Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Gustaaf Van Moors » Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:00:00



:Which is not to say that NBC couldn't try to cultivate some interest
:in the more esoteric or less known sports.  While the rest of the world
:does in fact show more interest and participation in many of the sports
:considered marginal by Americans, it is also true that this interest and
:participation is promoted and cultivated by sportscasters and television
:stations

(a lot of this excellent article omitted)

Look in today's Wall Street Journal for an article on badminton, clearly
one of those sports snubbed by NBC censorship. Luckily enough, the WSJ
does not fall for the temptation to adopt a tone of mild ridicule as so
many other sports writers here do; instead, it is a very readable article
which could have been written about a lot of other sports as well.

Gustaaf

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Anand Varadharaj » Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:00:00

: I am so irate that I seriously think I'd do physical harm to an NBC
: executive or Bob Costas if I was presented the opportunity.  But let
: me try and be as sober about this as I can and sum up the essential

I think Costas thinks that he is in some Jay Leno show making jokes about
everyone (except American athletes). I remember when he made fun of
Seattle Supersonics during NBA finals in the Jay Leno show. Since it
was in Tonite show, the sarcasms were fun and bearable. CBC is more
unbiased (their comments about losing Canadian athletes are very  modest
with enough praises on winners).

By giving an overdose of all this emotional drama crap, they make a big
fool of themselves and the viewers in USA. As the previous poster pointed
out, Bob Costas must be out of his mind to give so much emotion to an event
which is already over and the medals awarded (Cycling and the soap opera).
I think they chose that event only  because some American medal prospect
fell down and they probably wanted to make a huge fuss about the French
winner's ego and how others hate her etc.. I don't know where they got
this market research done which shows that American viewers are fools!

Anand

ps: Would someone who knows Sanders please ask her to stop screaming?

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Ranja » Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:00:00


 NBC has told us that there's a lot more

Quote:
> to the Olympics than just the actual events themselves.  This argument
> has been is response to queries/critiques regarding the surfeit of
> background programming, or "fluffy" human interest stories of individual
> sacrifice/hardships endured en route to the Olympic "dream."  They do
> these stories for the marquee sports, but have also applied the logic
> behind these stories as a way of presenting, at times, other events.

stuff deleted

Quote:
> But soccer and the U.S. rise in it might begin to change our
> myopia.

Stuff deleted

Quote:

>  I hope
> the Olympics go bad for NBC and Atlanta because speculative money needs
> to be made threatened and frightened by the prospect of overusing
> this event.  That's the only chance to wrestle the IOC into a policy
> that truly puts the games first, because the market will not.

Stuff deleted

Quote:
> It's not socialism I'm desiring, just intelligent and responsible programming.
 Their complicity
> in our national ignorance is more than passive, it's pro-active.  They
> are to be condemned for being poor global citizens.  

The alarming thing is that the networks here might decide to do the same
with soccer once it becomes popular enough in the US; can you imagine
hearing all about the long and arduous road to fame for (Bebeto,
Klinsmann.... whoever) the moment a goal is scored? "And that's a
marvellous goal by Bebeto......"... cut to sequence of his life as a
young boy in Brazil, his difficult rise to fame, etc.
 I think the big problem here is that the very nature of the Olympics has
changed drastically over the years; while money can be good for a sport,
it can also be bad, as clearly shown by the Atlanta Games. Sure, a good
sportsman(or woman) should be able to make a living out of what they do
best; but why should a television network make money out of presenting
everything as one big soap opera? Again, I think a die-hard sports fan
would not care too much about the "quest for the dream" soap-opera; hell,
most of us already know (without help from the networks) the life-history
of our favorite sportsmen; it's only the semi-interested viewer who may
instead be watching "E.R." or "Seinfeld" or whatever, who NBC hopes to
attract by this kind of coverage. It's the serious sports fans who have
to suffer from the kind of garbage being dished out. NBC's myopia is
further inexplicable considering the large crowds drawn by soccer so far.
Can't those guys see the dollar signs $$$$$$$ ?
    Another inexplicable thing about the way the IOC handed out the
television  rights- somebody pointed out that even if NBC were to
broadcast Olympic coverage 24 hours a day, they would be able to cover
onyl a small fraction of all the events; WHY did IOC give exclusive
rights to one network? Why not let networks bid for individual events?
There are more than enough to go around. It may even make more sense
financially for NBC.
        Maybe they should stop calling it the Olympic Games and start
calling them the Quadrennial International Games or something. Most of
the Olympic ideals have gone down the drain anyway.
        Oh, well; I guess there's nothing for it but to wait till the
soccer final.
        End of rant.                    
                                                        -Ranjan

