Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Did anyone download or record NBC's Rio Prime Time Coverage? I am trying to get a copy of the coverage. I have plenty of coverage from BBC and Sky New Zealand that I am happy to trade for this. PM me or message below. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

oh, mikey, why would you even want to torture yourself like that? i'll give you the highlights: female athletes are only successful because of a man, ryan lochte is just a "kid", and despite high

"hey, they only called those female athletes useless whores because it makes them more money. they're a business, you can't argue with that." while ignoring the fact that ratings weren't all that

I really didn't find that many flaws with their daytime show, or late night.  It's the prime time that needs more tweaking.

oh, mikey, why would you even want to torture yourself like that?

i'll give you the highlights: female athletes are only successful because of a man, ryan lochte is just a "kid", and despite high levels of funding and a deep pool of talent to draw from team USA actually triumphed against all the odds. also, they sent old man tom brokaw into the amazon rain forest for some reason so he could white-mansplain it for everyone.

there, i just saved you 60 hours.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like krow said. And let me add:

  • Swimming. Beach Volleyball. Women's Artistic Gymnastics. Track. That's all you need to see.
  • Non-American athletes not named Usain Bolt are of little consequence.
  • Silver or even gold metal victories of said non-Americans are nice, in so far as NBC will tell you about them, but bronze by an American, or even a courageous fourth, is real story of these games.
  • Better to show every single goddamn heat involving an American than the finals of an event not involving an American.
  • It's better to show (repeated) shots of mom (and dad) in the stands than actual sport competition.
  • There's always a sob-story (err, I mean, soft feature) to be told about a US swimmer. These act to help avoid actual sports coverage.
  • Athlete (US, of course) interviews are good, especially when nothing new is said as seen in the previous 20 athlete interviews.
  • Except for the insides of venues, Rio extends only about 100 feet from the sea shore.
  • In order to understand an advertiser's message you have to see that ad at least 40 times.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

Awaiting Quaker2001's obligatory response...

"hey, they only called those female athletes useless whores because it makes them more money. they're a business, you can't argue with that."

while ignoring the fact that ratings weren't all that great in rio, possibly because people are starting to realize how awful the coverage is and would rather do literally anything else but watch it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

HOLY-HYPERBOLE-BATMAN.jpg

So should my "obligatory response" address reality or the perception that you guys are peddling?  Where A-Money thinks he saw 3 promos for The Voice PER commercial break and then tries to do the math on that one and still believes the numbers.  Where Dave thinks all NBC shows is crowd shots and features instead of actual sports competition (not that people here would know what "sports" are.. many think that's just filler between the opening and closing ceremonies).  And where you think NBC believes females athletes are useless whores unless there's a man behind them (as if an athlete's coach hasn't gotten credit before in other sports, but no, if it happens in the Olympics, it's all about NBC and their narrative, right?).  I know you're exaggerating for effect, but that's part of the problem.  Someone sees a few promos for The Voice (this is what happens when you watch the same network for hours on end night after night.. this goes way beyond binge-watching something on NetFlix) and then it's "OMG, there are like 2,000 promos for The Voice!" after which you actually start to think that's true. 

And then there's everyone who wants more actual sport competition (nevermind that there's like 7 different networks showing the Olympics, not to mention streaming of every single event.. and yes, there are ways of getting that on your TV that don't require an engineering degree or super-complicated video/audio setups), but then don't show "every single goddamn heat" or else that's too much sports.  And now that the Olympics are over, tell us how much you care about those "sports" that you won't give 2 shits about until the next Olympics.  Or is that NBC's fault too?  There's no happy medium and if it's just slightly slanted in 1 direction, either too much or too little, someone is going to howl.

I'm not oblivious to the flaws in NBC's coverage.  Yes, there are a lot of commercials, although watch a football game and tell me there isn't a lot of promo/commercial time.  Just doesn't seem that way because there are more natural breaks in the action.  And you're also not watching 4 hours of it every night for 2 straight weeks.  And we've come across plenty of times they've run a schmaltzy feature in the middle of primetime (although again, check out ESPN and out of their "kid with a disease meets his sports hero" pieces, as if you think NBC is the only network that runs things like that), not to mention the over-coverage of the Ryan Lochte. 

Here's the my thing with NBC's coverage.. the Olympics are too short to waste my time and energy on hating on NBC and trying to blame them for ruining my Olympic experience.  I know the line from most people is that they're "forced" to consume NBC's crappy coverage, as if they have no choice.  Well, there are choices.  Check out coverage on 1 of the cable channels.  Watch an entire event you're looking for on a live stream (again, that need not be on your computer or your phone).  Do something to take control on your own rather than lashing out and saying "f**k you NBC, how dare you prevent me from checking out a sport I haven't cared about in the past 4 years!"  It's far too easy for people to do that rather than to actually spend 14 seconds to realize there may be something better out there. 

And yea, NBC is not helping their case with how they're responding to criticism, but for you to use the word "literally" in that rant of yours is literally the wrong word there.  Did NBC's coverage actually get that much worse from the last Olympics, or maybe there's something else to explain the drop in ratings?  I don't know the answer to that one.  But the picture you, and others, have built up in your mind is much worse than the reality.  I won't argue for a minute that NBC needs to revisit their presentation, particularly with the next 3 Olympics coming up in Asia.  But if someone else from outside the US is looking for a glimpse at what NBC is offering, let him make that judgment for himself rather than for the social media rabble-rousers to tell him how awful it was for someone from NBC to tape your eyelids open and make you sit through 4 hours a night of the Olympics.  Oh wait, nevermind.. that didn't actually happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, FYI said:

Lmfao, & boy did you get one!! I literally started lmfao again when I got to the word "rant"!! :lol:

No harm done on my end.

Since I work in broadcast as well, I find the discussion interesting!

I honestly think NBC and ABC/ESPN have completely different viewers, demographics and approaches.  Upon watching ESPN's coverage of the 2015 Pan-Am's/ Special Olympics-  it seemed a sample of how they would cover the Olympics if NBC wasn't locked in until 2015.  To me the difference is ESPN/ABC dictates to advertisers, NBC lets advertisers dictate to them.  

For instance, there's no doubt ABC would be running promos for "The Batchelor" and DWTS, but wouldn't be bombarding the viewers at the same time.

NBC's prime-time format worked well in 1992, but needs a shakeup 24 years later. As for delaying events, it makes sense when you are in separate time zones… But, when you are one time zone away – there is no excuse!  By delaying the finals, it downplays the importance.  I've always been a fan of Bob, but it seemed that this time – he had very little to do!  I honestly liked the format for the late-night show, as more fresh and innovative.

For the record, I'm not bothered in the least but all the human interest stories.I understand that hooks viewers who aren't as mayor with athletes, as those of us who have been keeping up.

I just think NBC could've done more to promote the Paralympics, especially when you look at everything ESPN did last summer to promote the Special Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I'm not one of those who is Jim McKay, Roone Arledge, Bob Costas, Dick Ebersol, and Dick Enberg rolled into one during Olympic-season and totally apathetic during the other 23 months.

