Is the British Olympic Coverage too Parochial?

Team GB make some impressive success in the 2012 Olympics, but is the fawning media coverage of what is an expected boost in home medal count a global embarrassment? Has national pride crossed the boundary of good taste? Should the coverage, especially on BBC focus more on the great achievers and less on the home achievers? Did Jessica Ennis really put Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps achievements in the shade as suggested on Sky News last night? Are the British Media bad winners?

It's understandable that the media in the host nation are going to focus heavily on their own athletes, especially given their extraordinary success. If you want to see true parochialism in a nations sports press take a look at the new zealanders

Personally i feel that Bolt and Phelps got massive amounts of focus!!!

The BBC has done an exceptional job ensuring that all nations have recieved coverage.

Billy, how are you doing? Did you catch any of KPs innings yesterday? Awesome is an understatement

I think you'll find it would be the same in most countries. I mean I go on a lot of US websites and watch Fox News and they hardly mentioned the British success last night.

Yeah i did mate DGO, what an effort from him. Great to watch him when he is in that form. Taylor played the anchor role as well with some style.

All is good my side, hope you and yours are well

Olly wrote:I think you'll find it would be the same in most countries. I mean I go on a lot of US websites and watch Fox News and they hardly mentioned the British success last night.

Agreed. Other countries I've visited are far, far worse. In fact quite laughable when they report their athlete getting e.g. 23rd place with no mention of the medallists.

It is not the *focus* that is the problem, it is the sickening orgy of self adulation that is the issue, coupled with a lack of propriety. For example SKY News cut early from a sombre and suitably disinterested article discussing the latest massacre in Syria for a "breaking newsflash" that GB had won a gold medal in the long jump where a smirking commentator was shrieking "I told you that you might need to find some BIGGER numbers for that team GB GOLD medal count!!!! And wow! I hope you've found some because its YET ANOTHER GOLD for the unstoppable Team GB!!! WHat a super Saturday SUPER SUPER Saturday well I'm going to have to find more superlatives for how great this Saturday really is!!!!!...Now back to Syria"

Seriously, this is not a professional or dignified way to behave.

I don't expect British people to have an objective perspective on it, seriously I don't. But you need to hear at some point that your news programmes are laughably subjective and parochial even if they are forever awarding themselves gongs for impartiality.

Perhaps you will finally win enough things this time around to get enough practise to learn to be graceful in victory, because now it's a fairly hideous display of nationalistic chest beating. Just so you know...

Well so far this Olympics Ennis has outshone Phelps or Bolt! Of course the BBC is going to show British athletes more than others but as almost every event has been available to watch and some of the commentators have been really good, I don't think being too parochial is a fair complaint

Which national media isn't highly subjective, AWOP? Name one

By the way, I bet you can't. Also, the grace of te winners has been fairly clear.

anotherworldofpain wrote:It is not the *focus* that is the problem, it is the sickening orgy of self adulation that is the issue, coupled with a lack of propriety. For example SKY News cut early from a sombre and suitably disinterested article discussing the latest massacre in Syria for a "breaking newsflash" that GB had won a gold medal in the long jump where a smirking commentator was shrieking "I told you that you might need to find some BIGGER numbers for that team GB GOLD medal count!!!! And wow! I hope you've found some because its YET ANOTHER GOLD for the unstoppable Team GB!!! WHat a super Saturday SUPER SUPER Saturday well I'm going to have to find more superlatives for how great this Saturday really is!!!!!...Now back to Syria"

Seriously, this is not a professional or dignified way to behave.

I don't expect British people to have an objective perspective on it, seriously I don't. But you need to hear at some point that your news programmes are laughably subjective and parochial even if they are forever awarding themselves gongs for impartiality.

Perhaps you will finally win enough things this time around to get enough practise to learn to be graceful in victory, because now it's a fairly hideous display of nationalistic chest beating. Just so you know...

I understand what you're saying here, but I think you are focusing on Sky Sports coverage and that is never restrained or dignified in anything it does.

Perhaps you might watch the BBC instead and you will get a different picture. In fact, if you live in Mayfair (which I doubt) then you're probably the only person in the country who ISN'T watching the Games on the BBC.