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Ariel Mazzarel » Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Very nice post, Mark.

I would like to coin an aphorism in honor of GE/NBC:

You know you are in real trouble when reality is not good enough for you.

The perverse need to excise from sport its genuine essence that is its
unpredictability and real-time resolution is endemic of a medium like
television which seems to discourage interactivity with reality.

And now a musical break, courtesy of Natalie Merchant and Dennis Drew,

"If lust and hate is the candy, if *** and love taste so sweet, then we give
'em what they want. Hey, hey, give 'em what they want.

So their eyes are growing hazy 'cos they wanna turn it on, so their minds are
soft and lazy. Well... who do you want to blame? "

Suppose you go to see a bullfight. One of the exciting aspects of the
bullfight is that the toreador might get horned, even killed. Hence it stands
to reason that some of the e***ment would vanish if we were to watch a taped
version of the event, narrated by the same toreador. However, then at least we
would be given the unique perspective of one of the protagonists, so there is
a bit of a trade-off; however, must we abdicate the right to the live version?

That is what GE/NBC is telling you the spectator: you have no right to the
live version--and we're not talking about issues of event simultaneity here,
rather, the 'live' quality where you watch the event as it occurs and you come
to your own conclusions, rather than what remains after the corporate
officials have applied their filter.

Recently, Coca Cola has been carrying out a series of commercials that consist
of a leisurely view of an old photograph of a sporting event (usually from the
50's), with some loud music in the background. The photograph is in black and
white, and then some red is added into the photograph so as to highlight the
presence of a Coca Cola sign. I was trying to figure out why these commercials
were so obnoxious, and then it hit me: it is like watching the birth of a
tumor. Instead of using the old photograph to fill us in on the culture of our
elders, they use it to show how much freer of corporate propaganda was their
visual landscape. The fact that a corporation that can write its own ticket
would choose to rub their 'victory' in our faces in such a fashion tells me
that the Olympics will continue to be a waste of our time as long as they are
on television. Perhaps when we are able to select our view of the games (right
down to the camera angle), we might get it back.

A natural question then arises--what are the tumors today that compare to the
propaganda for Coca Cola? I was watching MSNBC last night, and it occurred to
me that they were stunningly close to being truly evil, and it was only their
myopia that prevented them from really taking off. But it will come, I am sure
that they will eventually prune their telecast of the obvious errors that they
were committing (and no, I'm not going to say what they are, the last thing I
would want would be to help those corpocrats).

The basic conclusion that I came to was the same as with the Olympics:
television was a big mistake. Granting corporate and government monopolies
over bandwidth was a big mistake. That, I think, is the lesson that we have to
keep in mind for the Internet.

Ariel

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Diana Smailu » Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Here Here!!! That woman's screeching voice must be silenced!!! I think
she has a hearing problem too.

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Mark Willia » Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:00:00

I am so irate that I seriously think I'd do physical harm to an NBC
executive or Bob Costas if I was presented the opportunity.  But let
me try and be as sober about this as I can and sum up the essential
bind we're all in.

