# U.S. viewers getting CBC for Olympics



## Davidlatimes (Aug 16, 2004)

Hi,

I'm a reporter in the Business section of the Los Angeles Times and I'm currently doing a piece about people in the U.S. who are watching the CBC coverage of the Olympics via Canadian satellite-TV. (Many consider the CBC coverage to be far more events-oriented and less US-centric than the NBC coverage down here).

I would greatly appreciate speaking to someone in the US who has gone to the trouble of getting Canadian satellite TV for the Olympics (and perhaps for other programming). You can remain anonymous if you choose - we're just interested in why people have made that choice and their thoughts on the Canadian coverage.

I can be reached at 800-528-4637 (800-LA-TIMES), ext 77496. Or on my direct line at 213-237-7496.

Or if you'd like me to call you, I'd be happy to do so.

Thanks, and I hope to speak to someone as soon as possible (hopefully today).

David Colker 
Los Angeles Times 
[email protected]

p.s.: If you'd like to see other articles I've written, please go to www.latimes.com and put my last name in the search engine. I have one in today's Business section about consumer electronic manufacturers, such as Panasonic, using the games to promote their HDTV products.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

I have no particular reason to suspect that Mr. Colker's question is anything but innocent. But I think it's important to mention that the Los Angeles Times is owned by the Tribune Company, which owns lots of US TV stations, syndicated programming, and other stuff.

Me, I'd worry about admitting that I can watch Beastmaster on a CTV station, but of course, I'm deeply paranoid about such things.


----------



## JAXDAVE (Jun 2, 2004)

Davidlatimes said:


> Hi,
> 
> (Many consider the CBC coverage to be far more events-oriented and less US-centric than the NBC coverage down here).
> 
> Yes, how rude of NBC to provide "US-centric" coverage of the Olympics when they are broadcasting to the United States! Leave it to the LA Times to try and make even the Olympics fit their politically correct ideas. How can you even make that statement BEFORE you have found any subjects to interview? It looks to me like you have already written your story.


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

Jax, now be kind to the visitor. You need to be open minded to his journalist culture. They cringe at the Stars and Stripes and only find true philosophical maturity with our progressives Canadian and European neighbors.

Although his few sentences do quickly betray his agenda. 

DaveLATimes, you will find that most US Subcribers to Canadian DBS services, do so to obtain more HDTV channels than political perspectives. Although you can get Al-Jazzera in Canada, but Fox News if forbidden. But thats on par for progressive culture, why step back?


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

This one gave me a good laugh! 'Scuze me while I wipe the tears away...

Just to respond to the post, I enjoy hearing pro-American emphasis during Olympic coverage in which Americans compete since I want the Americans to WIN. (Crazy idea I realize, but we ordinary Americans actually like our country.) I want honest commentary about what's going on with every athlete, but I want a focus on OUR athletes so we can support them.

I agree with JAX. It's quite evident that you're looking for anti-American sentiment in order to perpetuate the theory that the country is divided.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

We're not allowed to get CBC by satellite here in the US due to national or international laws, though, right? So even if we wanted to watch this channel via Dish Network or DirecTV, this wouldn't actually be possible?

Only time I've been able to watch CBC in the US was when I lived in Detroit. Other than that, haven't had access to this channel.


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

I don't think that the US bars any international programming. Considering the sheer numbers of International channels that Dish carries I'm positive its easy to carry them. Just make sure that the right checks get signed.

I think that the Canadian channels would be available here, but they have to make sure to have the "common programming" blocked. So that Friends on a Canadian network is blocked in a US market where some US network has paid for those Broadcast rights exclusively.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I expect an American tilt to Olympics coverage in this country. But geez louise - the *extent* is unbelievable!!! 

I will confess that I can't *really* fairly judge this year's coverage for the simple reason that:
1 - I no longer have access to the CBC feeds since they all went digital.
2 - I watch American coverage on a DVR and I skip over all the background stuff.

But there are examples of the differences between American and Canadian coverage that Americans would enjoy. The biggest example was after the '96 Women's Gymnastics final (Americans winning when Kerri Strug performed wrecking her ankle in the process). I watched it on CBC and got to bed at a reasonable hour. NBC delayed the coverage so that it didn't end until after midnight. People who followed it were REALLY dragging their tails at work the next morning.

The Olympics are about the WORLD competing and I think NBC finally got the memo. For 32 years I've been trying to catch a team handball game after seeing a bit of one from the '72 games and I saw a good match between Korea and Russia.

If NBC were simply focusing on American athletes to the exclusion of others, as they seem to have done in the past, they should have called the programs "America at the Olympics" - since that's what the coverage seemed to be.

Thanks to the PVR and the HUGE increase in coverage, I have a better chance at seeing the *games* as opposed to just the American side.

I mean, come on, in 1992, did we really need to break into coverage to show the US Men's Basketball Team - the first Dream Team LEAVE THEIR HOTEL??? As much as I supported the idea of allowing the professionals to play in the Olympics, the coverage bordered on sickening. That's when I discovered CBC on my old big dish.