Auntie has been a model of decorum, fairness and balance with input from overseas pundits like Ian Thorpe and Michael Johnson. Carl Lewis was brought into the studio to talk about the athletics. Specal focus has been given to the marvellous achievements of Michaelf Phelps and other great performances such as Chad le Clos... indeed, his (le Clos') father was invited onto the BBC commentary position so he could talk about his son's performance.

I bet NBC wouldn't do that for a British athlete if these Games were being held in the USA...!!

If there has been any wild enthusiasm for British performances at these Games, then it is because our athletes have performed incredibly well to date. They are fully deserving of attention and praise. They've earned it, and the British sporting public are entitled to enjoy it. We've had to put up with many, many years of sparse success, now we've got something to cheer, we're seizing the moment. And rightly so, in my opinion.

Please don't judge the British sporting public on the blatantly commercialistic, hyper-to-the-point-of-hysterical coverage of Sky. The British are still the fairest minded, most honest, magnanimous fans on Earth, bar none.

We'd never want that to change.

.

naughty awop.

as allways the bbc sporting coverage is first rate and as neutral as it needs to be

Jennifer1984 wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:It is not the *focus* that is the problem, it is the sickening orgy of self adulation that is the issue, coupled with a lack of propriety. For example SKY News cut early from a sombre and suitably disinterested article discussing the latest massacre in Syria for a "breaking newsflash" that GB had won a gold medal in the long jump where a smirking commentator was shrieking "I told you that you might need to find some BIGGER numbers for that team GB GOLD medal count!!!! And wow! I hope you've found some because its YET ANOTHER GOLD for the unstoppable Team GB!!! WHat a super Saturday SUPER SUPER Saturday well I'm going to have to find more superlatives for how great this Saturday really is!!!!!...Now back to Syria"

Seriously, this is not a professional or dignified way to behave.

I don't expect British people to have an objective perspective on it, seriously I don't. But you need to hear at some point that your news programmes are laughably subjective and parochial even if they are forever awarding themselves gongs for impartiality.

Perhaps you will finally win enough things this time around to get enough practise to learn to be graceful in victory, because now it's a fairly hideous display of nationalistic chest beating. Just so you know...

I understand what you're saying here, but I think you are focusing on Sky Sports coverage and that is never restrained or dignified in anything it does.

Perhaps you might watch the BBC instead and you will get a different picture. In fact, if you live in Mayfair (which I doubt) then you're probably the only person in the country who ISN'T watching the Games on the BBC.

Auntie has been a model of decorum, fairness and balance with input from overseas pundits like Ian Thorpe and Michael Johnson. Carl Lewis was brought into the studio to talk about the athletics. Specal focus has been given to the marvellous achievements of Michaelf Phelps and other great performances such as Chad le Clos... indeed, his (le Clos') father was invited onto the BBC commentary position so he could talk about his son's performance.

I bet NBC wouldn't do that for a British athlete if these Games were being held in the USA...!!

If there has been any wild enthusiasm for British performances at these Games, then it is because our athletes have performed incredibly well to date. They are fully deserving of attention and praise. They've earned it, and the British sporting public are entitled to enjoy it. We've had to put up with many, many years of sparse success, now we've got something to cheer, we're seizing the moment. And rightly so, in my opinion.

Please don't judge the British sporting public on the blatantly commercialistic, hyper-to-the-point-of-hysterical coverage of Sky. The British are still the fairest minded, most honest, magnanimous fans on Earth, bar none.

We'd never want that to change.

.

+1

For those who don't know, AWOP is a regular on the rugby union board, and specialises in this sort of 'provocative' article, usually attacking English rugby.

I think the TV coverage in particular has been first rate. Only problem has been deciding which of the 24 dedicated channels + 2 mainstream channels I should be watching.

I think he attacks Welsh rugby just as much. I usually quite like his Wummery but this one has urined me off

Though all the good work is being undone by the fact they have decided to put Inverdale on, on the biggest night of the Olympics...

Whoever decided that was a good idea needs to be hunted down and lynched!! Bloody Plonker!!