I keep track of nationals, worlds, Paralympics, Trials, Asiads, Pan-American games, and Special Olympics…i'll probably pick up on the Commonwealth Games whenever the time comes…

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 And where you think NBC believes females athletes are useless whores unless there's a man behind them (as if an athlete's coach hasn't gotten credit before in other sports, but no, if it happens in the Olympics, it's all about NBC and their narrative, right?).  I know you're exaggerating for effect, but that's part of the problem.  Someone sees a few promos for The Voice (this is what happens when you watch the same network for hours on end night after night.. this goes way beyond binge-watching something on NetFlix) and then it's "OMG, there are like 2,000 promos for The Voice!" after which you actually start to think that's true.

saying "there's the man who made katinka hosszu the athlete that she is" is beyond sexist, beyond demeaning, and beyond offensive to the woman who put in years of her life training and delivering on the main stage while her husband screamed from the sidelines. the sexist comments simone biles and the women's gymnastics team faced was likewise completely unacceptable ("they could be standing in a mall right now"). if you can't or won't see that, then this part of the conversation is over and we have nothing to discuss on that point. this is not a shades of gray issue; these are sexist comments and it's par for the course for NBC. researchers using hard data from past olympics are also discovering that the sexist coverage is not simply perception, but reality.

these are world-class athletes being subjected to degradation not imposed on their male peers because NBC has to compulsively make them more likeable, more relatable, and more normal-seeming to connect with women viewers. the vast majority of men are able to stand on their own, their stories and narratives can focus primarily on their sport and achievements but women cannot. they need to be brought down to a level of "they're still just girls at heart." that is what's sexist. and that is what's unacceptable and shameful.

the rest of your response seems be predicated on the fact that we on this forum don't have to watch primetime if we don't like it, that there are plenty of other streaming and cable options, and other totally obvious observations.

but, of course, we're not necessarily arguing for ourselves but for the vast majority of americans who have been conditioned to treat NBC's primetime show as the highlights reel or the main course, when they don't always have the time or the inclination to watch 10 hours of coverage a day. in that, we're asking NBC to do better and there's nothing wrong with that.

and it's not just us. the low rio ratings indicate that something has got to change -- and these are our complaints and suggestions. the timing for this discussion couldn't be better.

you mentioned the abundance of commercial breaks in NFL games, which is fine. there are more natural breaks in the action, as you say. but it's a false equivalence. natural breaks aside, when you cover a sports contest as a narrative instead of a competition, the commercials interrupt the flow of that narrative (as they would a primetime drama) and make it more difficult to invest in. networks are aware of that and have standardized the number of minutes they break for ordinarily and occasionally present premiers and other shows with limited interruption.

i think the washington post put it well a few weeks ago:

"Even if you buy NBC’s argument that the majority of the viewing public prefers edited, packaged programming over the vagaries of live sports competition, then ask yourself this question: Why aren’t NFL football telecasts tape delayed and packaged? Why don’t the networks delay and collapse the games in favor of sugary features showing childhood films of the Manning brothers on a swing set instead of wasting viewers’ time with a penalty-filled second quarter?

The fact is, no network would do that. Why? Because the networks assign a dignity and an import to a live NFL game that they don’t to women’s gymnastics."

you also don't see chopped up coverage ignoring entire teams altogether. and with the rio ratings drops, the tired old argument that people prefer it this way doesn't hold up.

And yea, NBC is not helping their case with how they're responding to criticism, but for you to use the word "literally" in that rant of yours is literally the wrong word there.  Did NBC's coverage actually get that much worse from the last Olympics, or maybe there's something else to explain the drop in ratings?

no, no, no, you're missing the point. the coverage hasn't gotten any worse (or better) but rather people may be getting wise to how consistently awful it is. i like to think it does get worse, but it's been terrible for a while. and there are lots of reasons why ratings might have dropped -- NBC is surely pulling them all out to save face with advertisers -- this is just a theory. but judging by the media attention it's gotten, it's not a particularly far fetched one.

we can all agree that more options (streaming, cable) is better for everyone, and NBC is doing a good job with that. this is particular criticism specifically aimed at the hackneyed editing, poor commentary, and cloying dressed-up jingoism that passes for olympic primetime coverage. as i said before, NBC (and the networks before them) have spent the latter half of the 20th century until today building up the idea that watching the primetime coverage is worthwhile and must-see in order to keep up with the olympics in any meaningful way. these new options are still new and people are still discovering how to effectively replace the primetime coverage during the games, and until they do this criticism will be valid and important.

But if someone else from outside the US is looking for a glimpse at what NBC is offering, let him make that judgment for himself rather than for the social media rabble-rousers to tell him how awful it was for someone from NBC to tape your eyelids open and make you sit through 4 hours a night of the Olympics.  Oh wait, nevermind.. that didn't actually happen.

well, mikey is a phd candidate who is studying this academically so i trust him to be able to separate fact from opinion and to keep it in mind as he watches our coverage and come to his own independent conclusions about its quality, which i doubt will be seriously impacted by the opinions of we "rabble-rousers" who dare to call bad editing and sexism for what it is. if i had to guess, i'd say this will all become evident as he invests any real time in our primetime coverage, but perhaps he will come to entirely different conclusions through his academic lens. to which i say more power to him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FYI said:

Lmfao, & boy did you get one!! I literally started lmfao again when I got to the word "rant"!! :lol:

I know, right?  LOL.  That crazy Quaker and his "response" to that "rant."  Funny thing is that I would have said all this before I saw krow's response (which I will get to, and yes I'm more than happy to have this conversation spinning things forwards from Rio).

6 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

No harm done on my end.

Since I work in broadcast as well, I find the discussion interesting!

I honestly think NBC and ABC/ESPN have completely different viewers, demographics and approaches.  Upon watching ESPN's coverage of the 2015 Pan-Am's/ Special Olympics-  it seemed a sample of how they would cover the Olympics if NBC wasn't locked in until 2015.  To me the difference is ESPN/ABC dictates to advertisers, NBC lets advertisers dictate to them. 

First off, let's be clear about something.  ABC had zero involvement with the Pan Am games and I believe none with the Special Olympics as well.  So if you're using that as a basis to compare it to NBC's Olympics coverage, that alone makes things completely different, particularly where ESPN gets most of their revenue from cable subscriber fees, unlike NBC.  ESPN was not providing the same blanket coverage that NBC has of the Olympics.  Recall that there were 80 hours of coverage on ESPN/ESPN2 (plus a lot of streaming, not to discount that), but more than 200 hours on ESPN Deportes.  Shows you where some of the focus is there. 

6 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

For instance, there's no doubt ABC would be running promos for "The Batchelor" and DWTS, but wouldn't be bombarding the viewers at the same time.

You sure about that?  Ever watch a late-running football game where there's a scroll across the bottom of the screen "PROGRAMMING ALERT: SPORTSCENTER IS NEXT ... SPORTSCENTER IS NEXT ... SPORTSCENTER IS NEXT"

ESPN is not above bombarding viewers like that.  They just do it differently than with NBC trying to push their primetime programming.  And remember again, ABC does not have a sports division.  Any sports that air on ABC are a production of ESPN.