As much as I've been on NBC's case for their previously god-awful coverage, I'll give kudos to what they're doing now. More coverage of more events and not just the "American" ones. Sure, the 'marquee' events are on in prime time on the local affiliate, but I've spent a lot of time on MSNBC the past couple of days.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2004)

I live in southeast Michigan and get CBC as a local broadcast channel with a antenna CBC Windsor-9 people that live next to the Canadian border are Lucky I usually watch the Canadian broadcast anyway for the Olympics and during hockey season Hockey Night in Canada.


----------



## ogre (Feb 5, 2004)

For those of us living close the Canadian border and lucky enough to get CBC or CTV, the experience is eye opening on a regular basis. I have clearly enjoyed their Olympic coverage. CBC has, as they should, concentrated on Canadian athletics but not to the exclusion of other events and countries. The Canadians have been strong in the rowing and canoeing events and they have had a lot of end to end coverage of these events including preliminaries. When Matt and Katie are schlepping (sp ?) along the CBC is showing competition. We have seen closer to real time most of the events, in many cases hours earlier, and we have seen more events on CBC. Taking the Canadian slant aside, I prefer the CBC Olympic presentation over NBC and it's affiliates with the exception of NBC's boxing coverage. The NBC boxing coverage has been first rate.


----------



## imokruok (Aug 10, 2004)

Haha...good job to the first few posters on the thread. You took the words right out of my mouth. Imagine that - an LA Times reporter starting an article with an unproven premise!

In my own opinion, people watched the CBC not for "better" coverage but for more timely coverage. During Sydney, NBC's coverage was terrible because of all of the tape delay, and there were some huge events that people would have gladly stayed up to watch. ESPN got the idea when they broadcast the World Cup in 2002. People actually got up to watch the games live at 3:30am.

This year, the time delays weren't so bad because of the less significant time difference. NBC was able to show events live in the morning and early afternoon and do a full recap later. Plus, the expanded coverage on multiple channels let them show some obscure but interesting events. Much better this year...much better.


----------



## MSoper72 (Jun 18, 2004)

I may watch the Olympics on NBC, USA, and the other networks, but this guy seems like he is far out in left field. Each country will have a different point of view for their coverage of the Olympics. To each their own. However, I am a US citizen and I much rather like to know what my own country teams are doing instead of some other country at the time. Thank You very Much!  :lol: :nono2: !pride :listenup: :bang


----------



## QualityIsJobOne (Apr 29, 2002)

imokruok said:


> people watched the CBC not for "better" coverage but for more timely coverage.


....William Houston's latest column in The Globe & Mail agrees with you....

....Games coverage

Which network, the CBC or NBC, has been more effective at covering the Olympics?

The short answer is the CBC.

Because of the CBC's ethos of providing live programming, Canadians have been able to watch every important competition as it happened.

Because of the NBC's tape-delay strategy, Americans have seen none of the big events live (unless they were watching the CBC).

It is astonishing that a country as affluent as the United States, in a society obsessed with sports and TV, the public has been denied the opportunity to watch, live, its stars win gold medals.

Still, Athens has been a resounding success for NBC. The synergy, or "halo effect" of loading hundreds of hours of Olympic programming onto NBC's cable channels -- Bravo, MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network and Telemundo -- has produced a record number of viewers.

As for the CBC, there have been complaints about too much talk in prime time and poor programming decisions. NBC's research and planning have been superior.

But the real plus for NBC is storytelling.

For example, Canadian Blythe Hartley means nothing to American viewers. But when she prepared to dive on Thursday, NBC reported that she was born in Edmonton, calls Vancouver home, attended the University of Southern California and has been training in Montreal. The U.S. viewers were told something about her and perhaps cared a little more about how she performed.

When it was Irina Lashko's turn, NBC reported she is Russian, but now an Australian citizen. The Russian federation blocked her participation for Australia at the Sydney Olympics, releasing her exactly one day after the Games were over. Since then, she's been "diving in anger," analyst Cynthia Potter said.

They're small additions, but they brought the competitors closer to the viewer. They enhanced the coverage.

To be fair, the CBC doesn't have NBC's budget, yet it still effectively profiles the athletes. What's more, the Canadian network gives its viewers a full view of the Games, morning, afternoon and night. NBC, despite airing a large amount of content on its specialty channels, limits its main network coverage to the afternoon and prime time.

One clear difference is the amount of face time given to the anchors. We don't see a great deal of NBC's Bob Costas and Jim Lampley. They briefly set up the story and then we're taken to the venue. The NBC's telecasts have a quicker pace. We're watching athletes in action, not talking heads.

The CBC gives more time and prominence to afternoon host Ron MacLean and prime-time anchor Brian Williams. It makes sense. They're both bright, engaging personalities. Still, less talk, fewer interviews and more action might be a worthwhile strategy for the CBC in the future.


----------