I'm posting this in the soccer group because one crucial aspect of
how ***ed up the Olympic coverage by NBC is has to do with the
sports media bias in this country, something that even the world's most
popular sport is having troubles breaking down.  It was my impression
during the World Cup in 1994, that all the explanations by people in the
American sports media regarding soccer's "unmarketability" and/or its
"dullness" really was a way of hiding the fact that the people actually
in charge of bringing sports to the American audience didn't like or
want to bother to like soccer.  And so in the same way even a pseudo-intellectual
voice like that of Costas' reveals time and time again that he is ignorant and/or
uninterested in the vast majority of the sports that comprise the Olympic
games, soccer included.  His little jibes at the "smaller" sports, like his
comments about table tennis during the opening ceremony, or his
poking fun at "my hero, the pocket Hercules" last night, reveal what
a non-intellect and myopic *** he really is.  And, he's supposed to
be one of our more "cultured" sportscasters!  Well he is in some ways,
but these Olympics are proving the point people overseas have made
for years:  in certain areas of international co-living, Americans are
arrogant and ignorant ***s; the two qualities go hand-in-hand.

Ignorance and disinterest are also the basic problem in a different sense.
I really do believe that NBC is making the "correct" decision from a
business standpoint in not showing the multitude of non-marquee
sports, because the American sports audience as a whole doesn't give
a shit and would probably wander over to other programming if field
hockey, fencing, weightlifting, handball, etc. were aired in any manner
that suggested 10 straight minutes of such coverage.

Which is not to say that NBC couldn't try to cultivate some interest
in the more esoteric or less known sports.  While the rest of the world
does in fact show more interest and participation in many of the sports
considered marginal by Americans, it is also true that this interest and
participation is promoted and cultivated by sportscasters and television
stations.  Yeah, I know, it's because most television is state-run.  And I
certainly can bemoan the fact that we don't have that in the U.S. when
it comes to events like the Olympics or the World Cup.  You can't change
the fact that NBC is beholden to the market it operates in, but it could
still try a little harder to present the Olympics as they are.

And here is where I really have come to despise NBC, and perhaps the
whole country by association.  NBC has told us that there's a lot more
to the Olympics than just the actual events themselves.  This argument
has been is response to queries/critiques regarding the surfeit of
background programming, or "fluffy" human interest stories of individual
sacrifice/hardships endured en route to the Olympic "dream."  They do
these stories for the marquee sports, but have also applied the logic
behind these stories as a way of presenting, at times, other events.
Two examples:  the women's bike road race won by the French woman Longo,
and the first 2 games by the U.S. women's field hockey team.  I don't
remember the name of the "reporter" doing these montage pieces, but
it's the same guy and I want to kill him.  He's not breaking new ground
with this style of reporting; CBS did the same thing for years
with the Tour de France (John Tesh's start, if I'm not mistaken).  But
it's so entirely nauseating.  The overall nature of these montage pieces
is to splice and dice the events into a chronologically incongruous whole
and try to build the "event" up with a rollercoaster ride of emotional
manipulation ("Longo surged ahead; could the field catch up? But the
field wasn't finished yet; another attack; could Longo keep up her pace?
and so on).  This ridiculous exhortation of "human sacrifice" with the
aptly picked swelling melodramatic music serves the sole purpose of
propagandizing NBC's allegedly pro-active role in bringing us the
"great human drama" of these games, the part that is "more than just
the events."  If it's possible to really know what happened at the
Olympics without having actually seen the reality of the competition,
in real time, not slow-replay/swelling music time, then NBC makes the
perfect case for the fact that it is nothing but a tool of propaganda, self-
serving in a simultaneous way because it at once assures itself of its profits
on this event and further reinforces the audience's complicity in not
wanting the real story, but some manipulative and positively "non-real"
interpretation of it (a state of mind required to watch 90% of the rest of
its regular programming, or that of any of the other networks).

It's almost gotten to the point of where the only hope is if real Americans
become good enough as athletes in all of the competitions to mandate
by their presence alone that coverage be real and void of bullshit.  The
fact that we're so damn good at most sports has ironically been perhaps
a contributor to the fact that we don't care about others and other
sports.  But soccer and the U.S. rise in it might begin to change our
myopia.

