Ask HN: What caused the Olympics to become so terrible?
150 comments
It made more sense before globalization. It was a chance to consider going to some unexpected destination, bringing people together from all nations. Maybe take your spouse or your kids with you, go on a cruise, hire a tour guide, grab a book with some tips and short phrases in the local language and embark on an exciting adventure.
In the 21st century, we interact with the rest of the world on a daily basis. You can learn more about any destination online (heck, on Wikipedia alone) than you would from traveling there for a few days to watch some random assortment of sporting activities.
And I think to some extent we're so used to having everything at our fingertips that sometimes actually going to the destination is less rewarding than one would expect--spend a ton of money (vs. going on the internet 'for free'), deal with customs, deal with the occasional crying kid on the plane, maybe forget to bring an item you really needed, maybe get mugged or lose your passport, have issues with your hotel reservation...
Not to mention the opportunity cost. Compare the number of, say, Summer activities one could consider instead of going to the Olympics in 1952 vs 2022. If anything we suffer from too many alternatives today
Plus there's no Cold War to raise the stakes to the point where anything but the gold medal wins utter defeat.
And frankly I'd wager most people aren't that into nationalism anymore, except maybe the alt-right and its equivalents elsewhere. "I'm just trying to get through the week" trumps all else for most people.
In the 21st century, we interact with the rest of the world on a daily basis. You can learn more about any destination online (heck, on Wikipedia alone) than you would from traveling there for a few days to watch some random assortment of sporting activities.
And I think to some extent we're so used to having everything at our fingertips that sometimes actually going to the destination is less rewarding than one would expect--spend a ton of money (vs. going on the internet 'for free'), deal with customs, deal with the occasional crying kid on the plane, maybe forget to bring an item you really needed, maybe get mugged or lose your passport, have issues with your hotel reservation...
Not to mention the opportunity cost. Compare the number of, say, Summer activities one could consider instead of going to the Olympics in 1952 vs 2022. If anything we suffer from too many alternatives today
Plus there's no Cold War to raise the stakes to the point where anything but the gold medal wins utter defeat.
And frankly I'd wager most people aren't that into nationalism anymore, except maybe the alt-right and its equivalents elsewhere. "I'm just trying to get through the week" trumps all else for most people.
I agree that you can learn more facts about place than you can by visiting for a few days, I think this is kind of misleading. I've mostly interacted with the world through the internet and have a decent sense for other cultures, world leaders, political systems, leading exports, types of food, etc but the <20 days I've spent abroad really feel like much richer experiences and were very eye opening. I think globalism and the internet make us think the world is a little smaller than it is.
As an immigrant and International Relations major (forever ago), I definitely believe in the value of traveling. But I also believe in "living like a local" wherever you go to truly experience what that place is about... which is virtually impossible during any global event like the Olympics or the football World Cup
>> Plus there's no Cold War to raise the stakes to the point where anything but the gold medal wins utter defeat.
I have to disagree here.
The amount of politics and rivalry between authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian regimes is the same as it was in the past
I have to disagree here.
The amount of politics and rivalry between authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian regimes is the same as it was in the past
This is what I’ve become. I don’t think I am racist, and I came to the US liking the diversity, that was about ten years ago.
Now I think I’ve had enough of it, and would rather have familiarity and harmony. I began to resent diversity actually.
Now I think I’ve had enough of it, and would rather have familiarity and harmony. I began to resent diversity actually.
It’s an international tournament? Diversity is inevitable in that situation. I get what you mean though. I grew up in then Rhodesia, followed by stints in South Africa as effectively a refugee followed by the UK, and honestly I miss having a community of people who all share the exact same experiences as you in the same place. It’s the small town feeling I guess.
I don’t resent the UK and US for becoming like this though: I feel you can have the best of both worlds. London for instance is a very international city, but even if you venture even half an hour out of the M25 you’ll find very homogenous neighbourhoods (in fact, this is even true within London now that I think about it).
I don’t resent the UK and US for becoming like this though: I feel you can have the best of both worlds. London for instance is a very international city, but even if you venture even half an hour out of the M25 you’ll find very homogenous neighbourhoods (in fact, this is even true within London now that I think about it).
I don't know where you live, but my experience is that in the US, the network coverage just ruined the Olympics because they don't "get it."
I grew up in a different country--not the US, China or Russia. We typically hope to get a half dozen medals and a gold would be a Big Deal.
As a result, if you turn on the TV, you get random coverage of any of the hundreds of individual competitions. Modern pentathlon! The one where they jump on a trampoline! Handball!
There are so many sports that it's non-stop coverage. Also, because it's live, whenever someone from your home country has a chance to medal it's a big deal: everyone stops doing what they are doing to watch TV. Collectively. It's an "event".
It's really fun and--this is key-- emotional. Not just to watch your country medal but all of the other sports, winners, losers, etc.
In the US the TV coverage is garbage. It's 100% US-centric, which would be excusable (if shortsighted, because it's less fun and emotional). Worse, it's not even live, which makes it less special. And they don't show any sports where the US isn't competitive, which makes it less novel and fun.
I grew up in a different country--not the US, China or Russia. We typically hope to get a half dozen medals and a gold would be a Big Deal.
As a result, if you turn on the TV, you get random coverage of any of the hundreds of individual competitions. Modern pentathlon! The one where they jump on a trampoline! Handball!
There are so many sports that it's non-stop coverage. Also, because it's live, whenever someone from your home country has a chance to medal it's a big deal: everyone stops doing what they are doing to watch TV. Collectively. It's an "event".
It's really fun and--this is key-- emotional. Not just to watch your country medal but all of the other sports, winners, losers, etc.
In the US the TV coverage is garbage. It's 100% US-centric, which would be excusable (if shortsighted, because it's less fun and emotional). Worse, it's not even live, which makes it less special. And they don't show any sports where the US isn't competitive, which makes it less novel and fun.
I worked on the BBC's British coverage of Sydney, Salt Lake City and Athens Olympics (2000-2004).
The sibling comments here are absolutely right - the US coverage is terrible compared to the quality of the output of other broadcasters.
The problem is that US audiences only want to watch American competitors and most popular sports here are ones where the majority of teams and players are American. The Olympics isn't about one country and so to focus all of your coverage just on your own country creates a very tilted output, esp when America isn't featured in a final. Whole sports are not covered because there is no American competing, and to not show a final because no Americans made it through is just absurd.
For comparison, the BBC shows every heat/round from every sport. Some of it is online only or via the red button (extra channels via digital TV we don't have in the US) but they show it and commentate on it. And with no ads.
Sports like Formula 1 are not popular in the US because there are no American drivers and the single American team is hardly American (based in Europe, currently has Russian flag livery due to weird sponsorship deal). But we'll know when Americans start watching sports for the pleasure of competition and not for nationalistic reasons because sports like F1 will become more popular organically.
The sibling comments here are absolutely right - the US coverage is terrible compared to the quality of the output of other broadcasters.
The problem is that US audiences only want to watch American competitors and most popular sports here are ones where the majority of teams and players are American. The Olympics isn't about one country and so to focus all of your coverage just on your own country creates a very tilted output, esp when America isn't featured in a final. Whole sports are not covered because there is no American competing, and to not show a final because no Americans made it through is just absurd.
For comparison, the BBC shows every heat/round from every sport. Some of it is online only or via the red button (extra channels via digital TV we don't have in the US) but they show it and commentate on it. And with no ads.
Sports like Formula 1 are not popular in the US because there are no American drivers and the single American team is hardly American (based in Europe, currently has Russian flag livery due to weird sponsorship deal). But we'll know when Americans start watching sports for the pleasure of competition and not for nationalistic reasons because sports like F1 will become more popular organically.
> The problem is that US audiences only want to watch American competitors
I think there's a [citation needed] here. This is what people think is true, but I'd argue is wrong--as evidenced by a collapse in viewership!
People want entertainment that is fun and emotional, and the US coverage isn't providing that, perhaps because they are constrained by thinking that US audiences only care about US athletes.
I think there's a [citation needed] here. This is what people think is true, but I'd argue is wrong--as evidenced by a collapse in viewership!
People want entertainment that is fun and emotional, and the US coverage isn't providing that, perhaps because they are constrained by thinking that US audiences only care about US athletes.
I agree, I want to watch the Olympics, and not Figure Skating. I know events are basically happening all the time, but for some reason I can only watch a couple events from 8pm - 11pm my time. Of that block, 50% is devoted to commercials or random "interest" stories where I learn about one of the athlete's sick horses. When I actually can see an event, I'm forced to endure the "insightful commentary".
i deeply agree with this
> The problem is that US audiences only want to watch American competitors
Is this an established fact, or just a widespread belief among US broadcasters?
And yes, the BBC Olympics coverage is awesome. During the London games, I chose to pay for a proxy service so that I could use iPlayer and catch the BBC rather than suffer through NBC's useless attempt.
Is this an established fact, or just a widespread belief among US broadcasters?
And yes, the BBC Olympics coverage is awesome. During the London games, I chose to pay for a proxy service so that I could use iPlayer and catch the BBC rather than suffer through NBC's useless attempt.
F1 has a problem (if you want to call it that) where it's not in my timezone. I wake up on the west coast USA and an entire race will have started and finished while I was asleep.
