Is the British Olympic Coverage too Parochial?

First topic message reminder :

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?

Yeah he loves a dig about the irish, and he can be very insensitive to everyone.
But arnt these forums getting abit to PC!!

The golf boards are a lot less strict. He would cause a massive stir if he ventured out more often!

I wouldn't consider it PC pulling him up on his ignorant comments regarding the Northern Ireland situation. Especially when theres a strong contingent of Northern Irish on the board. Hes already admitted that some of his posts were wumming

Any chance of this thread finding its way back to the BBC coverage any time soon?

To much sub context within the OP for that to happen rowley

With due respect MystirOakey I don't think SR knows very much about NI constitutional and anglo- Irish politics, Irish history or how individual sports are administered across Ireland North and South. He certainly doesn't appear to.

Thats fine, I'm not even an expert myself, but I would suggest that he educates himself a bit before making generalised comments, mostly factually inaccurate and about something he clearly knows very little about, that some may find insulting and offensive.

mystiroakey wrote:To much sub context within the OP for that to happen rowley

Subtext in everything if you choose to see it. Is Paddington Bear a cartoon/book about a bear or a searing indictment of the way immigrants are treated and marginalised in the UK

The BBC does not choose to call them Team GB, or drop the Northern Ireland part, that was the choice of Team GB. They decided to call it that, and BBC are calling them what they choose to be called.

In the same way if you were named Thomas at birth, but asked to be called Tom.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Smaller by population, but post banking decline probably the most valuable assets in the UK will belong to Scotland within a 5 year time frame. I sometimes struggle to see what will become of England unless they tear away from Europe immediately.

Sorry, what?? Natural resources are a wasting asset, no long term value in Scotlands oil/gas.

Most of the banking decline is down to Scottish banks, if we split and handed the mess all back to them their economy would be fooked from the get go. Not to mention over issues such as whether they have to take the Euro and how the natural resources would be split (given Shetland/Orkneys have already said they'll stick with the UK which would give us a large percentage of the reserves [though that's just sabre-rattling IMO]).

For the record I'm pro-Union, love Scotland and Wales and strongly believe the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

rowley wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:To much sub context within the OP for that to happen rowley

Subtext in everything if you choose to see it. Is Paddington Bear a cartoon/book about a bear or a searing indictment of the way immigrants are treated and marginalised in the UK

I must rewatch pad bear!!

anotherworldofpain wrote:Smaller by population, but post banking decline probably the most valuable assets in the UK will belong to Scotland within a 5 year time frame.

Tim Visser isnt that good

I bet SR watches Braveheart secretly every night............

rodders wrote:Super do you actually know anything about this?

Look NI athletes are entitled to represent either team. Each athlete makes their descision based on their sport, who they have a chance of selection for and yes sometimes political allegience. That is their right and individual choice.

I need to stress though that there are Unionist/protestant athletes representing Ireland so that the latter point doesn't get over emphasised. Many athletes have represented both in different competitions.

NI is not the same as Scotland or Wales. No NI athlete who choses to represent Team GB has a problem with the anthem. Have you examples of this?

Of course I know this, but we have people moaning here that NI are not properly represented in the nomenclature and anthem of the GB team, I couldn't care less either way.
I just don't think it's something worth moaning about.

Who moaned about it?

It was you who has suggested NI athletes, at least those who represent TeamGB (which you didn't even know did) have a problem with the name or anthem.

rodders wrote:Who moaned about it?

It was you who has suggested NI athletes, at least those who represent TeamGB (which you didn't even know did) have a problem with the name or anthem.

Think it was me who thought NI athletes competed for Ireland Rodders......

Sorry I stand corrected on that one . An easy mistake to make considering the team is called TeamGB.....

I'm going to make myself unpopular and agree with AWOP.

I find the sycophantic flag waving patriotism cringe-worthy and puke inducing. Thankfully I have the interactive channels which means I get to just watch the action most of the time.

That Phil bloke who keeps feeling up the Athletes still sneaks on sometimes mind you.

I'm all for the flag waving and general togetherness Hibbz, anything which is a nail in the coffin of Alex Salmonds SNP crackpot reform is good for me.

Nah, you do know that the City of London floats the rest of the UK's economy, including Scotland, making IIRC 90% of our income? In comparison the depleting, arguably Scottish oilfields are small fry and that's without taking the millions lost through free Higher Education and prescriptions up there.