I have no positives to observe whatsoever about NBC's coverage.
*** Enberg, ironically, I've decided, has been the least annoying
of the main talking heads precisely because he seems a little awkward
in trying to rise to the heights that a swelling musical melodrama
might require.  He's seemed positively "down to earth" in comparison
to the NBC propaganda train.  But that's not really a positive.  I hope
the Olympics go bad for NBC and Atlanta because speculative money needs
to be made threatened and frightened by the prospect of overusing
this event.  That's the only chance to wrestle the IOC into a policy
that truly puts the games first, because the market will not.

It's not socialism I'm desiring, just intelligent and responsible programming.
If that doesn't sell, well, then we're screwed.  One thing I can say with
certainty is that I will not have been able to experience these Centennial
Olympics because NBC wouldn't show them to me.  Their complicity
in our national ignorance is more than passive, it's pro-active.  They
are to be condemned for being poor global citizens.  I wish it were actually
criminal what they're doing.  I'd hang them high, literally.

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Bruce Scott TO » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

I got to see the difference between European and US-network Olympic
commetary for myself in 1988, as I was in Los Alamos the first week and
back here the second.  The discussion in the newsgroups has reinforced
those lessons.

The problem with US media culture is that almost every one of the
talking heads that appear feels it important to come across as an
insightful thinker.  It is because they are nevertheless not insightful
thinkers that they do appear as pseudo-intellectuals.  This is as true
for newscasts and political commetary as it is for sports, or just about
anything else.  Anyone who read Frank Deford's article on the Olympics
in National Geographic will know what I mean: he means well but simply
cannot help but excrete once or twice per page.

The Olympics _are_ full of emotional human drama of the highest sort.
Fortunately, the commentators here have allowed that to carry over
unsullied by simply reporting the events as they experience them.  The
reporters do get emotional but they don't waste their time and ours by
_telling_ us all about it.  When the Austrian commentator got e***d
about Vera Lischka's performance, he excused himself and explained that
he simply had to get "a little loud" over it.  Quite understandable, I
might add.  (The Germans took a little dig at the Austrians, thinking
that there might be a little Scadenfreude at the fact that no German had
made the 100m ***stroke final Lischka was in... but the Austrians
didn't indulge.  Typical of Germans to underestimate them.)

On the German side, they have fortunately kept no-minds like Heribert
Fassbinder in the studio where he can do interviews and the 15-second
introductions that precede a switch into a different sport, and we don't
have to stand the execrable commentary he gave us during the European
championships.  Another good thing is that the commentary of a given
sport is being done by people who know the sport (eg, fencing, whose
broadcasts have been simply outstanding, especially by Eurosport), and
instead of filling the holes about silly "up-close-and-personal"
prattle, they fill the holes with background tidbits and the sort of
issues all the insiders talk about throughout the year, so that
outsiders like me can understand and really get into the events.  That's
the way it should be done.  I don't know how much longer the Europeans
are going to keep this up (what is Bertelsmann going to do to the 2002
World Cup?), but for now there seems to be the understanding that people
who are going to sit through the night watching the games anyway don't
need any extra ***some media-heads think we do.

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                Kudos to Vera Lischka for the

Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik      swimming history!

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Tempe » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

<snip, something about German commentators>
Another good thing is that the commentary of a given

Quote:
>sport is being done by people who know the sport (eg, fencing, whose
>broadcasts have been simply outstanding, especially by Eurosport), and

I'm not sure about the german commentary on Eurosport, but the dutch
commentary was kinda funny/stupid. Yes, they had an expert on fencing, but the
other commentator was constantly asking questions about the sport coming
across like a fool. I don't know a lot about fencing and I like the
commentators to explain some of the subtleties of fencing, but what I heard
was messy, unprepared gibberish. You'd think that these commentators would
have a plan on how to comment on an event. Eurosport also shows a lot of
boxing. I prefer BBC (UK) and NOS (NED). Eurosport is also interrupted by
commercials.