6 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

NBC's prime-time format worked well in 1992, but needs a shakeup 24 years later. As for delaying events, it makes sense when you are in separate time zones… But, when you are one time zone away – there is no excuse!  By delaying the finals, it downplays the importance.  I've always been a fan of Bob, but it seemed that this time – he had very little to do!  I honestly liked the format for the late-night show, as more fresh and innovative.

For the record, I'm not bothered in the least but all the human interest stories.I understand that hooks viewers who aren't as mayor with athletes, as those of us who have been keeping up.

It seemed to work pretty well in 2012, so the question that should be asked is what has happened in the last 4 years?  It was never going to be the case that NBC was going to get all of their top-drawing events in primetime (although if you've seen the competition schedule for 2018, NBC is actually going to have a lot to show live in primetime then).  I can't entirely fault them for not showing key finals in diving and gymnastics on a weekday afternoon.  Most viewers seemed to accept NBC doing that with swimming and track from London when those events were on around 2pm or 3pm Eastern.  Suddenly with gymnastics here, that's not acceptable.  That's what streaming is for.  The option is there for those who want to watch it live.  I understand the animosity against NBC where they'll chop it up in primetime to suit their narrative, but again, why is that such a bigger issue now than it was in London?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

It seemed to work pretty well in 2012, so the question that should be asked is what has happened in the last 4 years?  It was never going to be the case that NBC was going to get all of their  I understand the animosity against NBC where they'll chop it up in primetime to suit their narrative, but again, why is that such a bigger issue now than it was in London?

I'd say the public expected more live coverage due to the time difference, and Rio being one hour ahead of EST.  ESPN would never tape delay a bowl game, Fox would never pre-tape the MLB All-Star Game, and CBS would never do that for the NCAA tournament or The Masters.  Why do it for one of the most in-demand events of a four-year cycle.  In Sochi, figure skating was live with Johnny and Tara, and then recast after the outcome was well understood.

I'm just saying that ESPN packaged the Pan Am's from a better sports POV.  If they were a RHB, the Olympics would no doubt be the same way.  And yes, they did more to promote the Special Olympics than NBC has with the Paralympics.  It was a nice late-to-mid-summer event, not something broadcast out of obligation- and to have out of the way.  There are MANY Paralympic athletes who have taken exception to this.

Maybe the perfect formula is accentuate more finals, leave heats to the streaming, and keep the human stories the way they are.

Another nitpick-. In Prime Time, I'd see very little coverage of Kayla Harrison, Daryl Homer, Kim Rhode, Shakur Stevenson, Monica Puig, Helen Maroulis, Alex Massialas, unless they were shoehorned in for a 30-second recap.  Wide World of Sports would've turned these people into household names easily.  There are plenty great athletes not named Michael, Katie, Usain, Kerri, April or Simone.  The potential is there, the existing formula is rather stale and weak.

What would you change with NBC?  

As for ratings, the last two locations have been heavily criticized long before the Games ever started.  Following Vancouver and London, it seems that any media outlet competing with an RHB will sabotage the location.  Not to say Rio and Sochi were without flaws, but I'm sure competing outlets have had ulterior motives in reporting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, I have to wonder whether everyone complaining about NBC's coverage (both here and in the media) actually watched any of it.  A lot of the negative articles I've read seem to come from people on the west coast, who don't get any of the coverage live.  I also think the talk about the ratings being down has been significantly overblown.  Yes, the ratings for the NBC primetime broadcast were down, but if you add up the people who were watching NBC primetime, NBCSN primetime, and streaming each night, it equals out to the same number of people who watched NBC primetime in 2008.  NBCSN was the #1 cable sports network for all 14 nights that they aired primetime coverage from Rio.  I assume at least some of those viewers would have ended up watching NBC had the other coverage not been available.

Overall, I thought this was one of NBC's best Olympic efforts.  Over 75% of the TV coverage was live, and every event was streamed live in much better quality than for past Games.  For people who have complained about the lack of live coverage during primetime in the past, NBC devoted 2+ hours of primetime coverage every night to longform live coverage of swimming (week 1) and track (week 2).  They didn't break up the live coverage with a bunch of features and athlete profiles, they didn't jump from sport to sport - it was race after race.  The few features they did show were quite effective, like the one on Wayde van Niekerk before he set the world record in the 400.  There were a few nights where they didn't air any features or profiles at all during primetime, and we saw Bob Costas for less than 5 minutes in 4 hours.  I'm not sure what the point was of bringing so many correspondents to Rio when they hardly got any airtime, and most of what they did get was on daytime and late night.  I really don't know what else NBC can do - if they air taped coverage with a bunch of features, people complain.  If they air live, longform coverage with few features, people complain and claim that most of the coverage isn't live.  I actually think they showed too much live track during week 2 - track just isn't popular enough anymore to justify 2.5-3 hours of live coverage in a row.  They might have been better off showing some of the heats and semifinals on tape later in the broadcast and inserting some other events instead.

My biggest criticism of NBC's coverage is the sexist narrative regarding what they think female viewers want to see, which was more than evident in their taped gymnastics coverage.  It's clear from the ratings that gymnastics is still the sport that generates the most interest and viewership, and I do think NBC did a disservice to viewers by not showing it live in primetime.  In retrospect, I think they would have been better off arranging the schedule to start primetime at 7pm Eastern with 2 hours of live gymnastics, followed by the live swimming at 9pm.  A lot of people just can't stay up until midnight Eastern to watch the conclusion of the women's team or all-around final, and with 2 hours devoted to live swimming in the middle of primetime, they had to split gymnastics at the very beginning and very end of the broadcast.  I think viewership still would have been quite high with primetime starting an hour earlier for live gymnastics.

I also think NBC made a big mistake by not airing the opening ceremony live.  I hardly doubt they would have gotten less viewers by starting the broadcast at 7pm Eastern and showing the whole thing live.  Showing the ceremony on tape reinforced the perception that NBC doesn't show anything live during primetime, and the way they packaged the broadcast with the know-nothing Today Show crew highlighted the worst aspects of NBC's coverage.

The next 3 Games will be tough for NBC, but they should also allow for a significant amount of live coverage in primetime.  Based on the current schedule, almost all of primetime should be live in 2018, and I assume NBC will be successful in getting morning finals for swimming and gymnastics in 2020 so that they can be shown live during primetime.  I really don't know what else NBC can do in this era of 5000 entertainment options to try to draw people to the coverage, and for the most part, I think they're doing the best they can to drive the biggest audience to primetime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that need to see everything live, NBC made it easy to stream events. 

The prime time NBC broadcasts American Idol or DWTS. People tune in for the competition... but also for the packaged stories. Are those life (I honestly don't know). Do people care? 

One big difference between the Olympics and a big football games is that there are multiple evens going on simultaneously. 

And, yeah, the prime time show concentrates on the big stars. But, again, if you want to see all the others, there are the live streams. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

I'd say the public expected more live coverage due to the time difference, and Rio being one hour ahead of EST.  ESPN would never tape delay a bowl game, Fox would never pre-tape the MLB All-Star Game, and CBS would never do that for the NCAA tournament or The Masters.  Why do it for one of the most in-demand events of a four-year cycle.  In Sochi, figure skating was live with Johnny and Tara, and then recast after the outcome was well understood.