Also the rest of Europe, specifically France and Spain. Would HATE it if Scotland were independent as they have a very similar but frankly more volatile situation with Basque and Catalan areas. I think Europe would help Scotlan very little if they split off.

super_realist wrote:I'm all for the flag waving and general togetherness Hibbz, anything which is a nail in the coffin of Alex Salmonds SNP crackpot reform is good for me.

Nah all this aren't we great just because we happen to have been born in the same country as someone who's brilliant at a particular sport does my swede in.

The supposed pride and basking in the glory of achievements of someone you've had no influence over and will never meet passes me by.

Like I say interactive is relatively free of it though and means you can just enjoy the performances of amazing athletes.

super_realist wrote:I'm all for the flag waving and general togetherness Hibbz, anything which is a nail in the coffin of Alex Salmonds SNP crackpot reform is good for me.

Fixed for you

I quite like the patriotism, as long as it's not taken too far. The country has given a lot to get these athletes to where they are and has given a lot (much as we complain, justly, about certain things) to us too. It is a great country in many ways and I see nothing wrong with pride in this. You can argue that the concept of a country is inherently absurd but it's so engrained in our psyches that one could argue that the concept of no countries is equally absurd and alien to civilisation as it currently stands.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Nah, you do know that the City of London floats the rest of the UK's economy, including Scotland, making IIRC 90% of our income? In comparison the depleting, arguably Scottish oilfields are small fry and that's without taking the millions lost through free Higher Education and prescriptions up there.

Chequers, I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I hate the SNP and the idea of independence.

Hibbz wrote:

Nah all this aren't we great just because we happen to have been born in the same country as someone who's brilliant at a particular sport does my swede in.

The supposed pride and basking in the glory of achievements of someone you've had no influence over and will never meet passes me by.

Like I say interactive is relatively free of it though and means you can just enjoy the performances of amazing athletes.

It's interesting though that a lot of people who hold this opinion are also the first to jump on the 'Aren't British athletes/swimmers/tennis players useless/chokers/pathetic/waste of taxpayer's money, etc?' when things aren't going quite as well.

Want it both ways.

Oh, SR, the post wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the concept that the most valuable assets of the UK are in Scotland. As I'm on my phone, it's harder to quote. Sorry for the confusion

djlovesyou wrote:

Hibbz wrote:

Nah all this aren't we great just because we happen to have been born in the same country as someone who's brilliant at a particular sport does my swede in.

The supposed pride and basking in the glory of achievements of someone you've had no influence over and will never meet passes me by.

Like I say interactive is relatively free of it though and means you can just enjoy the performances of amazing athletes.

It's interesting though that a lot of people who hold this opinion are also the first to jump on the 'Aren't British athletes/swimmers/tennis players useless/chokers/pathetic/waste of taxpayer's money, etc?' when things aren't going quite as well.

Want it both ways.

Maybe but definitely not me.

Hibbz you play the lottery dont ya?

Even you contribute in that very small way..

I was confused by that too CHequers, I would have thought Scotland was a drain on the union and not an asset. Salmond is barmy if he thinks he can do a better job of running the country with no financial base to work on.
WHisky and Shortbread aren't worth much.

I was confused by that too CHequers, I would have thought Scotland was a drain on the union and not an asset. Salmond is barmy if he thinks he can do a better job of running the country with no financial base to work on.
WHisky and Shortbread aren't worth much.

Scotland is a very decent country with great things SR, but your right the crackpot salmond is a joke- I hope he saw Murray singing the few lines he did of GSTQ last week!

Even though i am not a fan of that anthem - that did make me laff abit

mystiroakey wrote:Hibbz you play the lottery dont ya?

Even you contribute in that very small way..

I rarely play but yes I have done, but my motive for playing is the hope of winning money not because I feel the warm glow of contributing to British sporting success. That said I'm happy enough that my £1 every month or so contributes so someone's success regardless of the nationality.

thats something Hibbz.

Its good to see that this lottery has been so effective in my mind..

Scotland is not a drain on the UK. But neither, IMO, would it be more than viable as an independent state. Especially with the National organisations such as the NHS across the entire UK, logistical nightmare to change that in Independence! Scotland could exist independently but the first couple of decades would be a vast struggle, assuming that the Scottish banks weren't forced to pick up on their almost incredibly large debts to the City.