Wouldn't it be easier and more fun just to lynch Inverdale?

he gets to much stick surely. he doesnt normaly give out to much opinion.. just presents

ChequeredJersey wrote:Wouldn't it be easier and more fun just to lynch Inverdale?

No no no.............get one of the World's Strongest Men to throw him in the water at the end. That competition lost its legitimacy when that stopped happening.

I have found the BBC coverage overall to be very good. Why shouldnt we celebrate our success?

My only gripe is when they draw ridiculous comparisons between past and present athletes. If any of have been following the boxing we have a heavyweight called Anthony Joshua. The BBC continually compare him and describe him as the next Lennox Lewis which is terribly insulting to a boxer of Lennox Lewis' magnitude. To cap it all off he almost lost his first fight and didnt look a patch on Lennox Lewis at all!

dummy_half wrote:For those who don't know, AWOP is a regular on the rugby union board, and specialises in this sort of 'provocative' article, usually attacking English rugby.

I think the TV coverage in particular has been first rate. Only problem has been deciding which of the 24 dedicated channels + 2 mainstream channels I should be watching.

Ahhhh, a 'flamer' with a grudge against the British in general and the English in particular.

Oh well.... the foolish, like the poor, are always with us.

.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:For those who don't know, AWOP is a regular on the rugby union board, and specialises in this sort of 'provocative' article, usually attacking English rugby.

I think the TV coverage in particular has been first rate. Only problem has been deciding which of the 24 dedicated channels + 2 mainstream channels I should be watching.

Ahhhh, a 'flamer' with a grudge against the British in general and the English in particular.

Oh well.... the foolish, like the poor, are always with us.

Its not really like that. He just trys to have a little fun and get a reaction. Inbetween some of the dross he actually does make some very good points on the Rugby Board.

eirebilly wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:For those who don't know, AWOP is a regular on the rugby union board, and specialises in this sort of 'provocative' article, usually attacking English rugby.

I think the TV coverage in particular has been first rate. Only problem has been deciding which of the 24 dedicated channels + 2 mainstream channels I should be watching.

Ahhhh, a 'flamer' with a grudge against the British in general and the English in particular.

Oh well.... the foolish, like the poor, are always with us.

Its not really like that. He just trys to have a little fun and get a reaction. Inbetween some of the dross he actually does make some very good points on the Rugby Board.

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the tip, Billy.

.

He is just a cheeky scamp at times

ChequeredJersey wrote:Wouldn't it be easier and more fun just to lynch Inverdale?

For a minute I was sure it was Inverdale who threw that bottle at Usain Bolt so that he would fail to getting the gold and preserve Ennis as upstaging Bolt. I was sure the person was shouting "You took away my Jonny! You won't take the Olympics!" But we will see if he is wearing the signs of being wrestled to the ground by a dutch woman next time we see him on TV.

And to those people saying the coverage is just as parochial in other countries: you are miss the point here. The point is BBC and SKY are home broadcaster and BBC in particular maintain a reputation for being the world's most "grown up" broadcaster and have always the neutral view point and a lot of balance. It's a shame to sacrifice that reputation for a few weeks of childish hysteria over the Olympics. You can't justify unsatisfactory behaviour by pointing to other examples of it, or you could justify for instance a murder by pointing out that lots of other people commit murder before you. It's not the point, they should holding themselves to the highest standard and we should compare them to their objective to be the benchmark. It think they let themselves down here, just like on Jubilee weekend.

You're just going to keep winding this up arent you AWOP you scamp

It's a heartfelt and truthful appeal to my fellow poster colleagues meant with the most honest intent to resolve some anxiety I have about the coverage eirebilly. I just don't want this thought to be dismissed as some bitter foreigner having a whine. So it's important to making my point clear and hope to get some closure from the usual 606v2 intelligent debate from knowledgeable and wise posters eirebilly!

Why would the British coverage of this Olympics not be slanted towards home athletes? The British media's audience is the British public. If you want to see more focus on athletes from other countries, then watch the games via their TV channels.

When the rugby World Cup was recently held in New Zealand, did people complain that the NZ press' coverage was too focused on the All Blacks? No, because that would be ridiculous. Much like this article.