Why do people still compare the Olympics, a 2 1/2 week non-stop sports festival to a football game or a baseball game.  The NCAA Tournament is actually a good comparison because it's an event with a lot of games going on.  But that said, a basketball game takes 2 hours to finish.  Many Olympic events take all of 2 minutes.  They are not one in the same.  NBC can do what they do with the Olympics because it is still in demand even if it's not always live.  Very few people are sitting through an entire football game and watch it play out if they know the final outcome.  If they haven't seen the video, chances are they check out the highlights.  And yet the highlights of that football game are still probably longer than that track event or swim race NBC is showing during their coverage.  That's the difference right there.  Comparing the Olympics to a football game because they are both sports is like comparing a cantaloupe to a bowling ball because they both happen to be round.

4 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

I'm just saying that ESPN packaged the Pan Am's from a better sports POV.  If they were a RHB, the Olympics would no doubt be the same way.  And yes, they did more to promote the Special Olympics than NBC has with the Paralympics.  It was a nice late-to-mid-summer event, not something broadcast out of obligation- and to have out of the way.  There are MANY Paralympic athletes who have taken exception to this.

How many people watch the Pan Am Games?  A fraction of the number that are interested in the Olympics.  Not enough people care enough by comparison.  The year after NBC had the Olympics in Australia, Turner showed the 2001 Goodwill Games from Brisbane.  It was noted how Turner provided a lot of live coverage in contrast to NBC's Olympics where there was virtually none.  Does anyone remember the 2001 Goodwill Games?  Not so much.  Good for ESPN that they promoted the Special Olympics.  The amount of Paralympic coverage has increased dramatically over the past few cycles.  But it's not a "nice late-to-mid-summer event."  It's starting up when kids are going back to school and football season is heating up.  Hard to gain much traction there.  Same reason the Olympics are only held in July and August and not in September.

4 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

Maybe the perfect formula is accentuate more finals, leave heats to the streaming, and keep the human stories the way they are.

No, that's not the solution.  And that goes completely against the spirit of the Olympics where so many athletes are there just to take part, knowing they have little chance at a medal.  Besides, if we're talking about primetime, how much of that coverage is anything but finals anyway?  Plenty of time in the morning and afternoon to show heats and preliminaries and still show medal events alongside those.

4 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

Another nitpick-. In Prime Time, I'd see very little coverage of Kayla Harrison, Daryl Homer, Kim Rhode, Shakur Stevenson, Monica Puig, Helen Maroulis, Alex Massialas, unless they were shoehorned in for a 30-second recap.  Wide World of Sports would've turned these people into household names easily.  There are plenty great athletes not named Michael, Katie, Usain, Kerri, April or Simone.  The potential is there, the existing formula is rather stale and weak.

Monica Puig?  You do realize there was literally a cable network that showed the entire tennis tournament and nothing else the first week of the Olympics.  Most of those athletes you mentioned got their due and had events shown live and in full.  Primetime doesn't need to focus on every sport out there.  This isn't the 1990s where there was network coverage and that was it.  Cable is there to give all these great athletes a platform.  But the ratings don't lie and they show viewers tune in in much greater numbers for those big names.  It's why NBC to a fault has a rooting interest in their success.  The idea that if NBC Primetime focus more on the lesser names that somehow people would be more interested in that doesn't hold up.  And if NBC is struggling to draw there, I don't think it's because of a lack of coverage for other sports.

4 hours ago, A-Money1983 said:

What would you change with NBC?  

As for ratings, the last two locations have been heavily criticized long before the Games ever started.  Following Vancouver and London, it seems that any media outlet competing with an RHB will sabotage the location.  Not to say Rio and Sochi were without flaws, but I'm sure competing outlets have had ulterior motives in reporting it.

What NBC needs to do is stop putting all their eggs in the 1 basket that is primetime.  Barcelona_`92 alluded to it that NBC is starting to measure viewership based on the total number of people consuming the Olympics, not just in primetime.  That's how they need to look at it going forward.  Start to figure out how to monetize streaming and other platforms more.  I won't fault NBC for holding back some events to primetime, but there were plenty of decisions along the way (some within their control and others not so much) that caused problems and made for some unfortunate programming decisions.  That's the price you pay for a mostly live primetime show as opposed to a European Olympics where you can time everything out to fit the show.  If a beach volleyball match runs long and men's gymnastics has to get cut down as a result, that's bad.  Don't try to squeeze too much into that 4 hour show and if you know you're going to, find somewhere else to put that coverage.  Most importantly, give viewers what you told them you would.  If you indicated an hour of gymnastics coverage on the schedule, there should be an hour.  If the US women's beach volleyball team winds up in the bronze medal game rather than gold, figure out a way to make that work.  It's a given that a lot is out of NBC's control, but it's still on them to manage that and make the best of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

As always, I have to wonder whether everyone complaining about NBC's coverage (both here and in the media) actually watched any of it.  A lot of the negative articles I've read seem to come from people on the west coast, who don't get any of the coverage live.  I also think the talk about the ratings being down has been significantly overblown.  Yes, the ratings for the NBC primetime broadcast were down, but if you add up the people who were watching NBC primetime, NBCSN primetime, and streaming each night, it equals out to the same number of people who watched NBC primetime in 2008.  NBCSN was the #1 cable sports network for all 14 nights that they aired primetime coverage from Rio.  I assume at least some of those viewers would have ended up watching NBC had the other coverage not been available.

Overall, I thought this was one of NBC's best Olympic efforts.  Over 75% of the TV coverage was live, and every event was streamed live in much better quality than for past Games.  For people who have complained about the lack of live coverage during primetime in the past, NBC devoted 2+ hours of primetime coverage every night to longform live coverage of swimming (week 1) and track (week 2).  They didn't break up the live coverage with a bunch of features and athlete profiles, they didn't jump from sport to sport - it was race after race.  The few features they did show were quite effective, like the one on Wayde van Niekerk before he set the world record in the 400.  There were a few nights where they didn't air any features or profiles at all during primetime, and we saw Bob Costas for less than 5 minutes in 4 hours.  I'm not sure what the point was of bringing so many correspondents to Rio when they hardly got any airtime, and most of what they did get was on daytime and late night.  I really don't know what else NBC can do - if they air taped coverage with a bunch of features, people complain.  If they air live, longform coverage with few features, people complain and claim that most of the coverage isn't live.  I actually think they showed too much live track during week 2 - track just isn't popular enough anymore to justify 2.5-3 hours of live coverage in a row.  They might have been better off showing some of the heats and semifinals on tape later in the broadcast and inserting some other events instead.

I largely agree with you on the first paragraph.  Not so much on the second part.  NBC was in a rare position that they finally had a timezone-friendly Olympics and more than that, most of their big stars came though with a ton of medals.  So everything set up as well as it could have for them, but there were still more than a few questionable decisions on their part.  I did enjoy the nice long blocks of swimming and track, and you're 100% right that the presence of Costas and features were fairly limited.  But then there were the nights where a beach volleyball match would run long and a long chunk of gymnastics was cut.  Or when Kerri and April played in the bronze medal game and that got JIP'ed because they had anticipated showed the gold medal match live.  Same thing the next night when they almost pushed the men's gold medal match to late night and probably would have had the US women won their indoor volleyball semi, in which case that would have gotten an encore in primetime.  And let's not get started on Lochte.  I understand the need to cover that, but it was way too much in the end.