We use a VPN to watch on the BBC for just this reason. The BBC hosts don't over analyze the coverage and the focus is on the competitors and they don't create artificial drama. Their para-Olympics coverage is top notch too.
Forgot to add advertising in the US is out of control.
Forgot to add advertising in the US is out of control.
Agree completely. The reasons I think are:
- America has just so many participants so it makes some sense that 100% coverage is on US athletes
- too much focus on personal side of things (X just had a baby etc.) is becuase US gets regular news-people/non-expert commentators. Since they don't often know much about the sport, they make everything into a personal interest stories.
How other countries do it:
- focus on the sport
- former athletes of the sport in question are brought in
- America has just so many participants so it makes some sense that 100% coverage is on US athletes
- too much focus on personal side of things (X just had a baby etc.) is becuase US gets regular news-people/non-expert commentators. Since they don't often know much about the sport, they make everything into a personal interest stories.
How other countries do it:
- focus on the sport
- former athletes of the sport in question are brought in
US coverage is less fun because they focus on US athletes all the time, even when they are not participating. So if there's no swimming on, instead of watching some random-ass sport--which is fun--we have to watch a random human interest story--which is not fun.
Obviously they should cover US athletes when they are participating but they cover them all the time. It's just more boring.
Obviously they should cover US athletes when they are participating but they cover them all the time. It's just more boring.
The best Olympic coverage I’ve seen was the NBC HD broadcast of the 2002 Salt Lake City winter games. HD was still pretty new in the US. They didn’t have many HD cameras and they didn’t have an HD workflow integrated with the SD broadcast, so it was completely separate from the “overcoming adversity USA athlete” coverage.
For example, they set up the HD cameras and trailer at the ski jumping venue. They showed ski jumping start to finish—all the competitors real-time without editing. The commentators were ski jumping experts, since the professional commentators were all off on the SD feeds. Almost no breaks because they only had one HD commercial.
I learned so much about the sport and cheered for competitors from random countries. It was miles beyond the standard NBC coverage and probably even better than watching it in person.
20 years later and it’s the most memorable Olympics-watching experience of my life, going back my earliest memory of the jetpack in ‘84.
For example, they set up the HD cameras and trailer at the ski jumping venue. They showed ski jumping start to finish—all the competitors real-time without editing. The commentators were ski jumping experts, since the professional commentators were all off on the SD feeds. Almost no breaks because they only had one HD commercial.
I learned so much about the sport and cheered for competitors from random countries. It was miles beyond the standard NBC coverage and probably even better than watching it in person.
20 years later and it’s the most memorable Olympics-watching experience of my life, going back my earliest memory of the jetpack in ‘84.
So much this! It was amazing. I remember just hooking up an antenna to get the broadcast and just keeping my TV tuned to the Olympics.
Unfortunately, the networks have gotten "smarter". I can watch things in 4k this year, but it's the traditional coverage, so it's crap content with 4k and HDR. :(
Unfortunately, the networks have gotten "smarter". I can watch things in 4k this year, but it's the traditional coverage, so it's crap content with 4k and HDR. :(
The best coverage I've experienced was the 2012 London Summer Olympics on Youtube. Continuous multiple live streams, could select any event going on to watch it live. I don't think there were ads in the stream (don't remember though).
Non live coverage is so dumb. Nobody wants to watch the World Cup or the Super Bowl with a 12 hour delay
I am in a similar situation, except the country where I come from usually makes it to the top 5-10. I have been surprised by how poor the coverage of the Olympics is here in the US: only sports where the US have a change of medals, don't bother to show the finale if the American contestant(s) has been eliminated in the semi, constant ad breaks and ad integrations. Almost unwatchable. And so antithetic to what the idea of the Olympics should be: bringing nations together and competing for the beauty of the sport and of the performances of the athletes. Coubertin, who founded the Olympic Committee said "L'important, c'est de participer" (roughly: "the important thing is to participate")
I tend to agree with this. I live in the UK and they don’t have too many athletes at the winter Olympics which makes the coverage more diverse in terms of sports and more importantly, athletes. This is very different from summer Olympics where the UK have more active participants making the coverage way less enjoyable.
>When I was a kid, we use to look forward to the Olympics. It was a big deal. The whole family would gather around the TV to watch the events live regardless of timezone. [...]
Nowadays, [...] No one cares. Heck, some people don’t even know that the Olympics are even happening.
It seems like the macro trend of network television spectacle events is on the decline and probably due to the internet. The decline in ratings happens across many domains:
- sports: NFL Super Bowl football viewership declines[1], MLB baseball, NASCAR racing, Olympics, etc
- awards shows: Academy Awards, Grammy Awards
- morning shows and evening newscasts on all networks NBC/ABC/CBS, etc
Both the internet (Netflix, Youtube, etc) and a demographic shift means events like the Olympics is not a big deal anymore. Yes, the Olympics committee has scandals but everything on network tv has been on a long term decline.
The 1950s television sets shifted audiences out of movie theaters. The 1940s era of "Gone With The Wind" and "Casablanca" represented the peak movie theater attendance for % of population. Now the internet is shifting audiences away from tv specials including the Olympics.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/sports/football/super-bow....
It seems like the macro trend of network television spectacle events is on the decline and probably due to the internet. The decline in ratings happens across many domains:
- sports: NFL Super Bowl football viewership declines[1], MLB baseball, NASCAR racing, Olympics, etc
- awards shows: Academy Awards, Grammy Awards
- morning shows and evening newscasts on all networks NBC/ABC/CBS, etc
Both the internet (Netflix, Youtube, etc) and a demographic shift means events like the Olympics is not a big deal anymore. Yes, the Olympics committee has scandals but everything on network tv has been on a long term decline.
The 1950s television sets shifted audiences out of movie theaters. The 1940s era of "Gone With The Wind" and "Casablanca" represented the peak movie theater attendance for % of population. Now the internet is shifting audiences away from tv specials including the Olympics.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/sports/football/super-bow....
I think this is it, and I think all of these events need to be making deals with 1 or more streaming service to get major front page features. Network TV is holding onto them like a life-raft, and it’s causing both to drown. Tastes haven’t changed that much; audiences just aren’t seeing the events in their ecosystems.
Peacock (NBC’s service) is aggressively pushing Olympics coverage. I saw my roommate watching the Olympics, which he said was the first time he’d done since moving out of his parents.
I think you are spot on. Sports has been one of the main reasons left for many to get cable. I've thought a few times about trying to follow soccer more, but I'd need to get cable or YouTubeTV which is like $60/month. I recently started watching F1 again which is $80 for the whole year and it was super easy to sign up and watch on all my devices. It's even set up in a way where it's trivial to stay away from spoilers. I wonder if all access to sports and live events was that easy if they'd grow more as well.
I predict that the networks will either adapt or die as their remaining audience does as well.
I predict that the networks will either adapt or die as their remaining audience does as well.
I agree completely. I'd also add that many people don't even have cable television now, so could they even watch the Olympics if the wanted to? I have not watched network television in about 10 years, I have netflix and another streaming service, and that's it. Does NBC have free online streaming? Even if they do, it's still outside most people's normal sphere of media consumption so they are probably less likely to look at it.
I like this take. Big, spectacle events have almost lost their luster.
The model of "go to a new place every four years, build an Olympic village and a bunch of athletic facilities" doesn't work economically. It doesn't make enough money in the short term, and the facilities don't get enough use in the long term to justify it either.
That makes it hard for a city in a free society to want to be the host. The costs are very real but the benefits are elusive. Probably the last time the Olympics were profitable to the host city was the 1984 Los Angeles games and that was because Los Angeles was able to drive a hard bargain because nobody wanted to host the Olympics after the terrorism at the 1972 games.
Some people have suggested we might be better off if the Olympics were held in the same place(s) every year, maybe in Greece.
That makes it hard for a city in a free society to want to be the host. The costs are very real but the benefits are elusive. Probably the last time the Olympics were profitable to the host city was the 1984 Los Angeles games and that was because Los Angeles was able to drive a hard bargain because nobody wanted to host the Olympics after the terrorism at the 1972 games.
Some people have suggested we might be better off if the Olympics were held in the same place(s) every year, maybe in Greece.
It seems like there was this crazy escalation of spending promises to win the bid. At some point responsible democracies dropped out, the irresponsible democracies, so all that was left were authoritarian nations looking to improve their image without changing.
Now it seems like even the authoritarian nations are deciding it's to expensive and you see responsible democracies getting back in with more realistic bids.
Now it seems like even the authoritarian nations are deciding it's to expensive and you see responsible democracies getting back in with more realistic bids.
And of course the IOC is somehow more corrupt then FIFA, which is a real accomplishment.
Except that the next Olympics are due to be held in France, Italy, USA, Australia - and only one of those is partly an authoritarian nation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_Games_host_cit...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_Games_host_cit...
If you follow a little bit France on news or Twitter, you will see that Paris is kind of an authoritarian city with a mayor that created in a few years a debt that no one had seen before.
Now, most normal people in France would have like the thing to be cancelled instead of having their taxes being wasted with that
Now, most normal people in France would have like the thing to be cancelled instead of having their taxes being wasted with that
[deleted]
AIUI, these new bids are pretty modest, without much new spending/infra
Only one? Love your optimism.
The Atlanta Olympics made money.