Quote:
>instead of filling the holes about silly "up-close-and-personal"
>prattle, they fill the holes with background tidbits and the sort of
>issues all the insiders talk about throughout the year, so that
>outsiders like me can understand and really get into the events.  That's
>the way it should be done.  I don't know how much longer the Europeans
>are going to keep this up (what is Bertelsmann going to do to the 2002
>World Cup?), but for now there seems to be the understanding that people
>who are going to sit through the night watching the games anyway don't
>need any extra ***some media-heads think we do.

Yeah that kinda sucks. The swimming finals are shown here between 1-3 AM live.
Good thing it's vacation time.

   Tempest

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by R&T Cunde » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00



Quote:
>I am so irate that I seriously think I'd do physical harm to an NBC
>executive or Bob Costas if I was presented the opportunity.  But let
>me try and be as sober about this as I can and sum up the essential
>bind we're all in.

[snip]

Mark,

I loved your rant.  We all feel powerless to change the Olympic programming from NBC.

Tony

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Mark Willia » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00


Quote:


>>I am so irate that I seriously think I'd do physical harm to an NBC
>>executive or Bob Costas if I was presented the opportunity.  But let
>>me try and be as sober about this as I can and sum up the essential
>>bind we're all in.

>AH WHAT DO YOU KNOW!!!

This guy knows me and is just ***ing around.  Disregard.
 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Bernard Stok » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>I am so irate that I seriously think I'd do physical harm to an NBC
>executive or Bob Costas if I was presented the opportunity.  But let
>me try and be as sober about this as I can and sum up the essential
>bind we're all in.

>I'm posting this in the soccer group because one crucial aspect of
>how ***ed up the Olympic coverage by NBC is has to do with the
>sports media bias in this country, something that even the world's most
>popular sport is having troubles breaking down.  It was my impression
>during the World Cup in 1994, that all the explanations by people in the
>American sports media regarding soccer's "unmarketability" and/or its
>"dullness" really was a way of hiding the fact that the people actually
>in charge of bringing sports to the American audience didn't like or
>want to bother to like soccer.  And so in the same way even a pseudo-intellectual
>voice like that of Costas' reveals time and time again that he is ignorant and/or
>uninterested in the vast majority of the sports that comprise the Olympic
>games, soccer included.  His little jibes at the "smaller" sports, like his
>comments about table tennis during the opening ceremony, or his
>poking fun at "my hero, the pocket Hercules" last night, reveal what
>a non-intellect and myopic *** he really is.  And, he's supposed to
>be one of our more "cultured" sportscasters!  Well he is in some ways,
>but these Olympics are proving the point people overseas have made
>for years:  in certain areas of international co-living, Americans are
>arrogant and ignorant ***s; the two qualities go hand-in-hand.

>Ignorance and disinterest are also the basic problem in a different sense.
>I really do believe that NBC is making the "correct" decision from a
>business standpoint in not showing the multitude of non-marquee
>sports, because the American sports audience as a whole doesn't give
>a shit and would probably wander over to other programming if field
>hockey, fencing, weightlifting, handball, etc. were aired in any manner
>that suggested 10 straight minutes of such coverage.

>Which is not to say that NBC couldn't try to cultivate some interest
>in the more esoteric or less known sports.  While the rest of the world
>does in fact show more interest and participation in many of the sports
>considered marginal by Americans, it is also true that this interest and
>participation is promoted and cultivated by sportscasters and television
>stations.  Yeah, I know, it's because most television is state-run.  And I
>certainly can bemoan the fact that we don't have that in the U.S. when
>it comes to events like the Olympics or the World Cup.  You can't change
>the fact that NBC is beholden to the market it operates in, but it could
>still try a little harder to present the Olympics as they are.