3 hours ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

My biggest criticism of NBC's coverage is the sexist narrative regarding what they think female viewers want to see, which was more than evident in their taped gymnastics coverage.  It's clear from the ratings that gymnastics is still the sport that generates the most interest and viewership, and I do think NBC did a disservice to viewers by not showing it live in primetime.  In retrospect, I think they would have been better off arranging the schedule to start primetime at 7pm Eastern with 2 hours of live gymnastics, followed by the live swimming at 9pm.  A lot of people just can't stay up until midnight Eastern to watch the conclusion of the women's team or all-around final, and with 2 hours devoted to live swimming in the middle of primetime, they had to split gymnastics at the very beginning and very end of the broadcast.  I think viewership still would have been quite high with primetime starting an hour earlier for live gymnastics.

The problem isn't just the narrative.  It's that they tried to defend it that way.  I'm sure NBC wanted gymnastics in primetime, but they only have so much power.  And I do absolutely buy the theory where a sport like gymnastics is almost better served on tape rather than trying to chase gymnasts on each apparatus the way a golf telecast has to follow numerous golfers.  But then the flipside of that is NBC manipulating the flow of action and the storyline.  Most people either don't remember or maybe don't know that Kerri Strug's vault in `96 (which was not shown live.. that was tape from earlier in the afternoon) was not needed to clinch gold.  But NBC made it seem like the US needed that score to win.  And that's how most people will always remember it.

3 hours ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

I also think NBC made a big mistake by not airing the opening ceremony live.  I hardly doubt they would have gotten less viewers by starting the broadcast at 7pm Eastern and showing the whole thing live.  Showing the ceremony on tape reinforced the perception that NBC doesn't show anything live during primetime, and the way they packaged the broadcast with the know-nothing Today Show crew highlighted the worst aspects of NBC's coverage.

The next 3 Games will be tough for NBC, but they should also allow for a significant amount of live coverage in primetime.  Based on the current schedule, almost all of primetime should be live in 2018, and I assume NBC will be successful in getting morning finals for swimming and gymnastics in 2020 so that they can be shown live during primetime.  I really don't know what else NBC can do in this era of 5000 entertainment options to try to draw people to the coverage, and for the most part, I think they're doing the best they can to drive the biggest audience to primetime.

No argument there on the ceremony.  I had a discussion with a few people on Twitter who seem to think that whatever info NBC is going off of bears out that the extra hour was better for ad dollars.  I still question that one, particularly for the reason you mentioned.  To be fair, the delay did allow NBC to extend out the parade of nations somewhat and cut out some of the less interesting portions of the ceremony (most people won't admit that there are in fact parts of it that are a turn-off for them and even though they complain that NBC edits them out, they're better off without them.. even some people in the stadium were tweeting how boring it was)

As you noted, there will be a lot of coverage available in primetime in 2018 including all of the figure skating (moved to the morning in local Korea time to fit nicely in NBC's primetime window).  I agree they do need to evolve the formula going forward and that this past Olympics may very have been the turning point.  But let's be fair.. NBC draws a ton of people to the Olympics, just not as many as some past Olympics.  Hopefully they can turn that around.  For the sake of their investment in the next 8 Olympics, I sure hope so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well this conversation is plodding along as could be expected. i do think that quaker's last post before this one is probably the most rational thing i've ever seen him write, so there's progress even if it's slow. (i can't believe they didn't show the bronze medal match! i streamed it live, but it's beyond unfair for them to build up kerri/april beach volleyball and then not bring it to its natural conclusion. 

4 hours ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

My biggest criticism of NBC's coverage is the sexist narrative regarding what they think female viewers want to see, which was more than evident in their taped gymnastics coverage.  It's clear from the ratings that gymnastics is still the sport that generates the most interest and viewership, and I do think NBC did a disservice to viewers by not showing it live in primetime.  In retrospect, I think they would have been better off arranging the schedule to start primetime at 7pm Eastern with 2 hours of live gymnastics, followed by the live swimming at 9pm.  A lot of people just can't stay up until midnight Eastern to watch the conclusion of the women's team or all-around final, and with 2 hours devoted to live swimming in the middle of primetime, they had to split gymnastics at the very beginning and very end of the broadcast.  I think viewership still would have been quite high with primetime starting an hour earlier for live gymnastics.

your biggest criticism is the sexist narrative, but all you find issue with is the scheduling? i've been trying to write a second sentence for this paragraph for a minute, but i can't come up with anything. come again???

The next 3 Games will be tough for NBC, but they should also allow for a significant amount of live coverage in primetime.

this i don't get, because asian games are far, far better for them than european ones where primetime is at 2 a.m. NBC can force athletes to compete at 8 a.m. but not 2 a.m. sure, vancouver and rio were almost ideal for NBC (barring that homecourt advantage) but this is surely the next best thing.

how about this for a conspiracy theory: was NBC, climbing its way up from the 2016 setback, able to influence the 2018-22 votes as best-case scenarios for primetime coverage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, time for you krow..

7 hours ago, krow said:

saying "there's the man who made katinka hosszu the athlete that she is" is beyond sexist, beyond demeaning, and beyond offensive to the woman who put in years of her life training and delivering on the main stage while her husband screamed from the sidelines. the sexist comments simone biles and the women's gymnastics team faced was likewise completely unacceptable ("they could be standing in a mall right now"). if you can't or won't see that, then this part of the conversation is over and we have nothing to discuss on that point. this is not a shades of gray issue; these are sexist comments and it's par for the course for NBC. researchers using hard data from past olympics are also discovering that the sexist coverage is not simply perception, but reality.

these are world-class athletes being subjected to degradation not imposed on their male peers because NBC has to compulsively make them more likeable, more relatable, and more normal-seeming to connect with women viewers. the vast majority of men are able to stand on their own, their stories and narratives can focus primarily on their sport and achievements but women cannot. they need to be brought down to a level of "they're still just girls at heart." that is what's sexist. and that is what's unacceptable and shameful.

Let's get 1 thing clear from the start here.  This isn't just an NBC thing.  It includes social media and newspapers and other outlets and their coverage of the Olympics.  The Bears' lineman's wife comment wasn't NBC.  The story about the newspaper headline with Phelps featured over Ledecky (which completely ignores the content of the actual story which was much more about Ledecky than Phelps) wasn't NBC.  It's far too easy in this day and age, not to mention the amount of coverage of the Olympics compared to years ago, for someone to pick up on a comment or a story and then for the echo chamber that is social media to make it into a huge discussion point.  The Hosszu comment was something that was easy to take out of context and for people to say "OMG, NBC thinks it's only because of her husband that Hosszu is a good swimmer now."  Are researchers really discovering that coverage is more sexist now than it was in the past or are they just pointing to specific instances that have been blown out of proportion where they wouldn't have been in the past?  If Hicks makes that same type of Hosszu comment in Atlanta or Sydney - because the advent of social media - it probably goes completely unnoticed.  But now because everyone spots these things, it's a major controversy.  Ditto for the whole issue with Gabby Douglas not putting her hand over her heart.  As if anyone would have care about that 8 years ago.  