The event had commercial sponsors such as Coke and McDonald's plastered everywhere, which was derided at the time. The opening ceremony even prominently featured Chevy pickup trucks [1].
Nearly all of the newly built facilities were then reused as Georgia Tech dormitories, professional sporting stadiums, local high school facilities, etc.
It was a huge inflection point for the city's growth.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=26m16s&v=4n0a-yNO8fE up to the "How Y'all Doin'!" at 30:04
The event had commercial sponsors such as Coke and McDonald's plastered everywhere, which was derided at the time. The opening ceremony even prominently featured Chevy pickup trucks [1].
Nearly all of the newly built facilities were then reused as Georgia Tech dormitories, professional sporting stadiums, local high school facilities, etc.
It was a huge inflection point for the city's growth.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=26m16s&v=4n0a-yNO8fE up to the "How Y'all Doin'!" at 30:04
All except the Olympic stadium which was torn down.
It wasn't torn down, just modified for new uses.
It was used as the Atlanta Braves stadium from 1997 to 2016, then converted into Georgia State University's football stadium when the Braves moved outside the city to Cobb County to follow the tax incentives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Stadium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Field
Each conversion took lots of money, but the original structure is still there.
It was used as the Atlanta Braves stadium from 1997 to 2016, then converted into Georgia State University's football stadium when the Braves moved outside the city to Cobb County to follow the tax incentives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Stadium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Field
Each conversion took lots of money, but the original structure is still there.
> Probably the last time the Olympics were profitable to the host city was the 1984 Los Angeles games
The 1994 winter olympics in Norway did make a profit.[0]
[0] https://www.nrk.no/ytring/mytene-og-sannheten-om-ol-1.111989...
The 1994 winter olympics in Norway did make a profit.[0]
[0] https://www.nrk.no/ytring/mytene-og-sannheten-om-ol-1.111989...
I don't see any reasons why Olympics should be held in single place or small area. Have for example larger regions or continents to share bids and allow them to bid for sports that are locally popular, thus having venue reuse. Also maybe scale down size for venues and number of events.
Barcelona 92 was the Olympics that most benefited a city.
What a wonderful city! And amazing port / beach transformation.
What a wonderful city! And amazing port / beach transformation.
Depends on who you talk to! Infrastructure yes, but came with it waves of unsustainable tourism.
And that Freddy Mercury song...
You are disregarding the fact that there is a competition to get the Olympics, where perfectly normal democracies also participate each time. There have certainly been offers from competitors to arrange Olympics on tighter budgets too.
The question is why those locations don't win? I'm sure it's due to corruption within the Olympic organization, but who am I to judge. I just stop watching the crap.
The question is why those locations don't win? I'm sure it's due to corruption within the Olympic organization, but who am I to judge. I just stop watching the crap.
The last 7 Olympics were in China, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, Russia, Britain, and Canada. 5/7 are democracies, which is a much higher ratio than there are in the world.
I think this is first worlders thinking "democracy = the West".
I think this is first worlders thinking "democracy = the West".
> The question is why those locations don't win?
Partially it is corruption, partially it is that most democratic places want to limit IOC's powers and then many areas try, but are held back by the population by large campaigns against it.
Partially it is corruption, partially it is that most democratic places want to limit IOC's powers and then many areas try, but are held back by the population by large campaigns against it.
But if democracies put together modest bids that their citizens can accept and authoritarians promise to make it spectacular + offer larger bribes, who will win?
Atlanta was a net positive in 1996 because they used a lot of the money on buildings that were used for decades after the Olympics were done.
Assuming you're in the USA: NBC bought the exclusive rights for coverage in the USA (through 2032), and what gets shown, and when, and with what commentary, reflects their priorities.
Edit: I just found a fascinating detail on the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Olympic_broadcasts#Mike_Ti... which points out that NBC doesn't want Olympics coverage to cannibalize their Super Bowl viewership, which is more profitable.
Edit: I just found a fascinating detail on the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Olympic_broadcasts#Mike_Ti... which points out that NBC doesn't want Olympics coverage to cannibalize their Super Bowl viewership, which is more profitable.
I’ve noticed the same thing, and I think it’s for a couple of reasons:
As noted in another comment NBC is an absolutely terrible steward of the broadcasts in the US, but they spent the money to help prop up their football investment.
The second is that the IOC is driven by greed, and dictatorships have money while craving any legitimacy they can get on the world stage. It’s been shown in multiple studies (sorry I don’t have time to look them up offhand) that only a few cities have managed to pivot the Olympics required investment into a profit by any measure (including public good, which is where I recall the few that are considered successes hinge their measurements, i.e. LA). That drives the actual Olympics into those countries arms.
As noted in another comment NBC is an absolutely terrible steward of the broadcasts in the US, but they spent the money to help prop up their football investment.
The second is that the IOC is driven by greed, and dictatorships have money while craving any legitimacy they can get on the world stage. It’s been shown in multiple studies (sorry I don’t have time to look them up offhand) that only a few cities have managed to pivot the Olympics required investment into a profit by any measure (including public good, which is where I recall the few that are considered successes hinge their measurements, i.e. LA). That drives the actual Olympics into those countries arms.
Are they terrible?
I was tuned into mens figure skating last night in time to see an incredible flawless performance from a young 19 year old man from Japan.
Some time later they were doing snowboarding slope style which was really fun to watch.
There might be less energy with less people in the crowd due to the pandemic, but the performances from the athletes are nonetheless fantastic.
Maybe I'm having a different experience as I'm in Canada and its broadcast differently. The CBC is essentially playing all olympics all the time, of course at various prime times compiling the gold medal finals (especially if a Canadian is in any sorts of contention).
CBC's streaming service Gem will be streaming everything, so with that in mind, if you're a fan of something niche (ie. in a canadian context: not-hockey, not-curling) you have more ability than ever before to watch an entire event.
I was tuned into mens figure skating last night in time to see an incredible flawless performance from a young 19 year old man from Japan.
Some time later they were doing snowboarding slope style which was really fun to watch.
There might be less energy with less people in the crowd due to the pandemic, but the performances from the athletes are nonetheless fantastic.
Maybe I'm having a different experience as I'm in Canada and its broadcast differently. The CBC is essentially playing all olympics all the time, of course at various prime times compiling the gold medal finals (especially if a Canadian is in any sorts of contention).
CBC's streaming service Gem will be streaming everything, so with that in mind, if you're a fan of something niche (ie. in a canadian context: not-hockey, not-curling) you have more ability than ever before to watch an entire event.
> Maybe I'm having a different experience as I'm in Canada and its broadcast differently.
Yes, far different. Where I use to live, I use to be able to get one of the Montreal Stations. Even though I could not speak French, their coverage was far above what the US would offer. So when I could, I would watch that station. I moved away from there are years ago, and the US coverage is so bad I no longer care about the Olympics.
Yes, far different. Where I use to live, I use to be able to get one of the Montreal Stations. Even though I could not speak French, their coverage was far above what the US would offer. So when I could, I would watch that station. I moved away from there are years ago, and the US coverage is so bad I no longer care about the Olympics.
[deleted]
You got older.
Look up the Berlin, Moscow and the following LA Olympics as examples of propaganda and politics.
Look up the Berlin, Moscow and the following LA Olympics as examples of propaganda and politics.
You grew up.
That's all. This realization of the Olympics being a non-event to you is how most adults have viewed the Olympics for the past 50 years. Seriously, no one cares or has ever really cared much. You're just now old enough to realize that. Oh, and there are still families with kids who are watching the Olympics the way you did while growing up. My teenage kids happen to love the Olympics and are watching every event. See? The Olympics haven't changed. You have.
That's all. This realization of the Olympics being a non-event to you is how most adults have viewed the Olympics for the past 50 years. Seriously, no one cares or has ever really cared much. You're just now old enough to realize that. Oh, and there are still families with kids who are watching the Olympics the way you did while growing up. My teenage kids happen to love the Olympics and are watching every event. See? The Olympics haven't changed. You have.
One reason I think is the fragmentation of culture. When there were only a limited number of TV channels you could reasonably have a handful of shows that everyone in the country would get together and watch, especially for event broadcasts like the Olympics. Now there are so many options the chances one thing will be able to dominate the conversation is very low, even if lots of people watch the Olympics, because of streaming each person might be watching totally different events at different times. The unified communal experience was a big part of what made it exciting.
Simple, Commercialization, paid athletes.
When the US allowed Pro Basketball/Hockey etc. players to be on the Olympics, I stopped caring about it then. Yes other nations supported their athletes, but who cares.
Another thing, especially in the US, all you get to see on TV are the sports the Americans can win at. In the past you could see some sports you never knew existed and some were Americans did not participate in. No more.
Also half the broadcast is about the athlete's life. I just want to see the competition, not a complete biography of the people in it. Seems there is more biography then the actual competition.
Also it seems the Olympics committee wants to drop "unpopular" sports. They tried to drop greco-roman wrestling but reneged due to push back (as far as I know).
In the past, the Olympics was a great vehicle for people who were not selected for professional sports to get a second chance, no more. Seems you need to be a pro to even get to go.
Never mind the over Commercialization.
I could go on, but this is enough for me.
BTW, not watching it at all.
When the US allowed Pro Basketball/Hockey etc. players to be on the Olympics, I stopped caring about it then. Yes other nations supported their athletes, but who cares.