Incidentally, if you want an example of poor coverage of the games, then look at the decision by American broadcaster NBC to not show live coverage of the men's 100m final.

anotherworldofpain wrote:It's a heartfelt and truthful appeal to my fellow poster colleagues meant with the most honest intent to resolve some anxiety I have about the coverage eirebilly. I just don't want this thought to be dismissed as some bitter foreigner having a whine. So it's important to making my point clear and hope to get some closure from the usual 606v2 intelligent debate from knowledgeable and wise posters eirebilly!

Thats me gone then

In answer to your question in the header

No

You do have to say that the entire Olympic programme - every sport, every event is available on TV and online. That's a fortuitous technological first.

Auntie has on radio, TV and in its reportage been GB-centric.

I recall the Atlanta games when NBC cut away from the winner going through the tape because an American had a chance of a bronze. Now that was parochial.

Yes, but stop using other broadcaster's inadequacy to defend the BBC and particularly SKY (I agree SKY are almost of the parochial spectrum and should be shut down immediately to preserve national pride).

But what I found particularly distasteful is how now we are getting athletes past and present commenting on political and economic news. This is just appalling!

Last night we had a former British sprinter (I think he was a sprinter) trying to comment on Bonus reform at Barclays bank. Aside from the fact he could'nt make the whole sentence and had no idea what the reforms were about, he said several "facts" that were just untrue like "Well Barclays were bailed out by the tax payer so they shouldn't pay any bonuses". What twaddle, Barclays were not "bailed out" by anyone. Keep the athletes in the stadium for goodness sake! and let people who know what they're talking about comment on the news. What next?! Nick Robinson reporting on the mens 100 meter final?

That's a completely separate issue, surely AWOP?

Portnoy wrote:
I recall the Atlanta games when NBC cut away from the winner going through the tape because an American had a chance of a bronze. Now that was parochial.

Firstly, we have to remember that the actual television pictures are provided by the Olympic Broadcasting Company, not the BBC. National broadcasters then take the pictures and do what they will with them..... add their own commentary, etc.

We in Britain are probably one of the fairest nations with regard to 'balanced' coverage, and I've said a couple of times on this thread that the excessive hype and hysteria is overwhelmingly associated with Sky coverage.... a point that the OP seems determined to ignore, presumably because it doesn't sit comfortably with the anti-BBC agenda that he seems to want to pursue.

I have a number of online friends who live in America and talking with them about the coverage of the Games, seems to back up your point, Portnoy.

From what they say, NBC are incredibly biased and they only show events the US are likely to win..... If America isn't winning it, then it isn't happening. That's fine for them..... but we wouldn't want that here.

I have no axe to grind with the US. I wish GB had their resources and systems. But because of my online friendships I hear a lot about how things are done over there and it is in marked variance to the way we do things here in Britain. What's good for the US..... and any other country come to that.... is fine by me. I'm satisfied with the BBC's balance and breadth of coverage.

Are NBC the ones that refused to livestream the opening ceremony? And their moronic tv presenters didn't know who Tim berners lee was??

Lets see - almost half the country was watching the Olympics and even more have listened to it, or been engaged by it.

So we are interested in it

Most people in the UK and British, so have a higher than average interest in how the GB team are getting on

So let me do my additions

Interest + audience = what the country wants to see

However, we love our sport, so we want to see other countries compete and see how they get on - so the BBC shows us that as well

We have the opportunity to see every bit of the Olympics, not just the bits with Team GB in - the BBC interviews winners from other countries, shows them competing and gives us background on the histories of atheletes from other countries

Can u tell us the real real for your unfounded bashing of the BBC, as I can not see any reason

Do you expect them to show exactly the same number of mins per country just to be fair?

or have you just turned over a new page on your 'word for the day calendar' and it is parochial

mystiroakey wrote:

two_tone wrote:

eirebilly wrote:You're just going to keep winding this up arent you AWOP you scamp

Is he A WOP as that could go some way to explaining the obvious jealousy of how well we are doing.

Dont do it mate.. I got in alot of trouble for that and i didnt even
mean to call him that. I just shorterned his shorterned name and added a
y on it for a friendly vibe, basically he wouldnt leave the mods alone
saying i was racist- Expect a backlash..

