13 replies to this topic

[paul92]

So, I already knew Americans don't know much about the Paralympics - so I thought I'd check out US news sites.

So on each website's front pages:

Fox: No mention
CBS: Only reports that Prince William and Kate will be attending.
ABC: Has a link half way down their latest headlines section.

I consider CNN to be the most respectable so I thought they would at least have a photo and headline near the top, but...

(And this is the US edition, not international)



So nothing in the first half of the page...best I keep scrolling...

BINGO!



---

Just realised I've missed out NBC News, the Paralympic broadcast, of course - they must have some big news article about it...?

0 mentions on NBC's front page....

[Sir Rols]

Well, it IS the Paralympics. Very worthy and all, but it's not going to keep the world spellbound for the next few weeks like the deal deal a month ago did. I'm not expecting much coverage down here either.

[paul92]

That shouldn't be the point.

So many news sources are brushing the Paralympics under the carpet.
Why?
Because talking about people with the odd arm or leg missing is still a taboo subject.
The only way these barriers will be broken down is by allowing these athletes into the public spotlight and not shutting the door on them.

There are over 4,000 athletes from 147 nations taking part in the Paralympics. There is no excuse for not giving this event the attention it deserves.

[Sir Rols]

But it's a bit naive to expect them to get the same sort of spotlight and media frenzy as the senior games. Yes, the Paralympics are a noble endeavour, and disabled sports is an inspiring outlet for sections of the world community.

But, and I really don't want to sound callous about this, broadcasters and print and digital media aren't about to give them blanket, or even extended, coverage purely as a goodwill gesture. They want ratings, and Paralymics just don't rate. They don't command the widespread attention that able-bodied sports own at all times.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but as far as I'm aware, no disabled sporting leagues get prime time coverage of their events at any other times of the four year cycle. I sure can't remember seeing coverage of any disabled world championship of any sport outside of the paralympics. In sports and entertainment, it's senior sports that have the economic leverage. And able-bodies sports are what we aspire to participate in - most of us probably engage in activities that culminate in the Olympics - be it just cycling to work, swimming at a pool in summer, working out at the gym or social football on the weekends. It's great that, god forbid, there are activities we can take up if we ever become disabled, but most all of us hope we stay healthy and don't have to.

I probably do agree though that it would perhaps be better for their profile for the Paralympics to be staged in the lead-up to a games. Maybe a month or even two before. They would be able to feed on the anticipation leading up to a senior Olympics, they would act as teasers for the main games for the broadcasters who are already in place for the bigger event, they would help to test out facilities and structures. I can see a lot of positives for them in being the appetiser for the main event, rather than the night-cap afterthought after mostly everyone has left.

[mattygs]

I agree with Rols.
Also have to say, is it also a bigger issue in terms of the American markets interest in world sports in general? (as in, not one of the major league sports such as NFL , NBA, MLB etc)
It's not as if the masses are enraptured with the FIFA World Cup, how bout the Rugby World Cup?
If they can't get engaged in those, what chance do we have in the US media being interested in boccia?

[paul92]

But, and I really don't want to sound callous about this, broadcasters and print and digital media aren't about to give them blanket, or even extended, coverage purely as a goodwill gesture.

But there are major news outlets which don't even feature have an article that the Paralympics have begun. No wonder most Americans aren't aware the games even exist.
And for the national broadcaster (NBC) to not even bother reporting on it, well that just shows they are not even trying.

[Sir Rols]

Just one to add a personal example. My partner/.husband's a nurse. I get squeamish myself in some of the things he talks about with other nurses and medico types. And he has worked stints in rehab with both the elderly and disabled. He's got a fantastic bedside manner, is liked by his patients, and doesn't have a problem with being confronted by the sharp edges of illness or disabilities.
Last night we were watching the news, and a news item previewing the Paralympics came on. And while I, as an Olympics fan, watched it with some interest, his reaction was: “I don't want to watch this, it disturbs me.”
As I said, this is a guy who is more than most used to dealing with people with disabilities, and is not usually put off by being confronted with such harsh and sad realities. But I can see his point of view that it's not something he'd watch for entertainment (which is really, down at heart, what all televised sport is).
As for me, I'm a fanatical Olympic fan, but I don't ever really watch the Paralympics, or expect to watch much this time. It's not high on my radar of what I want to see. If I do watch, it'll be more to see the venues that I've only recently been in myself, and see what they've done to them. I might have a slight interest in wheelchair rugby, but not enough to make a point of watching it.
Now I know quite a few people, friends or people I met there just recently, in the UK who will be attending events at the Paralympics. To a person, though, their main motivation is they want to go to Stratford to see the park, but couldn't get tickets for the “real” deal of the Olympics. Same thing happened in Sydney. I've no doubt Britons will follow them more avidly than they would normally, but more as something that is getting their attention in the aftermath and afterglow of the senior Games.
I'm sure the media in the USA … and Oz … and elsewhere will be following the fortunes of their own athletes and give some coverage to medal successes, and make mention of how paralympic sports and athletes can be inspirational. But it's not going to be something that suits many people's tastes to want to watch avidly. And it still wouldn't get the type of coverage than say, a senior Olympian winning a medal, or if Mike Tyson bit someone's ear off again, or Tiger Woods had another indiscretion, or any other notorious sporting “bad boy” did something coverage-worthy. That's life, it may be unfair, but that's the way it is.

Edited by Sir Rols, 29 August 2012 - 09:30 PM.

[NY20??]

The start of the Paralympics was mentioned on NBC's Nightly News (a national broadcast) this evening. Clips of the Opening Ceremony were shown.

[zekekelso]

I don't mean to sound callous, but why does it deserve more news coverage than it is receiving? There are many gathers of 4,000 people from all over the world. Almost none of them get any media coverage. The Paralympics are getting some. How much should these events get.

[RobH]

That shouldn't be the point.

So many news sources are brushing the Paralympics under the carpet.
Why?
Because talking about people with the odd arm or leg missing is still a taboo subject.

I think that's way off the mark, sorry Paul.

The difference is, we have a well-funded public-service broadcasting sector that can afford to broadcast events like the Paralympics. I'm thankful that this is the case, but I don't suppose we're really any "better" than America when it comes to disablity awareness or dealing with tabboo subjects. It's simply the case that their networks are profit driven and, like it or not, the Paras aren't going to generate the viewing figures for them or their advertisers. If our media landscape was the same, I don't think it'd be any different over here.

Edited by RobH, 30 August 2012 - 01:08 PM.