Another thing, especially in the US, all you get to see on TV are the sports the Americans can win at. In the past you could see some sports you never knew existed and some were Americans did not participate in. No more.
Also half the broadcast is about the athlete's life. I just want to see the competition, not a complete biography of the people in it. Seems there is more biography then the actual competition.
Also it seems the Olympics committee wants to drop "unpopular" sports. They tried to drop greco-roman wrestling but reneged due to push back (as far as I know).
In the past, the Olympics was a great vehicle for people who were not selected for professional sports to get a second chance, no more. Seems you need to be a pro to even get to go.
Never mind the over Commercialization.
I could go on, but this is enough for me.
BTW, not watching it at all.
One aspect is that NBC has a lock on the Olympics for the US. Their streaming service is utter trash - unreliable, bad quality video, confusing menus (couldn't even figure out how to watch live events), rewind and fast forward don't have preview (at least on Roku), so you have no idea where to stop, no overlays describing any details of the stream, no editing of recorded events (i.e. 45 minutes of a zamboni cleaning the ice), etc.
Also, NBC seems to be working for the State Department in trashing China at every turn. Yes, China commits human rights abused, but this is a gold standard case of the pot calling the kettle black. The US is one of the biggest human rights abusers out there. The Olympics is about setting that aside for a moment. The US should have either boycotted the olympics or shut up about the politics.
Also, NBC seems to be working for the State Department in trashing China at every turn. Yes, China commits human rights abused, but this is a gold standard case of the pot calling the kettle black. The US is one of the biggest human rights abusers out there. The Olympics is about setting that aside for a moment. The US should have either boycotted the olympics or shut up about the politics.
The US has diplomatically boycotted the Olympics this year. That doesn't have anything to do with NBC - they have a first amendment right to cover the Olympics.
You're assuming there's some sneaky stuff going on with the State Department pulling the strings, but in this case the simplest explanation seems more likely - NBC recognizes the strong anti-China sentiment around human rights abuses in the viewing public, so they know that catering to that sentiment will be best from a business perspective.
You're assuming there's some sneaky stuff going on with the State Department pulling the strings, but in this case the simplest explanation seems more likely - NBC recognizes the strong anti-China sentiment around human rights abuses in the viewing public, so they know that catering to that sentiment will be best from a business perspective.
I'm confused, did I call for censorship? Are you saying that no one should be criticized because they have first amendment rights?
Also, it's extremely naive to think the US government has no influence over US media. First, there is significant overlap and connectivity in the ruling class that runs the government and runs media companies. Second, there are many examples of the media and the government working together to craft a message. I can provide several references to examples if you were unaware of this.
Also, it's extremely naive to think the US government has no influence over US media. First, there is significant overlap and connectivity in the ruling class that runs the government and runs media companies. Second, there are many examples of the media and the government working together to craft a message. I can provide several references to examples if you were unaware of this.
They are clearly behind in understanding how young people want to enjoy the games. The experience is trash when it even works (half the streams return an authorization error at random).
> The Olympics is about setting that aside for a moment
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071
Ah.. just set it aside for just a moment..
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071
Ah.. just set it aside for just a moment..
You are repeating state department propaganda about Uighur camps. Most of the information about Xinjiang has been coming from CIA contractors and vague satellite photos. They were claiming that 2 million (out of 10 million) people were in camps until it became untenable to maintain this lie. There's no doubt that China is an authoritarian state with major human rights issues there, but it's not at the scale being claimed, and it isn't some unique or new situation as it is being presented, and they aren't any worse than the human rights abuses the US commits. For instance, the US has the world's largest prison population, which jails millions, disproportionately minority. This is just as egregious as anything China is doing in Xinjiang. And you've got the US killing millions in the middle east over the last few decades. Guantanamo bay is still open.
But yeah, China is the one who needs to be pointed out. How is it not obvious that this is an intentional campaign by the US government to attack China's image? They said nothing about Saudi Arabia or Israel when they marched out during the opening ceremony. And Israel is a rogue nuclear nation and apartheid state with millions in lockdown, which is not even hidden, and finally acknowledged by Amnesty International in the last few days. NBC's comments were to fawn over the first orthodox jewish woman in the Olympics. What's next? To fawn over the first evangelical christian doing whatever? The hypocrisy is frustrating in the extreme.
But yeah, China is the one who needs to be pointed out. How is it not obvious that this is an intentional campaign by the US government to attack China's image? They said nothing about Saudi Arabia or Israel when they marched out during the opening ceremony. And Israel is a rogue nuclear nation and apartheid state with millions in lockdown, which is not even hidden, and finally acknowledged by Amnesty International in the last few days. NBC's comments were to fawn over the first orthodox jewish woman in the Olympics. What's next? To fawn over the first evangelical christian doing whatever? The hypocrisy is frustrating in the extreme.
So your argument here is that their concentration camps aren't that bad because it's actually only a million people that are in them, instead of two million people?
Yeah China has a record of harvesting organs and running concentration camps for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. People probably aren't going to stop repeating that fact any time soon.
Yeah China has a record of harvesting organs and running concentration camps for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. People probably aren't going to stop repeating that fact any time soon.
No, that's not my argument. That's a strawman - don't put words in my mouth.
The only evidence for everything you are saying is from CIA contractors and documents of questionable provenance. The US has obvious conflict of interest when reporting on the misdeeds of their biggest competitor. It's an obvious smear campaign.
There is evidence of abuse and mistreatment of Uighurs yes, but not a full scale genocide and jailing of millions. It's a lie, or at most, a gross exaggeration.
But that wasn't my point. My point is why is China specifically picked on? Why didn't the US detail their own human rights abuses when they hosted the Olympics? They are easily argued to be as bad or worse. As mentioned, the US has far more minorities in actual prison, and prisoners in the US are LEGALLY subject to unpaid labor, basically slaves. This is 100% true and easily verifiable, not hidden or a conspiracy.
This doesn't even get into the millions killed overseas by the US military. But I guess that's not human rights abuse, because those brown middle easterners arent human in your eyes. Or, they aren't human unless abused by china.
The only evidence for everything you are saying is from CIA contractors and documents of questionable provenance. The US has obvious conflict of interest when reporting on the misdeeds of their biggest competitor. It's an obvious smear campaign.
There is evidence of abuse and mistreatment of Uighurs yes, but not a full scale genocide and jailing of millions. It's a lie, or at most, a gross exaggeration.
But that wasn't my point. My point is why is China specifically picked on? Why didn't the US detail their own human rights abuses when they hosted the Olympics? They are easily argued to be as bad or worse. As mentioned, the US has far more minorities in actual prison, and prisoners in the US are LEGALLY subject to unpaid labor, basically slaves. This is 100% true and easily verifiable, not hidden or a conspiracy.
This doesn't even get into the millions killed overseas by the US military. But I guess that's not human rights abuse, because those brown middle easterners arent human in your eyes. Or, they aren't human unless abused by china.
I hear you entirely.
I tend to think there are countries which have reached the "no-win" stage of public relations. It sort of reminds me of when the UN sent inspectors to Iraq looking for the legendary WMDs-- even transparency wasn't good enough. The fix is in, and there's no reasonable sequence of definite actions they can perform that would get China on the West's good side. They could walk Joe Biden personally through the length of Xinjiang and someone would still say "they must have hidden the prisoners!"
Every positive story about China is always tempered with "but but Tibet/the Uighurs/social case-celebree of the week."
That slant, in particular, is particularly annoying. It's dehumanizing because we're treating a country of over one billion people as a single undifferentiated unit.
Did any of the tens of thousands of people who worked to deliver this event get up in the morning and think "Gosh, if I just paint these bleachers just right, they'll let people I don't know, 5000km away, get away with a genocide! Can't wait!" I doubt it. On the ground level, this is the work of ordinary people with ordinary motivations-- and the concept of "If we're going to be on a global stage for two weeks, let's do the best possible presentation we can." is not some malicious whitewashing conspiracy. They don't deserve the slander.
I have to wonder if we're in a situation where we're looking for an enemy. The Cold War was great for business-- it justified eternal defense spending and trade restrictions against a major economy. What a coup if they could pull it off against China!
I tend to think there are countries which have reached the "no-win" stage of public relations. It sort of reminds me of when the UN sent inspectors to Iraq looking for the legendary WMDs-- even transparency wasn't good enough. The fix is in, and there's no reasonable sequence of definite actions they can perform that would get China on the West's good side. They could walk Joe Biden personally through the length of Xinjiang and someone would still say "they must have hidden the prisoners!"
Every positive story about China is always tempered with "but but Tibet/the Uighurs/social case-celebree of the week."
That slant, in particular, is particularly annoying. It's dehumanizing because we're treating a country of over one billion people as a single undifferentiated unit.
Did any of the tens of thousands of people who worked to deliver this event get up in the morning and think "Gosh, if I just paint these bleachers just right, they'll let people I don't know, 5000km away, get away with a genocide! Can't wait!" I doubt it. On the ground level, this is the work of ordinary people with ordinary motivations-- and the concept of "If we're going to be on a global stage for two weeks, let's do the best possible presentation we can." is not some malicious whitewashing conspiracy. They don't deserve the slander.
