Live vs. Live on Tape vs. Tape

Live vs. Live on Tape vs. Tape

Post by Marc N. Weissma » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00


NBC has three types of coverage, Live (where the broadcast is as it
happens), Live on Tape (The broadcast is taped but the announcers are
reporting as it happens), and Tape (where the broadcast is taped and the
annoucers know the results while commenting on the coverage.)

A few years ago, Live on Tape may be fine since most of us would not
know the results (unless we watch TV or listened to the Radio). But now
with the internet, we can all find out the results of an event almost
immediately after it occurs.

So, why has NBC (which is promoting the internet on MSNBC) not aware of
this aspect of information? As of 9:29pm tonight, I know who has won the
women's gymnastic all-around and which events we excelled (or did not)
excel at. I am now watching the NBC coverage to see exactly what caused
the scores that I have read. Will I miss the "impact" of the event? Not
really. But I find it strange that NBC acts as if no one who is watching
knows.

Also, why can't NBC "post" the results immediately after the event since
it occurs several hours ago. Why must we wait several seconds for the
scores. I can understand having us wait until a commericial airs (though
I think it is rather tacky). A simple screen text of the score, even
with the "live on tape" commentary would show that NBC acknowledges the
fact that the event is not live.

Marc

 
 
 

Live vs. Live on Tape vs. Tape

Post by Randy Bea » Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:00:00

NBC is facing an interesting situation with this Olympics.  While
everyone was originally e***d about an Olympics occurring during prime
time EST, they're starting to discover that the Olympics is really
geared towards afternoon events.  This places NBC in somewhat of a
spot.  Do they show the event and admit Live on Tape or pretend it is
really happening and fool probably 60-70% of the viewing public.  Your
right, ***space has changed the rate that we get information about the
Olympics.  I think 1998 in Japan will have an entirely different flavor
from a broadcasting perspective.  It will be interesting to see where
the MS/NBC connection takes the broadcast of the games.

What I do like about the *** connection is that I am no longer limited
to a broadcast network filtering my sports news.  I can now track Team
Handball (a real exciting and challenging sport, if you've never
followed it) and follow the results of the competition without having to
wait until the paperboy comes the next morning.  It brings the Olympics
to my PC.  Now to just get TV over the Internet at a decent rate.

Randy Bear
San Antonio, TX

 
 
 

Live vs. Live on Tape vs. Tape

Post by James Sho » Sat, 27 Jul 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> Especially since they will be seen on CBS, for the last time. Figure
> skating is not going to be the same without Scott Hamilton running the
> commentary -- in fact, if NBC doesn't get a *good* team together and
> trained by 2002, it may not be worth watching on TV at all.



Interesting to speak of coverage of 2002 Winter Olympics.

I grew up in Salt Lake City, but have not lived there for 10+ years. For
probably more than 50 years, Salt Lake radio/TV station KSL channel 5,
owned by the LDS church, has always been a CBS affiliate and certainly, in
my mind, I always assumed KSL=CBS would always be true. I was quite
surprised (but then again, maybe not) that on my first visit back after
the decision for the 2002 Olympics had been announced, to learn that two
of the area's top stations had suddenly swapped their network
affiliations, and now KSL Ch 5 is the NBC station. Somehow, it just
doesn't seem right to see the peacock in place of the eye.

It will also be interesting to see whether SLC will really be able to pull
it off.

 
 
 

Live vs. Live on Tape vs. Tape

Post by Sk8mayv » Sat, 27 Jul 1996 04:00:00

<<I think 1998 in Japan will have an entirely different flavor
from a broadcasting perspective. >>

Especially since they will be seen on CBS, for the last time. Figure
skating is not going to be the same without Scott Hamilton running the
commentary -- in fact, if NBC doesn't get a *good* team together and
trained by 2002, it may not be worth watching on TV at all.