I'm not denying that these things are happening, but in our overly sensitive "safe spaces" culture (and again, I'm not trying to blame the audience here, just pointing out the nature of how media is consumed these days), suddenly they're being noticed where they hadn't been before.  If you want to shame NBC, shame everyone else along with them and don't just single out 1 entity.  But at least acknowledge this has probably gone on for years, but only now is anyone paying attention.  And remember above all this that NBC still spends more of their time, particularly in primetime, covering women's sports than they do the men.  That may seem automatic, but how often do you see coverage of women's sports outside the Olympics that's anywhere near what the men get?

8 hours ago, krow said:

the rest of your response seems be predicated on the fact that we on this forum don't have to watch primetime if we don't like it, that there are plenty of other streaming and cable options, and other totally obvious observations.

but, of course, we're not necessarily arguing for ourselves but for the vast majority of americans who have been conditioned to treat NBC's primetime show as the highlights reel or the main course, when they don't always have the time or the inclination to watch 10 hours of coverage a day. in that, we're asking NBC to do better and there's nothing wrong with that.

and it's not just us. the low rio ratings indicate that something has got to change -- and these are our complaints and suggestions. the timing for this discussion couldn't be better.

Since when do you speak for the "vast majority?"  I told you I'm happy to have this discussion with you, but not if you're going to distort reality to fit your argument.  I'm aware there's more than a few people out there who are upset with NBC's coverage, but don't look at the criticisms coming at them as if they speak of the masses.  And if you're going to do that, at least try and find some meaning behind it.  Everyone has their own image of what they want NBC's coverage to be.  And when I talk about those other options, I'm speaking about those people who aren't taking the lazy route because they've been conditioned a certain way.  That's why I don't exactly feel pity for those people who don't want to expand themselves beyond the primetime show and then bitch and moan when they think that's all there is because they haven't bothered to look elsewhere.  You should expect and demand better of NBC, but Comcast isn't going to respond to complaints and suggestions on Twitter.  Actions speak louder than words.  And you're 100% right that the action of not watching coverage (which apparently many people did this time around) is a more powerful statement than going on social media with an #nbcfail hashtag.  But again, if you're expecting NBC to change, they need to understand what the problem is.  The answer to that can't simply be "well, people are finally realizing how awful the coverage is."  Remember also that what people are asking them to do doesn't always mesh what is in the best interests of ad dollars and ratings and those most vocal on social media need to be careful of falling into that trap.

8 hours ago, krow said:

you mentioned the abundance of commercial breaks in NFL games, which is fine. there are more natural breaks in the action, as you say. but it's a false equivalence. natural breaks aside, when you cover a sports contest as a narrative instead of a competition, the commercials interrupt the flow of that narrative (as they would a primetime drama) and make it more difficult to invest in. networks are aware of that and have standardized the number of minutes they break for ordinarily and occasionally present premiers and other shows with limited interruption.

The Olympics are on for 17 straight nights.  Limited interruption is not an option.  And unless you think the amount of commercials has increased since London (which I'm betting it hasn't), it begs the question why is this an issue now when it wasn't then?  Is it because more people are used to watching NefFlix or stuff off their DVRs so they think they shouldn't have to see all these ads?  It's a fair point.  Still, if you're watching something in the quantity of Olympic coverage (as opposed to football.. even the biggest fan can only watch games all weekend and then it's just 1 game a night at most), it's all going to add up.  I've said it before that NBC needs to get better at inserting breaks where natural stoppages don't necessarily exist.  But the perception that Olympic coverage is so over-loaded with commercials is a little unfair when it's not necessarily more frequent than during any other event.  Yet somehow during the Olympics, this bothers people more for some reason.

8 hours ago, krow said:

i think the washington post put it well a few weeks ago:

"Even if you buy NBC’s argument that the majority of the viewing public prefers edited, packaged programming over the vagaries of live sports competition, then ask yourself this question: Why aren’t NFL football telecasts tape delayed and packaged? Why don’t the networks delay and collapse the games in favor of sugary features showing childhood films of the Manning brothers on a swing set instead of wasting viewers’ time with a penalty-filled second quarter?

The fact is, no network would do that. Why? Because the networks assign a dignity and an import to a live NFL game that they don’t to women’s gymnastics."

you also don't see chopped up coverage ignoring entire teams altogether. and with the rio ratings drops, the tired old argument that people prefer it this way doesn't hold up.

You think this is about dignity?  NBC tape delays the Olympics because they can.  And it has proven to work.  If that's the issue here, then ask yourself why were ratings higher in London when the entire primetime show was on tape as opposed to Rio when much of it was live.  I hate it when people what the Olympics to be treated like a football game.  NBC tried that once (in 1988).  It failed miserably.  Critics and viewers alike blasted it.  An NFL football telecast is a 3 hour game between 2 teams and considering Americans really love football, no packaging is needed.  And they're playing every week (likewise, baseball players are playing every day).  That's the difference between sports and athletes that are featured on a regular basis and those who most people don't know about and if they had to sit through 3 hours of the competition plus all the dead air in between, would be bored to tears.  And I can speak to this because I've been to major swim and track events before.

So again, if the argument is that what worked 4 years ago doesn't work now, what changed?  Don't just point to the ratings drops and say "a-ha, we're right!" when everyone has been peddling the "the Olympic coverage model needs to change" for decades with all the same things people have been complaining about since ABC had it in the 1980s.  Like I said earlier, NBC needs to take a long look at Rio and figure out what happened.  But even if the tired old argument has finally jumped the shark, it helps to know why so that NBC can make the proper adjustments and figure out what will work going forward.  Either way, the Olympics is such a unique event compared to a football game or a basketball game (look at the national TV schedules for the NBA this year and then get back to me on ignoring entire teams altogether) that 1 should not be covered like the other just because it sounds nice in theory, especially when what NBC did with the Olympics worked for years when it seems like everyone is screaming at them that it doesn't.

8 hours ago, krow said:

no, no, no, you're missing the point. the coverage hasn't gotten any worse (or better) but rather people may be getting wise to how consistently awful it is. i like to think it does get worse, but it's been terrible for a while. and there are lots of reasons why ratings might have dropped -- NBC is surely pulling them all out to save face with advertisers -- this is just a theory. but judging by the media attention it's gotten, it's not a particularly far fetched one.

we can all agree that more options (streaming, cable) is better for everyone, and NBC is doing a good job with that. this is particular criticism specifically aimed at the hackneyed editing, poor commentary, and cloying dressed-up jingoism that passes for olympic primetime coverage. as i said before, NBC (and the networks before them) have spent the latter half of the 20th century until today building up the idea that watching the primetime coverage is worthwhile and must-see in order to keep up with the olympics in any meaningful way. these new options are still new and people are still discovering how to effectively replace the primetime coverage during the games, and until they do this criticism will be valid and important.

I'm not trying to downplay the criticism, but if you want NBC to be receptive to that, it has to be a lesson learned and be turned into something they can use.  If the thinking is that the coverage has always been awful (and I'll agree that it probably didn't change all that much from London aside from the obvious difference in the timezones), then what made people wise up to it?  What changed their perception and how does NBC use that?  You talk about hackneyed editing, but this was an Olympics with large blocks of swimming and track and far less editing than in the past.  So I'm failing to see how that would come to the forefront.  Jingoism?  Yea, that's every network covering the Olympics.  Can't fault NBC that ratings go up when Americans win medals and that's hardly their narrative that created that.