I have to wonder if we're in a situation where we're looking for an enemy. The Cold War was great for business-- it justified eternal defense spending and trade restrictions against a major economy. What a coup if they could pull it off against China!
What positive story are you talking about? That the Olympics isn't that popular or is "terrible" as the OP describes it?
Who is talking about the people who delivered the event, and who is slandering them in this conversation?
You say "5000km away" but it is the same government.
Have a read through this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037
Who is talking about the people who delivered the event, and who is slandering them in this conversation?
You say "5000km away" but it is the same government.
Have a read through this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037
I'm saying that building the facilities and hosting the ceremonies are a lot of hard work for tens of thousands of people. That they were able to pull the event off as smoothly as they have, during a global pandemic, is still an accomplishment, regardless of the TV ratings.
Maybe we can say that once in a while without having to frame it in the context of "TeH cCp EvIl AnD fAiLiNg"
Saying "it's the same government" is rather a broad-brush. When there's a new library or stadium built in Phoenix, do we belittle the hard work of the contractors and architects over what ICE is going with immigrant children?
You see that sort of coverage on a lot of news about China. "20,000 km of high speed rail built in a year" or "space program is proceeding smoothly" inevitably pivots to human-rights potshots, even when the actions in the story have only the most gossamer links to it.
Maybe we can say that once in a while without having to frame it in the context of "TeH cCp EvIl AnD fAiLiNg"
Saying "it's the same government" is rather a broad-brush. When there's a new library or stadium built in Phoenix, do we belittle the hard work of the contractors and architects over what ICE is going with immigrant children?
You see that sort of coverage on a lot of news about China. "20,000 km of high speed rail built in a year" or "space program is proceeding smoothly" inevitably pivots to human-rights potshots, even when the actions in the story have only the most gossamer links to it.
> There's no doubt that China is an authoritarian state with major human rights issues there, but it's not at the scale being claimed
Hold on, _you_ introduced the point about scale and then argued against it.
> and they aren't any worse than the human rights abuses the US commits
Your whole comment reads like a joke
> But yeah, China is the one who needs to be pointed out.
The Olympics is hosted in China, you know that right?
> How is it not obvious that this is an intentional campaign by the US government to attack China's image?
I posted a link to the BBC. Is your next conspiracy theory that the US government runs the BBC?
I know I have asked a few questions in this post but please don't bother replying. Any conversation with you is beyond worthless.
Hold on, _you_ introduced the point about scale and then argued against it.
> and they aren't any worse than the human rights abuses the US commits
Your whole comment reads like a joke
> But yeah, China is the one who needs to be pointed out.
The Olympics is hosted in China, you know that right?
> How is it not obvious that this is an intentional campaign by the US government to attack China's image?
I posted a link to the BBC. Is your next conspiracy theory that the US government runs the BBC?
I know I have asked a few questions in this post but please don't bother replying. Any conversation with you is beyond worthless.
Your response consisting solely of sneering and ad hominem says all that needs to be said about the quality of your argument.
I knew you would reply :)
I'm not sure what country you're in, but in the U.S. the problem is in how it's broadcast now. The broadcast rights never should have been sold exclusively for such a long time and NBC is a terrible steward of sports and the Olympics in general for many years. The truth is though that the heart of the problem is the IOC, who agreed to these kinds of deals.
To me the Olympics used to be about the discovery of heroes, as they emerged through the greatest competition in their event that the planet could put together. Great moments of sportsmanship and overcoming what most people think are limitations of the human body. There was always a sense of discovery and the pioneering of new horizons in the events.
Now it's about making and manufacturing "heroes", with commercial deals going out to athletes years before they're ever even proven to be winners. Selective broadcasts, 30 minute human interest stories, commercials commercials commercials commercials, and after the games branding tie ins. Athletes used to be "Olympic gold medalist!" now they're just celebs with less clout than the many "influencers" who aren't known for having much talent in anything in particular.
edit I just heard the phrase "industrial sports" applied to the problem and couldn't agree more.
To me the Olympics used to be about the discovery of heroes, as they emerged through the greatest competition in their event that the planet could put together. Great moments of sportsmanship and overcoming what most people think are limitations of the human body. There was always a sense of discovery and the pioneering of new horizons in the events.
Now it's about making and manufacturing "heroes", with commercial deals going out to athletes years before they're ever even proven to be winners. Selective broadcasts, 30 minute human interest stories, commercials commercials commercials commercials, and after the games branding tie ins. Athletes used to be "Olympic gold medalist!" now they're just celebs with less clout than the many "influencers" who aren't known for having much talent in anything in particular.
edit I just heard the phrase "industrial sports" applied to the problem and couldn't agree more.
Olympics are like nationalism on steroids. How can that be interesting?
It's also a tragedy. Tens of thousands of talented people who dedicate their lives to an event. Then they return from the Olympics to... get a job as a Wallmart greeter? It's a global waste of human potential
It's also a tragedy. Tens of thousands of talented people who dedicate their lives to an event. Then they return from the Olympics to... get a job as a Wallmart greeter? It's a global waste of human potential
During the cold war the was more of a pannationalalism in the sense us vs them.
> We use to follow the stories of the atheletes
The advent of the Internet made it much more widely known that the athletes are being badly exploited and forced to risk getting permanently injured or killed in order to make more money for the corporations that run the Olympics, so it no longer seems ethical to prop it up by paying attention. Especially since several do die each year while training.
Also the fact that they're getting rid of all the real sports in favor of events that have better TV ratings.
And also the fact that many of the events are so badly run that luck plays just as much a factor as talent in determining who wins. The whole thing is just meh.
The advent of the Internet made it much more widely known that the athletes are being badly exploited and forced to risk getting permanently injured or killed in order to make more money for the corporations that run the Olympics, so it no longer seems ethical to prop it up by paying attention. Especially since several do die each year while training.
Also the fact that they're getting rid of all the real sports in favor of events that have better TV ratings.
And also the fact that many of the events are so badly run that luck plays just as much a factor as talent in determining who wins. The whole thing is just meh.
'Forced to risk'? High level training brings many inherent risks that the athletes are presented with, whether it is at the Olympics or at other international/national competition. Sponsorship has been a part of the Olympics for a long time, and not something that came about in the last 20 years.
I am not sure where you are getting your death rate statistics, but based on https://www.olympedia.org/lists/59/manual it does not look like 'several' die each year.
The Olympics have discontinued only a handful number of sports in both the winter and summer segments. I am not sure what you mean by a 'real' sport, but if anything the olympics are adding sports that have gained popularity over time.
And you boiling down the victories for Olympians down to 'luck' reeks of a schmuck that is on their couch being a keyboard warrior. There people train their whole lives, but I doubt you think of that.
I am not sure where you are getting your death rate statistics, but based on https://www.olympedia.org/lists/59/manual it does not look like 'several' die each year.
The Olympics have discontinued only a handful number of sports in both the winter and summer segments. I am not sure what you mean by a 'real' sport, but if anything the olympics are adding sports that have gained popularity over time.
And you boiling down the victories for Olympians down to 'luck' reeks of a schmuck that is on their couch being a keyboard warrior. There people train their whole lives, but I doubt you think of that.
That list is missing several very famous examples, e.g. Sarah Burke, so it's definitely not accurate.
> High level training brings many inherent risks that the athletes are presented with
In the sense that most swimmers eventually injure their shoulders, or most rowers eventually injure their lower backs, then sure. But the IOC is purposely making the sports more dangerous to make them more exciting, which is completely different than overuse injuries -- which often don't even have any consequences in every day life, beyond that the person can no longer do their sport at an elite level.
> High level training brings many inherent risks that the athletes are presented with
In the sense that most swimmers eventually injure their shoulders, or most rowers eventually injure their lower backs, then sure. But the IOC is purposely making the sports more dangerous to make them more exciting, which is completely different than overuse injuries -- which often don't even have any consequences in every day life, beyond that the person can no longer do their sport at an elite level.
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but what really ruined the Olympics for me was the sudden realization of what they are.
In essence, [modern] Olympics are a glorified parade of genetic freaks (ok, maybe not freaks, but outliers?). I don't mean this disrespectfully to the athletes, but at the same time, the reason they're able to break the top 10 in any particular sport is extreme form of selection bias.
Their lungs are just a little bit bigger than everyone else's. Or their femur/thigh ratio or whatever. Or their fingers are extra flexible.
So what we see is just a ruthless form of selecting the best people genetically, for that sport, since childhood. Yes, sure, they put in a lot of work, but so does every athlete who doesn't make it to the Olympics or WCs. And I'm sure 99+% don't make it. But you still can't overcome something like a height disadvantage in Basketball or Swimming with pure training.
As someone who struggles with poor health genetics, watching Olympics for me is rubbing salt in the wound at best. And once you realize it's just genetic freaks performing "as expected", it's really all very boring. Also once you realize the performance records mostly stagnated after the 1980s, and most of the modern record improvements are due to hyper-optimized equipment.
After all, would we be surprised that a dog is good at running or a fish is good at swimming?
In essence, [modern] Olympics are a glorified parade of genetic freaks (ok, maybe not freaks, but outliers?). I don't mean this disrespectfully to the athletes, but at the same time, the reason they're able to break the top 10 in any particular sport is extreme form of selection bias.
Their lungs are just a little bit bigger than everyone else's. Or their femur/thigh ratio or whatever. Or their fingers are extra flexible.