If he wants to be a boo baby let him, wasnt meant to be 'racist' but there are a fair few terms banded around this board that plenty could take offence to. Thanks for the advice though, I await the PC brigade.

What is a WOP, then? Haven't heard it before.

Scratch that, just googled it.

I have the appropriate papers for many different countries, include Britain! my new home. So this is at least a slander to called me a "WOP". But in any case some times is helping for the new perspective to see things and so in this way I offered my sincere critique of the news coverage, especially SKY, which I find parochial. But if you want to be blind my the rose blinkers, then it's your olympics. But all I will say is that there was a lot of criticisms to China about various aspects of Beijing so is only fair that everyone gets to have their say in the open free uncensored forums that Britain promote globally! and without fear of marginalisation and personal attacks!

You are free to have your opinion, AWOP. I just disagree with it and frankly suspect that you disagree with it too, if that makes sense

yeah sorry awop dude your talking rubbish mate. I love the way you go more borat when your fishing

Let me start by saying...do you realise that this Olympics is the most covered Olympics in the history of the games from a media stand point?

Of course BBC 1/2 and to some degree 3 are going to be pro british....

Are you aware that the BBC stands for BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION...it is payed for by the taxpayers (which are predominantly British) and therefore the interest is going to be in how OUR nation are doing..

So yes your right in that their is a bias towards coverage of our athletes but that is to expected..however the coverage overall has been far from parochial...as you like to keep spouting.

In fact if you looked around using the red button (which is available to almost all homes with a TV in it now) then you will see that you can watch almost anything you want. Whether their is a brit competing or not!!

Even on the main BBC channels their has been plenty of coverage of things going on not involving us Brits....tonight we have seen the Shot Put in parts...Pole Vault attempts of athletes other than Holly Bleasdale. In the sprints etc we see heat's of all the races regardless of whether a Brit is in their or not.

What you also have to consider is that given the past few years within this country their has been a huge focus and need for us to not only host a successful Olympics but gain success within it. We have ploughed billions of pounds into hosting the Olympics so of course we are going to crow that not only are we doing a good job but we are also picking up plenty of medals...

I for one am glad to be tuning into some good news for once rather than the dull, dreary and often depressive news that we so often find ourselves watching/listening.

In short to answer your question the BBC has provided nothing more than a slightly biased coverage of what is a HOME olympics targeting it's audience who are predominantly British...but in the grander scale of things they have probably shown what would be considered the most extensive and fair/equal coverage of other countries outside of GB...

Their was nothing parochial about that was their!!...stick that in your pipe and smoke it...

Fantastic scenes and huge well done to the legend that is Felix Sanchez!

So the British media is bigging up the British athletes, whatever next? How about the weather forecasts concentrating almost entirely on British or how about the majority of the tv programmes being in English? Or is this thread not about stating the obvious?

Thank you to Felix for taking the point seriously and make the good rebuttal.

Allow me to refute your points.

Firstly, before the games begin during the opening ceremony we hear that the Olympic values (not BRITISH values) are about not winning, but how you conduct yourself during the games.

Now when this schpiel was being touted I doubt very much that the kind of conduct they had in mind to uphold the olympic ideal by representation was a fetid self congratulatory orgy of nationalism and an hourly chest thumping update on where "Team GB" were on the medals table.

Secondly, the BBC may stand for BRITISH BROADCASTING COMPANY, but they collect and spend the tax payers money according to a contract know as the Charter and Agreement of which you might want to review section 10 "Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK" (note the use of UK and not Britain firstly and also the concepts held within). Now if bringing the UK to the world entails ellucidating a nation of unsporting self righteous tub thumping nationalists during the olympics then that is a sad throw back to some dusty colonialist dogma that was, so the rest of the world thought, buried with the ashes of the empire. But perhaps we've all been mistaken.

what are you going on about,

dont get to caught up in the name bbc, or british or uk- its the same thing. gb or britsih is short for gb and ni(uk) great britain is the land mass of england wales and scotland- the british isles includes ireland.

Btw how have you manged such good english above- yet you couldnt do it in the one before?

by the way if you think the empire is so dead- why is the commonwealth games such a success?