Two things are certain if Scotland become independent:

1. The Olympics will never be held in "Britain" again
2. Labour (as it stands) will never be elected in the remainder of "Britain"

It would surely be quickly followed by Welsh Independence as there would be little to gain in the Anglo-Welsh union and the differences would become more untenable.

Possibly Wales and Scotland would join the euro after a disasterous attempt to maintain a single British joint currency.

The BBC would become the EBC and finally we'd get to see Welsh rugby internationals kick off live, rather than linger on Andy Murray's abortive attempts to remain in Wimbledon.

I'm not sure they would be invited to join the Euro

I'm not even sure the Euro will exist in a years time. We already seem to have new market symbols available for new drachma and various liras. If it does, they'll be gagging for new entrants to cash in pounds.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Two things are certain if Scotland become independent:

1. The Olympics will never be held in "Britain" again
2. Labour (as it stands) will never be elected in the remainder of "Britain"

It would surely be quickly followed by Welsh Independence as there would be little to gain in the Anglo-Welsh union and the differences would become more untenable.

Possibly Wales and Scotland would join the euro after a disasterous attempt to maintain a single British joint currency.

The BBC would become the EBC and finally we'd get to see Welsh rugby internationals kick off live, rather than linger on Andy Murray's abortive attempts to remain in Wimbledon.

awop i dont think you know anything about britain with those comments.

stick with nz stuff pal- your lack of knowledge is shown up pal.

I'm actually impressed at his knowledge and intelligence which makes it more clear that he is winning when he does this stuff

anotherworldofpain wrote:I'm not even sure the Euro will exist in a years time. We already seem to have new market symbols available for new drachma and various liras. If it does, they'll be gagging for new entrants to cash in pounds.

he meant EU not the currency- only a mental patiant would join the euro currency!

The scottish would get blackballed by spain if they tried to join the eu..

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'm actually impressed at his knowledge and intelligence which makes it more clear that he is winning when he does this stuff

his intellegence is up there with his persitance and grudge bearing. his knowledge of britain, europe and london isnt up there. His knowledge of rugby and NZ is spot on though. Sound familar?

Why is this political propaganda crap allowed to stay on this forum.

anotherworld clearly doesn't like England, fair enough but keep it to yourself. Fascist twit.

Bit OTT calling him a fascist just because you think he doesn't like England.

rowley wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:To much sub context within the OP for that to happen rowley

Subtext in everything if you choose to see it. Is Paddington Bear a cartoon/book about a bear or a searing indictment of the way immigrants are treated and marginalised in the UK

Oi....... Don't you pick on Paddington...!! <holds handbag in threatening manner>

.

I think I deserve a cup of tea (or something stronger, but I'm not quite at the stage of vodka for breakfast yet) after wading through all the irrelevance to the actual topic of discussion.

When I look at the subject though, I see the insidious influence of the political element.

The IOC created the Olympic Broadcasting Company so that they would be able to control the television coverage of the Games and prevent that falling under the, possibly, political control of the host nation. We wouldn't want another Berlin, now would we..? Countries or private broadcasters buy the right to broadcast those images and after that, what they do with them is largely up to them.

Whatever political purpose those images are put to within any individual countries borders is up to them and the IOC can do nothing about that, but they can make sure that the host nation doesn't impose any agenda it may have by controlling that which is actually recorded.

The images produced by the OBC cannot be physically altered (that is, falsified) in any way but things such as editing, commentary, emphasis and repeating can be.

So, the question really should be not one of parochialism, but one of political control. Who does the BBC work for..? Is it the government or the people..?

Robert Burns once said that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but that only applies if the tune is called at the time. Later is too late, and by the time the images go out, the money has already been spent and the government can no longer control anything.

The people own the images, via the BBC because actually, we control the money.

It's the money we've given over by way of tax both personal and corporate, it's the lottery tickets we've bought, community charge, business rates, parking fines and all the other ways we pool our money, that have actually given these team GB athletes a chance to win. The reason major companies can afford to sponsor these games is because we buy their products. It's wonderful, it's magical, but it wasn't made by politicians.

The next question to be asked is: What do we want to see..?

Well, I just happen to hold the British sports fan in very high regard. Apart from football, which is pretty much the domain of individuals who, for 90 minutes every Saturday, seem to turn into knuckle dragging Neanderthals, we are a nation that respects sport, indeed, we give it a very high level of reverence.