So what we see is just a ruthless form of selecting the best people genetically, for that sport, since childhood. Yes, sure, they put in a lot of work, but so does every athlete who doesn't make it to the Olympics or WCs. And I'm sure 99+% don't make it. But you still can't overcome something like a height disadvantage in Basketball or Swimming with pure training.
As someone who struggles with poor health genetics, watching Olympics for me is rubbing salt in the wound at best. And once you realize it's just genetic freaks performing "as expected", it's really all very boring. Also once you realize the performance records mostly stagnated after the 1980s, and most of the modern record improvements are due to hyper-optimized equipment.
After all, would we be surprised that a dog is good at running or a fish is good at swimming?
As one who is surrounded by Olympics athletes, the 1984 Summer Olympics was held in Los Angeles.
I got the chance to actually meet people from all over the world and learn to converse in their tongues.
No politics, no post-event reviews, no media coverage on flaws of judging, no politicians leveraging Olympics (that I intensively read for in many printed media). A really nice week(s).
Today, not so much.
sources
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics
I got the chance to actually meet people from all over the world and learn to converse in their tongues.
No politics, no post-event reviews, no media coverage on flaws of judging, no politicians leveraging Olympics (that I intensively read for in many printed media). A really nice week(s).
Today, not so much.
sources
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics
My thoughts:
When I was a kid, seeing Olympic-level athletes (or any high-level athlete) was a Big Deal, even in the news. Now, we’re surrounded by news; we can learn intimate details of their private lives. Familiarity breeds ennui.
The Olympics aren’t for talented amateurs anymore. They probably never were, except in the beginning, now now we realize this. Everyone is aware of the commercialization surrounding every aspect of it. At worst, I t’s a scam on a global basis. At best, it’s just another commercial enterprise slowly being stripped of any national pride.
The Olympics are expensive. The first thought is how much they cost now, not whether we’ll win anything. What is the return on the Olympics? A ton of debt, mainly, and unused venues, slowly rotting, rarely to be re-used.
Going places is expensive. Cheaper than it used to be, for sure, but it still eats a ton of expense that few people have access to. So, we can watch them on video, but it’s easier to just get the highlights than absorb the whole event, since there’s less time availability. But there are other things to be done so we can just plan to get the highlights later.
Finally: it’s sports and I have other amusement available. Sports don’t matter like they used to. I, personally, don’t make connections with people thru discussion of sporting events. So, the Olympics are something that a bunch of people are involved in that has no connection to me.
When I was a kid, seeing Olympic-level athletes (or any high-level athlete) was a Big Deal, even in the news. Now, we’re surrounded by news; we can learn intimate details of their private lives. Familiarity breeds ennui.
The Olympics aren’t for talented amateurs anymore. They probably never were, except in the beginning, now now we realize this. Everyone is aware of the commercialization surrounding every aspect of it. At worst, I t’s a scam on a global basis. At best, it’s just another commercial enterprise slowly being stripped of any national pride.
The Olympics are expensive. The first thought is how much they cost now, not whether we’ll win anything. What is the return on the Olympics? A ton of debt, mainly, and unused venues, slowly rotting, rarely to be re-used.
Going places is expensive. Cheaper than it used to be, for sure, but it still eats a ton of expense that few people have access to. So, we can watch them on video, but it’s easier to just get the highlights than absorb the whole event, since there’s less time availability. But there are other things to be done so we can just plan to get the highlights later.
Finally: it’s sports and I have other amusement available. Sports don’t matter like they used to. I, personally, don’t make connections with people thru discussion of sporting events. So, the Olympics are something that a bunch of people are involved in that has no connection to me.
The quality of the broadcast coverage in the USA is so bad. The announcers have some sob story about the US athletes and then just cut coverage from a bunch of other athletes in other countries. They delay broadcast for time zones so results are known before it even airs. Some spots that are uncool can’t even be watched it’s such a shitshow.
What I'd love is a single HD video for each sport which is just the competitors competing. No commercials, no announcements, no human-interest. In fact you could trim out everything but the top three performances and I'd be fine. Even then, it's not something I'd watch for more than 10 minutes.
The hyper-focus of tv coverage on this-person-from-our-country rather than just showing all the sports
The coverage is very different where I am. Discovery plus has love and archive footage of nearly everything to stream.
From what I can see, Discovery+ only has Olympics content available in the UK, Italy, and Spain. https://sports.yahoo.com/analysis-discovery-beijing-winter-o...
And Sweden
Not sure what you mean by "regardless of timezone".
I was lucky to be in a foreign country during an Olympics (Australia). They had no delusions of grandeur (except maybe in swimming). They interviewed winners regardless of country, they told stories regardless of country. They showed events live.
Dick Ebersol stubbornly kept the standard practice of tape-delaying major events to prime time in the US, long past viability in the Twitter/ESPN/Google ecosystem. In some cases (swimming), they have lobbied to change the schedule so live events can be live in the US prime time window. I believe Michael Phelps's 2008 Beijing races were at 7am local time. Surely other countries loved that.
I was lucky to be in a foreign country during an Olympics (Australia). They had no delusions of grandeur (except maybe in swimming). They interviewed winners regardless of country, they told stories regardless of country. They showed events live.
Dick Ebersol stubbornly kept the standard practice of tape-delaying major events to prime time in the US, long past viability in the Twitter/ESPN/Google ecosystem. In some cases (swimming), they have lobbied to change the schedule so live events can be live in the US prime time window. I believe Michael Phelps's 2008 Beijing races were at 7am local time. Surely other countries loved that.
There are many more things competing for people's time and attention. Also, nationalism is waning in many places due to globalism. The Olympics is inherently a nationalistic event. If you don't buy into these artificial divisions of mankind, the whole flag-draped charade is nauseating. Not to mention the outright absurdity of the idea that national representatives competing against eachother in sports has any significance whatsoever.
For me, the precariousness of our time has made me sober up. I'm sick of spectacles. I want real answers and substantive initiatives that work towards solving the problems of our age. Not sports, not bread and circuses, for goodness sakes!
For me, the precariousness of our time has made me sober up. I'm sick of spectacles. I want real answers and substantive initiatives that work towards solving the problems of our age. Not sports, not bread and circuses, for goodness sakes!
Olympic Games have been used before to underline the power and greatness of a nation - look at how the 1936 Games were used propaganda-wise, so I don't think this is a new phenomenon. What has definitely changed is the importance of live events on TV. In the German speaking area in the 80s to the 2000s, Saturday night shows were popular that gathered the whole family in front of the TV (I'm just saying "Wetten Dass..?"). Due to on demand entertainment that can be perfectly tailored for the desired target audience on Youtube or similar platforms, such TV events have simply lost their importance.
I see a lot of blame to the Olympics format here, but I think it's the broadcast model making it harder to adapt to modern times.
The Olympics have a lot of 1-minute clips that would be perfect for TikTok or a short YouTube video, but even in countries with good Olympics coverage the seem stuck in a TV-like format where you cannot publish anything without permission of whichever company bought the rights in your country.
This is a pity, because the Olympics are objectively great: seeing the end result of years of effort by the greatest athletes in the world is the best motivation anyone can have to achieve more in life.
The Olympics have a lot of 1-minute clips that would be perfect for TikTok or a short YouTube video, but even in countries with good Olympics coverage the seem stuck in a TV-like format where you cannot publish anything without permission of whichever company bought the rights in your country.
This is a pity, because the Olympics are objectively great: seeing the end result of years of effort by the greatest athletes in the world is the best motivation anyone can have to achieve more in life.
US TV ruined it. It's entirely different coverage in at least europe, none of this editorializing, profiles, etc etc. Just coverage.
I liken it to something Jonathan Demme (paraphrasing, maybe misattributing) said about Stop Making Sense - "concert films like to show the audience having fun, but our feeling is it limits/detracts from the experience" (stop making sense shows the audience very very little in its runtime)
So, to me, this carries over in the US coverage - they make all the decisions about how I should feel about every part, rather than letting the viewer come up with their own experience.
I liken it to something Jonathan Demme (paraphrasing, maybe misattributing) said about Stop Making Sense - "concert films like to show the audience having fun, but our feeling is it limits/detracts from the experience" (stop making sense shows the audience very very little in its runtime)
So, to me, this carries over in the US coverage - they make all the decisions about how I should feel about every part, rather than letting the viewer come up with their own experience.
For me, it's the absolute hypocrisy of these events which turn me off. Slogan of the winter Olympics is "together for a shared future". Everyone is laughing and clapping and keeping up a facade. Meanwhile, millions in China are systematically getting physically and psychologically molested in concentration camps because they had a different ideology or religion (Xinjiang internment camps). Everyone complies with China's rules and authoritarian regime. Nobody makes a statement. IOC is silent. That future is not so shared as people make it out to be.
You could probably cite dozes of contributing reasons ranging from Covid fatigue, the number of entertainment options exploding, and peoples' attention spans being more limited.
But I'd speculate that one of the biggest factors is the feeling of postnationalism.
Being from a specific nation means almost nothing anymore. There's basically almost no such thing as a Frenchman or a Brit or a Canadian: these are just treated as arbitrary designations today. If everybody everywhere is the same and the nation is treated as irrelevant, then an international competition means much less.