>And here is where I really have come to despise NBC, and perhaps the
>whole country by association.  NBC has told us that there's a lot more
>to the Olympics than just the actual events themselves.  This argument
>has been is response to queries/critiques regarding the surfeit of
>background programming, or "fluffy" human interest stories of individual
>sacrifice/hardships endured en route to the Olympic "dream."  They do
>these stories for the marquee sports, but have also applied the logic
>behind these stories as a way of presenting, at times, other events.
>Two examples:  the women's bike road race won by the French woman Longo,
>and the first 2 games by the U.S. women's field hockey team.  I don't
>remember the name of the "reporter" doing these montage pieces, but
>it's the same guy and I want to kill him.  He's not breaking new ground
>with this style of reporting; CBS did the same thing for years
>with the Tour de France (John Tesh's start, if I'm not mistaken).  But
>it's so entirely nauseating.  The overall nature of these montage pieces
>is to splice and dice the events into a chronologically incongruous whole
>and try to build the "event" up with a rollercoaster ride of emotional
>manipulation ("Longo surged ahead; could the field catch up? But the
>field wasn't finished yet; another attack; could Longo keep up her pace?
>and so on).  This ridiculous exhortation of "human sacrifice" with the
>aptly picked swelling melodramatic music serves the sole purpose of
>propagandizing NBC's allegedly pro-active role in bringing us the
>"great human drama" of these games, the part that is "more than just
>the events."  If it's possible to really know what happened at the
>Olympics without having actually seen the reality of the competition,
>in real time, not slow-replay/swelling music time, then NBC makes the
>perfect case for the fact that it is nothing but a tool of propaganda, self-
>serving in a simultaneous way because it at once assures itself of its profits
>on this event and further reinforces the audience's complicity in not
>wanting the real story, but some manipulative and positively "non-real"
>interpretation of it (a state of mind required to watch 90% of the rest of
>its regular programming, or that of any of the other networks).

>It's almost gotten to the point of where the only hope is if real Americans
>become good enough as athletes in all of the competitions to mandate
>by their presence alone that coverage be real and void of bullshit.  The
>fact that we're so damn good at most sports has ironically been perhaps
>a contributor to the fact that we don't care about others and other
>sports.  But soccer and the U.S. rise in it might begin to change our
>myopia.

>I have no positives to observe whatsoever about NBC's coverage.
>Dick Enberg, ironically, I've decided, has been the least annoying
>of the main talking heads precisely because he seems a little awkward
>in trying to rise to the heights that a swelling musical melodrama
>might require.  He's seemed positively "down to earth" in comparison
>to the NBC propaganda train.  But that's not really a positive.  I hope
>the Olympics go bad for NBC and Atlanta because speculative money needs
>to be made threatened and frightened by the prospect of overusing
>this event.  That's the only chance to wrestle the IOC into a policy
>that truly puts the games first, because the market will not.

>It's not socialism I'm desiring, just intelligent and responsible programming.
>If that doesn't sell, well, then we're screwed.  One thing I can say with
>certainty is that I will not have been able to experience these Centennial
>Olympics because NBC wouldn't show them to me.  Their complicity
>in our national ignorance is more than passive, it's pro-active.  They
>are to be condemned for being poor global citizens.  I wish it were actually
>criminal what they're doing.  I'd hang them high, literally.

AH WHAT DO YOU KNOW!!!
 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Howard Hamilto » Sat, 27 Jul 1996 04:00:00

[a big ol' vent deleted]

Hey man, chill. :-)

But I agree with you.  The coverage is bad - not just for soccer, but for other
sports and personalities that I only see every four years.  The only solution
now is to not watch: play some soccer, spend time with your SO, do something
outside!  I'm not going to let NBC ruin my mood for two weeks.  Life's too
short for that.

Cheers, Howard
--

"Halftime is just a reminder of what life is like without football."
  - UK Coca-Cola adverti***t

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Steve Hammet » Sat, 27 Jul 1996 04:00:00

I totally agree with your article.  NBC has chosen to "highlight" those
sports that THEY think are what the public wants to see.  If more and
more sports are wanting to be considered for the Olympics, then the IOC
has to rethink about the length of the games and make them longer.  

