argue for steadier, more responsible framing that respects the gravity of such events and avoids turning war into repeated, marketable theater.
The result, several analysts suggest, is a media landscape where attention is captured by the latest spectacle rather than a sustained examination of the consequences of conflict. Viewers hoping for depth increasingly seek context, historical background, and expert analysis that goes beyond dramatic visuals. The anticipation builds for a future program that might redefine how augmented reality is used on air, balancing innovation with accountability and sensitivity to human suffering. In this evolving environment, audiences are urged to differentiate between innovative broadcast techniques and the ethical responsibilities that come with depicting real-world violence. Marked commentary from media scholars, industry insiders, and international observers emphasizes the need for careful calibration of technology, truthfulness in representation, and the avoidance of sensationalism that can desensitize or mislead viewers. [Source: Media studies and broadcast analysis, contemporary reports]