I think what NBC needs to embrace is those coverage options outside of primetime.  There is still a market and an audience for the reality show type programming NBC offers there, but they need to start driving the rest of the audience elsewhere.  That's the stride I think the need to make before Korea 2018.  You're right that the idea has been to build up primetime as the main showcase, but this was the first time that NBC put any serious effort into other competing coverage.  They're going to need to do that more with the Olympics in Asia.  I don't think the problem necessarily lies with the primetime formula, but rather that they need to make everyone aware of the alternatives.  Far too many people out there are too lazy or ignorant to seek those out, so they see NBC primetime as the be-all end-all and complain when they don't think there's anything else out there.  If NBC can educate those folks into showing them what they're looking for - and it's there, they just need to find it - that will quell a lot of the criticism IMO.

8 hours ago, krow said:

well, mikey is a phd candidate who is studying this academically so i trust him to be able to separate fact from opinion and to keep it in mind as he watches our coverage and come to his own independent conclusions about its quality, which i doubt will be seriously impacted by the opinions of we "rabble-rousers" who dare to call bad editing and sexism for what it is. if i had to guess, i'd say this will all become evident as he invests any real time in our primetime coverage, but perhaps he will come to entirely different conclusions through his academic lens. to which i say more power to him.

Here's the thing to keep in mind though.. you and I watched NBC primetime as it happened with all the commentary that went along with it and the echo chamber of so many people saying it was terrible.  For Michael to watch footage on his own with the ability to pick and choose what he sees (i.e. skip through the commercials) may actually give us a more honest opinion on the coverage itself rather than the experience of consuming the coverage in real-time.  That's why I thought it was a little disingenuous of you (and I know you were only doing it as a joke) to place an image in his mind of how you saw the coverage and that his experience would be the same.  So yea, let him make his own opinions.  I'll be curious to see what he has to say.  I don't think his academia is either here or there when it comes to his forming of opinions, but either way, don't assume what is evident to you will become evident to him simply because you feel strongly about it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, krow said:

well this conversation is plodding along as could be expected. i do think that quaker's last post before this one is probably the most rational thing i've ever seen him write, so there's progress even if it's slow. (i can't believe they didn't show the bronze medal match! i streamed it live, but it's beyond unfair for them to build up kerri/april beach volleyball and then not bring it to its natural conclusion. 

Uhh.. thanks?  Those are the kinds of decisions that made this a tough Olympics for NBC.  Sometimes they made some smart moves, but other times things were just out of their control.  And I can't fault them for promoting 2 events to be on NBC primetime and having to make a tough call when to, say, cut out of track and go to volleyball.  There were a few different ways they could have handled that and none of them sounded too great.  It's almost unavoidable to deal with these things at an Olympics.

12 minutes ago, krow said:

this i don't get, because asian games are far, far better for them than european ones where primetime is at 2 a.m. NBC can force athletes to compete at 8 a.m. but not 2 a.m. sure, vancouver and rio were almost ideal for NBC (barring that homecourt advantage) but this is surely the next best thing.

how about this for a conspiracy theory: was NBC, climbing its way up from the 2016 setback, able to influence the 2018-22 votes as best-case scenarios for primetime coverage?

If there's anything we should be learning from the last 3 Summer Olympics, it's that a live primetime show isn't necessarily better than a taped primetime show.  The problem with Asia is that you can have events in primetime, but whatever you can't get into that primetime show either goes on after most people are asleep.  And then there's nothing all day East coast time from late morning until the next evening.  London actually set up really nicely in that there was live events from early morning until right up near primetime every day and then they could have their primetime show with nothing else competing against it.  With PC and Tokyo and Beijing, now you have the day's events starting in primetime, continuing overnight, and ending right as most people are waking up.  So there is no opportunity for anything live throughout the day and you have to figure out what to do with events that occurred overnight.  The competition schedule for 2018 (as it's set up now) will lend for a lot of coverage in primetime for key sports like figure skating and the alpine races.  But other sports like speed skating will be going on when most of America is asleep and while there will be streaming and hopefully live TV coverage of many of those, I don't know what the solution is to handle those.  That's going to be a tough assignment for NBC to figure out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Alright, time for you krow..

Let's get 1 thing clear from the start here.  This isn't just an NBC thing.  It includes social media and newspapers and other outlets and their coverage of the Olympics.  The Bears' lineman's wife comment wasn't NBC.  The story about the newspaper headline with Phelps featured over Ledecky (which completely ignores the content of the actual story which was much more about Ledecky than Phelps) wasn't NBC.  It's far too easy in this day and age, not to mention the amount of coverage of the Olympics compared to years ago, for someone to pick up on a comment or a story and then for the echo chamber that is social media to make it into a huge discussion point.  The Hosszu comment was something that was easy to take out of context and for people to say "OMG, NBC thinks it's only because of her husband that Hosszu is a good swimmer now." 

o boy quaker, if missing the point were an olympic sport you'd have more gold medals than michael phelps.

this is NOT criticism of the US media in general, who we've established has a jealous incentive to tear down NBC. this is criticism of NBC's primetime coverage. that's it. sexism is rampant in all media? well of course it is. but that doesn't give NBC a free pass.

the hosszu comment was "taken out of context"??? oh, boy, i need to lie down for a minute. how is that comment taken out of context? katinka hosszu is a world-class athlete in the prime of her career having the olympics of her life. attributing her success to a man without even a hedeword of "helped" is so demeaning and dehumanizing. i told you we can't have this conversation and i meant it. i will not concede that comment was taken out of context. that comment was sexist. period, end of sentence.

Quote

 

Are researchers really discovering that coverage is more sexist now than it was in the past or are they just pointing to specific instances that have been blown out of proportion where they wouldn't have been in the past?  If Hicks makes that same type of Hosszu comment in Atlanta or Sydney - because the advent of social media - it probably goes completely unnoticed.  But now because everyone spots these things, it's a major controversy.  Ditto for the whole issue with Gabby Douglas not putting her hand over her heart.  As if anyone would have care about that 8 years ago.

researchers, if you read the link, are analyzing past coverage for specific phrases used for men vs. women and finding abundant cases of sexism. is there more sexism now than during atlanta (which i guess is what you're asking?), i have no idea, but it's entirely beside the point. the point is that this is 2016, right now, and it cannot continue into 2018. it's unacceptable. that's the point. if a sexist comment during primetime goes "unnoticed" that doesn't make it any less sexist and that doesn't make it any less unacceptable. do not defend or absolve NBC's sexism because it's par for the course.

Quote

 

If you want to shame NBC, shame everyone else along with them and don't just single out 1 entity.

for the tenth time, this thread was started about NBC. my first reply was specific to NBC primetime. this entire thread is specifically directed to criticism of NBC's primetime coverage. that is the subject we are discussing. we are not discussing chicago newspapers or any other media other than NBC primetime. we are allowed to level criticism of primetime independent of other media coverage. 