We want to see the best the world has to offer. It doesn't matter where they come from or who they represent. Be it Usain from Jamaica or Mike (Phelps) from USA or our Jess from Sheffield we want to see excellence and applaud it. We want to marvel at these visitors to our country who are making sporting history no matter what vest they wear.

This is what the olympics are all about and the petty nationalistic squabbling of that minority of individuals which all nations possess and must be tolerated in a free society should be set aside in much the same way that, during the ancient Games, athletes claiming to be on their way to Olympia would be allowed to pass through conflict areas without harm or hindrance. Reverence for sport transcends other considerations for the duration of the Games.

So I care little (and know even less) about Scottish independence. The Scots will have their day of voting and good luck to them in whatever choice they make. My only thoughts about Scotland vs England are the mouth watering prospect of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and Chris Hoy vs Jason Kenny. Race on and may the best man win..!!

The BBC understands all these things and does not allow political control. It has produced coverage of these Olympics... as with other Games before... to a remarkably high standard of content and balance. I think this is something that we can be proud of and call ourselves world leaders at. The BBC, like the NHS are the jewels in the crown of British social achievement and these Games have showcased both (in their way) to the world.

It is fair that we put this question of parochialism though. We (the people, that is) can't let the BBC become complacent and smug... they have to know that the people demand that the high standards they have created be maintained.... never allowed to slip.

Petty politics: No thankyou. High standards backed up by genuine debate on the issue: Yes please.

.

What a lovely response.

But I think all this "the people own the images" and "the people control the BBC" stuff is flowery naive idealism.

For example I tried not paying my TV license once because I got so annoying with the BBC and trust me it is not a voluntary funding arrangement and "the people" have no control at all.

For example given the choose, who wants to pay a monthly tax so Jeremy Clarkson can get a million a year or Jonathan Ross can own a huge house in Hampstead?

The high paid BBC celebrities are become almost like a defacto second Monarchy because we funding them by taxes and they collect a queen's ransom that we cannot withhold for their weekly appearances.

AWOP, only once has Scottish voting ever played a part in keeping a Labour government in the UK, without them it would barely make a difference to Labour's prospects. Surely though, no one would want them back in power anyway.

I'm speaking before SNP days here SR when it you look at the electoral map it look like a part of a rainbow fade from the blue south to the red north. Don't forget the last two Labour prime ministers come from Scotland! as little as one would like that to be remembered about.

But anyway is little to do with the OP.

anotherworldofpain wrote:What a lovely response.

But I think all this "the people own the images" and "the people control the BBC" stuff is flowery naive idealism.

For example I tried not paying my TV license once because I got so annoying with the BBC and trust me it is not a voluntary funding arrangement and "the people" have no control at all.

For example given the choose, who wants to pay a monthly tax so Jeremy Clarkson can get a million a year or Jonathan Ross can own a huge house in Hampstead?

The high paid BBC celebrities are become almost like a defacto second Monarchy because we funding them by taxes and they collect a queen's ransom that we cannot withhold for their weekly appearances.

Fair comment and I understand entirely where you're coming from. The licence fee is a form of taxation and not paying your taxes anywhere in the world will get you into trouble. But this taxation provides the service and in the wisdom of its founders, the BBC was granted a Royal Charter under which it operates, free of political control.

This is what places it in the hands of the people. Mr Cameron, nor any others of his ilk, can dictate to the BBC what they do and do not show. So long as the broadcast output remains within the confines of the BBC Charter, then I for one am happy with that.

Check it out for yourself:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement.html

Quite how much any one performer, artist or presenter is paid is a matter for the BBC's budgeting and finance department. That's not my concern except with regards to what I would call 'Value For Money'. If any one person does his job to my satisfaction, then I don't bother myself with such things. If you consider his wages to be excessive, then complain. You have that right. If enough people complain, then the issue would have to be addressed. See the section "complaints" in the Charter. That is people power.

But in the last couple of months, I've enjoyed series such as The Hollow Crown and now I can gorge myself on the sporting feast that is the Olympic Games. That's worth the licence fee on it's own as far as I'm concerned.


.

awop do you understand what would happen if we removed the tv license- Do you realise that these celbs would still be paid- and probally paid even more than they are under this system?

AWOP, I'm talking about all time. There has only once ever been an occasion where SCottish voting pushed Labour over the line.

THis point is raised constantly, yet is continually rebuffed with that very fact. In the last election I must have heard it at least ten times on phone ins and tv debates, but the fact remains, Scotland, thankfully has very little political influence on the party in power at Westminster.