I'm from a "smaller" nation and I was looking forward to seeing my home
country in the opening ceremonies, but oh no they had to go to a damn'd
commercial.  The US is made up of people from different countries and
these people want to feel the pride of seeing their people enter,
compete, win or lose.  But to NBC they think that if the country entering
is not large like the US, Russia, China etc., then the country doesn't
deserve to be noticed!  BS!!!

I've watched every swimming race I could and I am so angry that NBC, IBM
or whoever the hell is in charge, couldn't find the time to name the
country in each lane, as they do in rowing.  What would it take to have
put the country's name on the screen. NOTHING.  I realize that each
country has their own version of the Olympics and perhaps they too are a
little biased, but when I was watching the Olympics years ago (not in the
US) I was shown not only my nation's athelete(s) but also the best in the
heats and finals.

Namibia has complained about the biasness of NBC reporting.  Linford
Christie (Great Britain) who could beat Michael Johnson has complained
that his coach will watch his race from London, because that's the only
way he (the coach) will get to see Christie.

I'm not saying that the entire US reporting is biased, but let me tell
you that the reporting of these Olympics is about as biased as I've seen
in another country south of the equator - a large country too!!  I
thought that country was the most biased I'd ever seen at the time, but
NBC is doing a beautiful job on its own.

If this is truly the games of the world, then it's about time reporters
realized that atheletes are just as human as those reporting a story.  I
wish they'd stop pressuring atheletes, trying to think for them and then
blaming them and even ignoring them when they don't win.  Can we all win
at what we do? No!  I'm tired of seeing "tidbits" about how little Johnny
crew up with this disease and that disease.  If the athelete wins, it
becomes a story about how that person "overcame adversity".  If they lose
they blame the disease or problem.  BS  The athelete tried their hardest.
I've watched my fellow countrymen lose many times, but they've never made
excuses for their loses.  They've picked themselves up and gone on to try
again!  I don't need to see where little Johnny grew up and how he got to
the games.  I want to see the damn'd sport!!!!  I also don't need a
damn'd history lesson.  Why don't the news teams (in this case, NBC) just
give us the facts - the sports facts.  We don't need the sensationalism
that goes along with it.  I also don't need to see a reporter
interviewing someone in prison.  That was disgusting!  NBC should
concentrate on sports and showing us the heats and finals and forget the
damn'd little "tidbits".

I've noticed that if the US is not in a sport, then NBC doesn't televise
it at all. What about all the people from other countries, living in this
country who want to see what their fellow country men/women are doing.
Why don't the news people give equal coverage to other sports that maybe
are not as well known.  Is it because these sports, like swimming,
basketball, don't carry big $$.  Betcha bottom bippee!  I agree with your
statement about soccer.  Where I come from soccer is very big and is
given equal (if not more) time as field hockey, rugby (both played in the
winter - but of course, not here in the US!)  Even the baseball team
isn't being given the coverage.  But betcha, if Agassi and Washington
start winning their games, they'll get lotsa coverage. Why?  Because of
the almighty greenback.

I'm furious about NBC's version of the Olympics.  Do you think they're
going to change?  No!  I've come to the conclusion that when the games
are held in countries outside of the US, we have far better coverage!
Let's hope that when the next lot are held in Sydney, that we'll get
better coverage.

Meanwhile, when the games are over, I will go back to watching another
channel, which I changed to when I got sick of the NBC Channel 4 (Los
Angeles) newsteam.  I'd like to find out why a weatherman gets to give us
weather information FOR L.A. FROM Atlanta and then make an idiot of
himself introducing Travis Tritt!  What a complete boondoggle trip.!  
Give me a break.  The local NBC newsteam (with the exception of Colleen
Williams) makes me want to puke - big time.

I may ahve got some of this off my chest.  I'm sure by the end of the
games I'll be ready to unload another load of vomit!!

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Steve Hammet » Sat, 27 Jul 1996 04:00:00

I totally agree with your article.  NBC has chosen to "highlight" those
sports that THEY think are what the public wants to see.  If more and
more sports are wanting to be considered for the Olympics, then the IOC
has to rethink about the length of the games and make them longer.  