But I'd speculate that one of the biggest factors is the feeling of postnationalism.
Being from a specific nation means almost nothing anymore. There's basically almost no such thing as a Frenchman or a Brit or a Canadian: these are just treated as arbitrary designations today. If everybody everywhere is the same and the nation is treated as irrelevant, then an international competition means much less.
They also added too many sports recently in both summer and winter Games in order to drive tv viewing numbers up. That's diluted the quality, think the skateboard competition in the last summer games.
The Winter Olympics have never been as popular as the Summer Olympics.
You just grow up to see behind the veil. It's not a chance that the modern olympic started peak "concert of nations", they already were a nationalistic endeavour.
I'm not a big fan of politics, but this article[0] really struck a chord with me. And I think it does a good job at giving some insight to your initial question.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/04/china-opens-wi...
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/04/china-opens-wi...
That article is kinda garbage. I'm no fan of China but this seems like an obvious hit-piece on China. e.g.:
> One of those performing the symbolic act was the Chinese cross-country skier Dinigeer Yilamujiang, who is of Uyghur heritage... That, to put it mildly, was a highly provocative act.
China gave an Uyghur person this high honor. It seems like a positive gesture. How is it provocative? Black people face systemic abuse in the US, are routinely shot by the police and form a persistent underclass but the US had Muhammad Ali light the flame in the '96 Atlanta Games. Was that a provocative act?
> For no amount of odes to peaceful coexistence can hide the fact that these Games will be the most controversial and difficult since Moscow in 1980. Perhaps even Berlin 1936.
More controversial than the Berlin games!? The author doesn't back up this well at all. The author also makes regular Olympics things seem sinister. e.g.
> When Xi was introduced to the crowd of around 25,000 bussed-in spectators before the ceremony began, TV cameras captured him waving and accepting applause for longer than usual, as if he was accepting several encores before the Games had even started.
This happens everywhere but he makes it sound negative.
> The fact that the US, Britain, Canada and others are staging a diplomatic boycott in protest at China’s human rights record is obviously a major factor.
US, Britain and Canada have beef with China and are using the Games politically. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't make the Games and more or less controversial. US, UK and Can have previously not boycotted Olympics and other sporting events in other authoritarian regimes.
> But the severe Covid restrictions, athletes in quarantine, the lack of real snow, and a shortage of spectators are significant too.
Tokyo also had COVID restrictions. Vancouver and other Winter Games have used snow machines in the past plenty as well. The author mentions later "Earlier, when crowds arrived at the Bird’s Nest stadium they were handed hats and blankets to protect them from the freezing conditions". It does snow in Beijing and it was cold – it is not their fault it didn't snow.
> Within the first 15 minutes, a Chinese flag was also passed through a crowd of people said to represent ethnic groups across the country, while soldiers carrying the flag were then seen marching across the stadium.
The author makes this sound negative and propoganda-y. But in the Vancouver Olympics, the Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper sat with various First Nation Chiefs, but they're otherwise treated poorly in Canada. US often has soldiers even in non-national sporting events.
All in all, this is appalling and not what I expected from The Guardian!
> One of those performing the symbolic act was the Chinese cross-country skier Dinigeer Yilamujiang, who is of Uyghur heritage... That, to put it mildly, was a highly provocative act.
China gave an Uyghur person this high honor. It seems like a positive gesture. How is it provocative? Black people face systemic abuse in the US, are routinely shot by the police and form a persistent underclass but the US had Muhammad Ali light the flame in the '96 Atlanta Games. Was that a provocative act?
> For no amount of odes to peaceful coexistence can hide the fact that these Games will be the most controversial and difficult since Moscow in 1980. Perhaps even Berlin 1936.
More controversial than the Berlin games!? The author doesn't back up this well at all. The author also makes regular Olympics things seem sinister. e.g.
> When Xi was introduced to the crowd of around 25,000 bussed-in spectators before the ceremony began, TV cameras captured him waving and accepting applause for longer than usual, as if he was accepting several encores before the Games had even started.
This happens everywhere but he makes it sound negative.
> The fact that the US, Britain, Canada and others are staging a diplomatic boycott in protest at China’s human rights record is obviously a major factor.
US, Britain and Canada have beef with China and are using the Games politically. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't make the Games and more or less controversial. US, UK and Can have previously not boycotted Olympics and other sporting events in other authoritarian regimes.
> But the severe Covid restrictions, athletes in quarantine, the lack of real snow, and a shortage of spectators are significant too.
Tokyo also had COVID restrictions. Vancouver and other Winter Games have used snow machines in the past plenty as well. The author mentions later "Earlier, when crowds arrived at the Bird’s Nest stadium they were handed hats and blankets to protect them from the freezing conditions". It does snow in Beijing and it was cold – it is not their fault it didn't snow.
> Within the first 15 minutes, a Chinese flag was also passed through a crowd of people said to represent ethnic groups across the country, while soldiers carrying the flag were then seen marching across the stadium.
The author makes this sound negative and propoganda-y. But in the Vancouver Olympics, the Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper sat with various First Nation Chiefs, but they're otherwise treated poorly in Canada. US often has soldiers even in non-national sporting events.
All in all, this is appalling and not what I expected from The Guardian!
The Winter Olympics have been in decline for several cycles now -- they're just not as interesting as the summer games. I recall a couple or more cycles back when they were in Canada that there was hardly any snow and about as much enthusiasm. Stephen Colbert was even there to try and bolster interest.
I feel sorry for Tokyo having been impacted by covid, where they had to postpone. Why we even went to China at all is a mystery to me.
I feel sorry for Tokyo having been impacted by covid, where they had to postpone. Why we even went to China at all is a mystery to me.
I think it is just reality that we have more entertainment available than ever. And it is not consumed like it was before. Before streaming the Olympics were the big TV event. Everyone spend week or two following them as main entertainment on TV. Or radio, or news. Now we just have so many other options available that there is no more the whole community focusing on single event for time period.
Total opposite experience, much better to watch the Olympics nowdays than back in the days. I can watch whatever I want. idk where you live but at least in Europe, EuroSport Player you can watch all events, no ads, and any kind of commentary or non at all. https://www.eurosportplayer.com/olympics
The olympics are playing the same game they always have, while the world has moved on.
Football is thriving because of fantasy and betting. The NBA has clips, NFTs, and creators producing endless content.
What do the Olympics have? Sure they have human stories, but you need to watch a major network to consume them. The games need to figure out how to fit in today's consumption model.
Football is thriving because of fantasy and betting. The NBA has clips, NFTs, and creators producing endless content.
What do the Olympics have? Sure they have human stories, but you need to watch a major network to consume them. The games need to figure out how to fit in today's consumption model.
It's the opposite for me - ever since 2018, I watch the Olympics more than ever.
Remember that propaganda does run both ways, and the constant inflow of anti-Chinese sentiment in this year's presentation starts to get on my nerves. It's become so prominent that I start being willing to pay for a full-event streaming service with no commentators.
Remember that propaganda does run both ways, and the constant inflow of anti-Chinese sentiment in this year's presentation starts to get on my nerves. It's become so prominent that I start being willing to pay for a full-event streaming service with no commentators.
As others have said, you got older. Olympics have also been about politics.
Also, we're too used to on-demand TV now, and many people are on-demand only now. There were only a few channels in the past and your options when you sat down to watch TV were limited to what was on. The Olympics had primetime coverage and so that is what people watched.
Also, we're too used to on-demand TV now, and many people are on-demand only now. There were only a few channels in the past and your options when you sat down to watch TV were limited to what was on. The Olympics had primetime coverage and so that is what people watched.
So.. erm...
It can be tricky looking back to younger years and wondering "what changed." Sometimes it's you that changed.
Consider that Nazi Germany hosted an olympics. During the cold war, the olympics was a very lively proxy for soviet-nato competition... with a lot of nationalist propaganda.
Does no one care, or no one in your immediate circle? Did it become more of a propaganda op, or do you just see it more like that today than as a child. I think the olympics are still quite big, generally.
Sometimes it's us that changed.
It can be tricky looking back to younger years and wondering "what changed." Sometimes it's you that changed.
Consider that Nazi Germany hosted an olympics. During the cold war, the olympics was a very lively proxy for soviet-nato competition... with a lot of nationalist propaganda.
Does no one care, or no one in your immediate circle? Did it become more of a propaganda op, or do you just see it more like that today than as a child. I think the olympics are still quite big, generally.
Sometimes it's us that changed.
It's mostly the way the Olympics are covered on TV that changed, I think.
> Propaganda fest for authoritarian regimes
This hasn't changed though. Rather than a celebration of sport and achievements, the modern Olympic quickly become ultra-chauvinistic, and not just for authoritarian regimes.
> Propaganda fest for authoritarian regimes
This hasn't changed though. Rather than a celebration of sport and achievements, the modern Olympic quickly become ultra-chauvinistic, and not just for authoritarian regimes.
Yeah the coverage is not fun hard to follow.
Related article:
Olympics Opening Ceremony draws record-low ratings (yahoo.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30234637
Sport should not intersect with politics.
For you it obviously does (why do you even care about democracy or authoritarism in regards to Olympics?).
And this is widespread now, and this is the root of the issue.
Corruption. The fact that Lausanne still calls itself "The Olympic City" is a shame. Switzerland should kick out the IOC, and the FIDA while we're at it.