Quote

 

And remember above all this that NBC still spends more of their time, particularly in primetime, covering women's sports than they do the men.  That may seem automatic, but how often do you see coverage of women's sports outside the Olympics that's anywhere near what the men get?

it's well established that NBC is courting female viewers and it's well established that women drive much of our medal count. i'm not going to give NBC a prize for realizing that if they're going to devote 17 days of primetime to one event that they need both men and women for advertising purposes. i am, however, going to hold them accountable for sexist language and double standards because katinka and simone and katie are athletes who deserve better than to be constantly measured against men to make them look worthy (on simone: "even some of the guys don't get that height"; on ledecky: "even some of the guys can't match her 800m times").

Quote

 

I'm not trying to downplay the criticism, but if you want NBC to be receptive to that, it has to be a lesson learned and be turned into something they can use.  If the thinking is that the coverage has always been awful (and I'll agree that it probably didn't change all that much from London aside from the obvious difference in the timezones), then what made people wise up to it?  What changed their perception and how does NBC use that?  You talk about hackneyed editing, but this was an Olympics with large blocks of swimming and track and far less editing than in the past.  So I'm failing to see how that would come to the forefront.  Jingoism?  Yea, that's every network covering the Olympics.  Can't fault NBC that ratings go up when Americans win medals and that's hardly their narrative that created that.

 
 

the editing was bad during this olympics. nothing atlanta gymnastics worthy, but still disingenuous for a (the) global sporting event. NBC apologists like you love to point out that they aired every single country during the PON, but then ignore it when they edit out entire countries from competitions because there's only so much time and most people care only about americans etc etc. i've heard it all before and i'm not impressed.

as for what we'd change? jesus, read this thread.

 
 

I think what NBC needs to embrace is those coverage options outside of primetime.  There is still a market and an audience for the reality show type programming NBC offers there, but they need to start driving the rest of the audience elsewhere.  That's the stride I think the need to make before Korea 2018.  You're right that the idea has been to build up primetime as the main showcase, but this was the first time that NBC put any serious effort into other competing coverage.  They're going to need to do that more with the Olympics in Asia.  I don't think the problem necessarily lies with the primetime formula, but rather that they need to make everyone aware of the alternatives.  Far too many people out there are too lazy or ignorant to seek those out, so they see NBC primetime as the be-all end-all and complain when they don't think there's anything else out there.  If NBC can educate those folks into showing them what they're looking for - and it's there, they just need to find it - that will quell a lot of the criticism IMO.

ok, i agree with you, but do see my point about the networks driving coverage to primetime for 50+ years. we are living a different world, where people react (and are capable of reacting) much more quickly.

i don't know what to tell NBC, except that they should show the ceremonies live, and outnumber male commentators with women 2/1 for women's events, and rethink their narrative formula for the modern social media age. i think they can do better. the WOG are the perfect opportunity because there are fewer american superstars and more foreign winter superpowers that they can plausibly give airtime and soft features to (canada). i prefer the WOG anyway because the backdrop is all whitewashed and they have to work a lot harder to make us care. make them earn their billion-dollar contract.

Edited by krow
quaker, you have to click the "more" down arrow button above. idk what i did but i fucked the quotes up so you have to click down to read what i wrote, sry not sry.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I largely wanted the on-air success of Vancouver and London to carry over to Sochi and Rio.

Sochi was doomed before the start due to the constant bashing.  Instead of touting the accomplishments of Meryl & Charlie, USA's shootout win @ Russia, USA Slopestyle and Noelle Pikus-Pace, water cooler discussion constantly stayed on the double toilets, bad elevators, and flies stuck in honey.  This isn't to say there weren't flaws with the host (dog killing, $51 billion, human rights), but casual fans were made to believe it was an unmitigated disaster when in reality- the efficiency was on par with Beijing due to all the money that was spent.

And, the on-air ratings suffered.

It seemed to work out for media outlets so well, Rio was under similar attack.  It hosted a major global event two years prior, but very few stories went out about Zika, water pollution, government corruption, etc.  That isn't to say those things haven't been happening, but there's no doubt competitors run those stories with the intent of driving viewers away.  Fortunately, this was one of the best ones ever-  from the athletic aspect.  2014 didn't have a great counter-narrative to offset all of the negative press.  Shaun White, USA Hockey and speed skating didn't pan out.

I'm sure the stories of North Korea will be going nonstop in January of 2018,  bad sushi and anime in 2020.  It can be anything for China in 2022. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:
10 hours ago, krow said:

 

Here's the thing to keep in mind though.. you and I watched NBC primetime as it happened with all the commentary that went along with it and the echo chamber of so many people saying it was terrible.  For Michael to watch footage on his own with the ability to pick and choose what he sees (i.e. skip through the commercials) may actually give us a more honest opinion on the coverage itself rather than the experience of consuming the coverage in real-time.  That's why I thought it was a little disingenuous of you (and I know you were only doing it as a joke) to place an image in his mind of how you saw the coverage and that his experience would be the same.  So yea, let him make his own opinions.  I'll be curious to see what he has to say.  I don't think his academia is either here or there when it comes to his forming of opinions, but either way, don't ass

just as a PS, i don't agree that mikey's academia is either here or there, and i while do assume some things about what he will experience it's only because i believe it to be self-evident. i obviously have no idea whether he will see it that way and i stated that. and again, you and i simply have different opinions. i don't think anything i could say would color mikey's opinions of NBC's coverage after he sees it, and i won't censor my replies in threads he starts because he might read them and become biased by them. mikey is an academic and he is surely well trained in how to cope with various opinions and draw objective opinions in spite of them. so please don't try to make me feel bad about stating my opinion first when you've been doing the exact same thing for three replies straight. i'm convinced that mikey is smarter than the two of us put together.

Edited by krow
and i'm pretty smart btw
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2016 at 2:47 AM, A-Money1983 said:

Awaiting Quaker2001's obligatory response...

This is certainly an interesting debate. The broadcasting of Rio has also received a lot of attention in New Zealand as well as Prime Television which is free to air in New Zealand didn't really provide much live coverage at all. Sky Television had plenty of live coverage, but it was user pays. The debate has become political in New Zealand as some political parties are arguing that coverage of the Olympic's and other major sporting events that New Zealanders are interested in like All Blacks test matches should be live and free to air. 

I am looking to find coverage of NBC Prime time so I can analyse how the US portrays athletes during prime time. I am doing this with other broadcasters as well. I am looking at Channel 7 Australia and BBC in the UK. I want to see how different broadcasters portray athletes and their native countries athletes. My phd research is looking at how New Zealand's participation in the Olympic Movement has contributed to National Identity. In the modern age, television plays a major part in what people see and think about the Olympic Games. In New Zealand, sport is a huge part of our identity, namely rugby and the All Blacks which is seen as a cornerstone of New Zealand's identity. Yet, Rugby is not a major sport compared to football and other events. The Olympic Games is the biggest sporting event in the world, hence why I want to see how New Zealand's Olympic Participation has contributed to what it means to be a New Zealanders. Part of my study is comparing New Zealand to other western countries, like Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the USA. 

I still haven't found any Prime Time NBC Coverage, so if anyone has a copy please PM me or leave a message here. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...