I'm from a "smaller" nation and I was looking forward to seeing my home
country in the opening ceremonies, but oh no they had to go to a damn'd
commercial.  The US is made up of people from different countries and
these people want to feel the pride of seeing their people enter,
compete, win or lose.  But to NBC they think that if the country entering
is not large like the US, Russia, China etc., then the country doesn't
deserve to be noticed!  BS!!!

I've watched every swimming race I could and I am so angry that NBC, IBM
or whoever the hell is in charge, couldn't find the time to name the
country in each lane, as they do in rowing.  What would it take to have
put the country's name on the screen. NOTHING.  I realize that each
country has their own version of the Olympics and perhaps they too are a
little biased, but when I was watching the Olympics years ago (not in the
US) I was shown not only my nation's athelete(s) but also the best in the
heats and finals.

Namibia has complained about the biasness of NBC reporting.  Linford
Christie (Great Britain) who could beat Michael Johnson has complained
that his coach will watch his race from London, because that's the only
way he (the coach) will get to see Christie.

I'm not saying that the entire US reporting is biased, but let me tell
you that the reporting of these Olympics is about as biased as I've seen
in another country south of the equator - a large country too!!  I
thought that country was the most biased I'd ever seen at the time, but
NBC is doing a beautiful job on its own.

If this is truly the games of the world, then it's about time reporters
realized that atheletes are just as human as those reporting a story.  I
wish they'd stop pressuring atheletes, trying to think for them and then
blaming them and even ignoring them when they don't win.  Can we all win
at what we do? No!  I'm tired of seeing "tidbits" about how little Johnny
crew up with this disease and that disease.  If the athelete wins, it
becomes a story about how that person "overcame adversity".  If they lose
they blame the disease or problem.  BS  The athelete tried their hardest.
I've watched my fellow countrymen lose many times, but they've never made
excuses for their loses.  They've picked themselves up and gone on to try
again!  I don't need to see where little Johnny grew up and how he got to
the games.  I want to see the damn'd sport!!!!  I also don't need a
damn'd history lesson.  Why don't the news teams (in this case, NBC) just
give us the facts - the sports facts.  We don't need the sensationalism
that goes along with it.  I also don't need to see a reporter
interviewing someone in prison.  That was disgusting!  NBC should
concentrate on sports and showing us the heats and finals and forget the
damn'd little "tidbits".

I've noticed that if the US is not in a sport, then NBC doesn't televise
it at all. What about all the people from other countries, living in this
country who want to see what their fellow country men/women are doing.
Why don't the news people give equal coverage to other sports that maybe
are not as well known.  Is it because these sports, like swimming,
basketball, don't carry big $$.  Betcha bottom bippee!  I agree with your
statement about soccer.  Where I come from soccer is very big and is
given equal (if not more) time as field hockey, rugby (both played in the
winter - but of course, not here in the US!)  Even the baseball team
isn't being given the coverage.  But betcha, if Agassi and Washington
start winning their games, they'll get lotsa coverage. Why?  Because of
the almighty greenback.

I'm furious about NBC's version of the Olympics.  Do you think they're
going to change?  No!  I've come to the conclusion that when the games
are held in countries outside of the US, we have far better coverage!
Let's hope that when the next lot are held in Sydney, that we'll get
better coverage.

Meanwhile, when the games are over, I will go back to watching another
channel, which I changed to when I got sick of the NBC Channel 4 (Los
Angeles) newsteam.  I'd like to find out why a weatherman gets to give us
weather information FOR L.A. FROM Atlanta and then make an idiot of
himself introducing Travis Tritt!  What a complete boondoggle trip.!  
Give me a break.  The local NBC newsteam (with the exception of Colleen
Williams) makes me want to puke - big time.

I may ahve got some of this off my chest.  I'm sure by the end of the
games I'll be ready to unload another load of vomit!!

 
 
 

Frothing at the mouth over NBC Coverage

Post by Kent Par » Mon, 29 Jul 1996 04:00:00

You can call NBC at (212) 664-4444