I love the athletes, I hate the business.
I love the athletes, I hate the business.
> some people don’t even know that the Olympics are even happening.
Partly because we just had the ~real~ summer Olympics a few months ago and you don't normally expect another one that soon.
Partly because we just had the ~real~ summer Olympics a few months ago and you don't normally expect another one that soon.
The Olympics are the same. You (and the world around you) changed.
Nothing lasts forever.
Maybe it’s time for Olympics to leave the stage.
Personally I got bored on my 5th watch of it.
Nothing new there, except political scandals that nobody really care about. Just competition of pharma.
Maybe it’s time for Olympics to leave the stage.
Personally I got bored on my 5th watch of it.
Nothing new there, except political scandals that nobody really care about. Just competition of pharma.
There’s a lot more competition for entertainment. Plus, many people just aren’t into sports anymore (yet again, likely because of competition for entertainment)
It’s also odd this year because we just had the Olympics a few months ago. Part of the appeal of the games is that they’re framed as a rare spectacle.
I watch the summer Olympics every time they happen. While there are some minor annoyances that the IOC introduces some years, the games are largely just as good as they ever were (except 2021). Culturally in America, I expect people care less because they have been indoctrinated against any form of nationalism. There is also a recent trend in the West of disparaging achievement in general. Where people used to admire and aspire toward greatness, now it seems like an inferiority complex has taken root in them.
> indoctrinated against any form of nationalism
In America? Every morning in school they make all the kids stand up and recite a pledge of allegiance to the nation
In America? Every morning in school they make all the kids stand up and recite a pledge of allegiance to the nation
Yeah, 20 seconds per day in school vs a constant bombardment of the opposite from every media and cultural institution the average young adult would ever be exposed to. It is very much out of vogue to be nationalistic.
No idea how China got to host the Olympics.
By promising most money to IOC? And not many others willing or wanting to even bid... It kinda is losing game to host it.
It's one of the largest countries on Earth, the one that is probably seeing the most growth and winter sports' practice in the world, and it's neither in Europe or North America and has the means to organize such global event. So it seems like a very good choice and the development of winter sports in the country was even mentioned by the IOC President during the opening ceremony.
your comment reads like propaganda when you don't even mention the many problems ....
i think we shouldn't support countries with horrible human rights ? its basically legitimizing their genocide,force labour, organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience, threatening to invade Taiwan etc...
this is going to kill the Olympics, no one i know is watching it because of the issues.
i think we shouldn't support countries with horrible human rights ? its basically legitimizing their genocide,force labour, organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience, threatening to invade Taiwan etc...
this is going to kill the Olympics, no one i know is watching it because of the issues.
It's tiring to be accused of propaganda simply for not repeating the things you do blindly whenever China is mentioned, but rather stating factual points.
umm after years of accusations and the CCP hiding the camps they finally admitted to them existing but they call them "education camps" come on now... your saying we should trust their word? and ignore all the people who suffered ? reminds me of Nazi Germany and how they played these games as if the camps where there for a good reason, CCP even mimics them with their fake media invitations but refuses to let anyone see one at random.
When you ignore all these facts and spew CCP propaganda i will call it what it is propaganda
When you ignore all these facts and spew CCP propaganda i will call it what it is propaganda
Money talks. The Olympics are often used as a form of gaining geopolitical goodwill and laundering money through extraordinary inflation of costs. Both the Beijing(2008) and Sochi(2014) Olympics cost north of 45 billion dollars. In comparison the Olympics in Turin and Vancouver were 4.5 and 7.6. Some of cost differences can be explained by population differences, but not by a factor of 10x.
Big waste of natural resources and contributor to pollution.
The Olympics aren't environmentally sustainable.
The Olympics aren't environmentally sustainable.
Not to mention how young people are destroyed via extreme, unhealthy expectations and doping.
Because it is not about sport anymore.
For me it is simple:
Ads
Ads
Shite coverage.
Marketing
Money.
That's probably a lot of it. I read the IOC president's dogding of a question about Uyghurs[1] the other day, and his TL;DR is "The show must go on.". Why does he think must it go on? Probably because his paycheck depends on satisfying McDonald's, Coca Cola, and whoever else sponsors the games.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/03/the-elite-and-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/03/the-elite-and-...
I mean, there was that Olympics in Nazi Germany.
So I think it's you that has changed, not the Olympics.
You're no longer an innocent child. Go visit an elementary school and I'll bet you'll find similar enthusiasm.
They've always been annoying propaganda for authoritarian regimes, the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany is the prime example of that, and there have always been people oblivious to them.
They've always been annoying propaganda for authoritarian regimes, the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany is the prime example of that, and there have always been people oblivious to them.
It went wrong because you think anyone you don't like is propaganda. For the likes of you fb is propaganda and twitter is harbinger of truth. Fox news is a lie but the "Russia collusion" nyt is truth. America is the upholder of democracy and china, where there are no daily riots by blm is somehow a bad place
None of those comparisons make any sense. No one thinks like that even in a hyperbolic sense.
The final one really takes the cake, simultaneously repeating the right wing propaganda that Black Lives Matter protests were are all riots when less than 5% had any violence, and also implying countries that don’t allow protests about equality are a better place, and specifically a country known to abuse minorities.
The final one really takes the cake, simultaneously repeating the right wing propaganda that Black Lives Matter protests were are all riots when less than 5% had any violence, and also implying countries that don’t allow protests about equality are a better place, and specifically a country known to abuse minorities.
Now we have better entertainment.
I’m with you - no one has even mentioned the Olympics to me in any way this time around. I saw the waning interest coming with the last couple Olympics as well. I think many factors contribute to this trend:
1. We have other ways to connect globally thanks to the internet, so we don’t need the Olympics to see a shallow representation of each country. YouTube is a better view into other cultures.
2. We are more aware of the impact and drawbacks of the Olympics, like the costs and associated corruption. It is incredibly irresponsible for any city to volunteer to host it.
3. The politics of the Olympics is not new but it is much more visible and easy to recognize, and that turns viewers off. Things like China having a female Uyghur light the Olympic torch.
4. We have other, better forms of entertainment that use up our limited time.
5. I think collectively there’s a pullback from broadcast sports even as there is a renewed interest in participating in sports personally. It’s not just the politics of it, although that has become a focus even outside the Olympics (NFL NBA etc). It’s that there is an absurdity to caring about what someone achieves when they throw away the rest of their life and just focus on a sport. Someone with that kind of focus in the interest of science is capable of producing lasting impact and move humanity forward. But with mass sports it’s just entertainment and vanity. I think there’s a rising consciousness around this aspect.
1. We have other ways to connect globally thanks to the internet, so we don’t need the Olympics to see a shallow representation of each country. YouTube is a better view into other cultures.
2. We are more aware of the impact and drawbacks of the Olympics, like the costs and associated corruption. It is incredibly irresponsible for any city to volunteer to host it.
3. The politics of the Olympics is not new but it is much more visible and easy to recognize, and that turns viewers off. Things like China having a female Uyghur light the Olympic torch.
4. We have other, better forms of entertainment that use up our limited time.
5. I think collectively there’s a pullback from broadcast sports even as there is a renewed interest in participating in sports personally. It’s not just the politics of it, although that has become a focus even outside the Olympics (NFL NBA etc). It’s that there is an absurdity to caring about what someone achieves when they throw away the rest of their life and just focus on a sport. Someone with that kind of focus in the interest of science is capable of producing lasting impact and move humanity forward. But with mass sports it’s just entertainment and vanity. I think there’s a rising consciousness around this aspect.
> Nowadays, it kind of feels like Olympics are just annoying. Propaganda fest for authoritarian regimes.
It really always was. I mean, people were actually murdered for political reasons at the Olympics in 1972. And much of the visual imagery of the Olympics, including the torch procession, has as much to do with Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl as it does sporting achievement. And then it went through a significant period where it was really a proxy for the Cold War.
The Olympics has always had a whiff of fascism about it (not least because of Juan Antonio Samaranch) and in many ways operates now as a sort of corporatist sledgehammer for major legal change, as does Fifa.
> No one cares. Heck, some people don’t even know that the Olympics are even happening.
There's more on the telly. But we care in Britain; the (Summer) Olympics has become a way for us to demonstrate outsize capability. Less so the Winter Olympics, which has never been a big deal for most of the world; just a few countries with permanent snow.
It really always was. I mean, people were actually murdered for political reasons at the Olympics in 1972. And much of the visual imagery of the Olympics, including the torch procession, has as much to do with Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl as it does sporting achievement. And then it went through a significant period where it was really a proxy for the Cold War.
The Olympics has always had a whiff of fascism about it (not least because of Juan Antonio Samaranch) and in many ways operates now as a sort of corporatist sledgehammer for major legal change, as does Fifa.
> No one cares. Heck, some people don’t even know that the Olympics are even happening.
There's more on the telly. But we care in Britain; the (Summer) Olympics has become a way for us to demonstrate outsize capability. Less so the Winter Olympics, which has never been a big deal for most of the world; just a few countries with permanent snow.
Nowadays, it kind of feels like Olympics are just annoying. Propaganda fest for authoritarian regimes. No one cares. Heck, some people don’t even know that the Olympics are even happening.
How did it go so wrong?